Loading...
11/08/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD November 8, 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 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 10/25/90) 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 applicant is requesting an addition to an existing pylon sign. The applicant's request is addressing a problem created by commercial 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 a change in zoning could take approximately six months. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated the topography of the site makes visibility difficult. He said two of the five larger tenants would be identified on the pylon sign. It was felt the visibility problem for the center would not be resolved by adding two of the larger tenants to the sign as there would still be difficulty in seeing the other tenants' wall signs. One letter in support of the application was submitted for the record. Mr. Pressman stated the amount of signage being requested is drastically below what would be allowed if zoned commercially. Discussion ensued in regard to whether or not the hardship was self-imposed and whether or not the property should be rezoned. Mr. Graham moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated 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 created through commercial use of property zoned industrial planned development 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 B - (continued from 10/25/90) Harbert 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 Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to replace an existing wood fence along the subject lots and match an existing block fence located on adjacent lots. Six lots are double frontage lots and two are corner lots. A question was raised as to whether each applicant should be requesting a separate variance, and it was indicated the request is to extend the existing block wall along an entire section and one application is easier to review. Herbert Phillips, representing the applicants, indicated the request is to construct a wall along the back of the properties adjacent to Druid Road and to allow one access gate per lot except for Lot 117. He indicated the sidewalk elevation is higher on Druid Road, there has been an increase in traffic and noise and a 6-foot high wall would provide a better margin of safety for the residents and still give a pleasing appearance. A question was raised regarding Lot 109 not being part of the request, and it was indicated this property included a substantial hedge adjacent to Mandarin Road. One letter in support of the application was submitted for the record. A representative of the Grovewood Homeowners Association spoke in support indicating the original wood fences are in disrepair and the proposed wall would give conformity to Belcher Road and make the community more attractive. He indicated they have maintained the landscaping on the Belcher Road right-of-way and indicated they would do the same on Druid Road. He indicated inconsistency in having access gates for the various lots would detract from the overall aesthetic view. In response to a question, it was indicated any landscaping on the Druid Road right-of-way would be maintained even if there were no access gates. One citizen spoke in support indicating the proposed wall would address both traffic and safety concerns. In response to questions, it was indicated the distance between the proposed wall and the sidewalk on Druid Road is approximately 16 feet which is believed to be City right-of-way and moving the wall back 3-feet would result in the relocation of large shrubs. Discussion ensued in regard to whether or not landscaping would be allowed on the Druid Road right-of-way and whether moving the wall back would create a hardship. Concern was expressed in regard to voting on a combined application. There was also discussion regarding the access gates and the Planning Manager indicated, as long as there is adequate maintenance of the landscaping area on the street side of the wall, he did not see the need for access gates for each lot. Based on the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant Variances #1, #2 and #5 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 arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicants, the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicants if a strict interpretation of the code were to be applied, they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the addition of the extension of Druid Road to the back of this property, subject to the condition that the requisite 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. Based on the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to deny Variances #3 and #4 as requested since the applicants have not demonstrated that they have 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 applicants, they are not minimum variances and they would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM C - (continued from 10/25/90) 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 Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the deed to the subject property is clouded by nonconformity to townhouse development standards. He indicated there will be no change in the appearance of the property. Gilbert McPherson, representing the applicant, stated the property was purchased two years ago under a "party wall agreement" with the adjoining unit as a townhouse. He said although the property is zoned RM 20, two family dwellings are governed by the requirements of the RM 12 district. In response to a question, it was indicated this property was originally built as a duplex. A question was raised in regard to open space, and it was felt the calculations were incorrect as they were based on a survey done at the time of purchase. It was indicated areas have been bricked since that time. Mr. McPherson said the applicants are willing to replace the bricked areas with permeable space. Due to the concern regarding the open space calculations, it was requested this portion of the request be continued. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant Variances #1 and #2 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 arises from a condition which is unique to the property which was created by an action of a predecessor in title and not by any action or omission of the applicant as current owner, at the time of purchase the applicant had no knowledge of any potential deed deficiency; the strict application of the code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant's ability to retain purchase value and an unencumbered deed; the variance request is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship, the request is not based upon the desire of the applicant to increase but to maintain the current financial value and marketability of the property; and the variance, as a pre-existing and legal issue, will not physically nor adversely affect the public health, safety, order, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or community and is found to be consistent with the general spirit and intent of the development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Mr. Plisko moved to continue Variances #3 and #4 until the meeting of December 13, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 1. Marwan M. and Karla V. Hatoum for a variance of 12 inches to permit a 42 inch high fence at 303 Cedar Street, Sec 9-29-15, M&B 13.02, zoned RM-8 (multiple-family residential). V 90-149 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail. Marwan Hatoum, applicant, stated the proposed fence will reach an elevation of 42-inches at the gates. He said the fence would provide security. In response to a question, Mr. Hatoum indicated he would lose the beautification of his hedges if he has to move back the fence 3 feet for landscaping. Mr. Hatoum said he has already obtained a permit for a 30-inch high fence. Discussion ensued in regard to erecting a fence over 30 inches high having to meet certain code requirements, and it was indicated this request would require readvertising to address these requirements. Mr. Graham moved to continue this request to the meeting of December 13, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Marden Enterprises, Inc. for variances 1) of 42 inches to allow construction of a 72 inch high wall and 2) to permit the construction of a wall within a setback area abutting a waterfront at 1611 Gulf Blvd., Sec 30-29-15, M&Bs 11.01, 12.01, and 12.03, zoned RM-28 (multiple-family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-151 This request involves three walls at different locations and there was some misunderstanding regarding this application resulting in the case being withdrawn. A continuance should have been requested for the variances relating to a portion of the wall. The motion for withdrawal was then rescinded. The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the request is to allow a wall to be erected along the property lines between the existing Harborage multi-story condominium developments and the proposed Estates of Sand Key. George Greer, attorney representing the applicants, asked for a continuance of the variances for that portion of the proposed wall closest to Gulf Boulevard as additional information was being requested. He indicated Marden Enterprises has an understanding with the condominium associations and the wall will be constructed on condominium property by Marden. He said both Marden and the condominium associations have requested the 6-foot high wall. This size wall will address separation concerns and will be in keeping with the aesthetics of the area. Carlton Ward, attorney representing Marden Enterprises, stated they wished to move forward with this request at this time and indicated a variance from the City's flood board would also be required. Mr. Graham moved to continue the variances for that portion of the proposed wall adjacent to the Isle of Sand Key Condominium I to the meeting of November 29, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant the variances as requested except for that portion of the proposed wall adjacent to the Isle of Sand Key Condominium I because the applicants have 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, the location on the waterfront and adjacent to condominiums 80 feet tall and was not caused by the applicant, they are the minimum necessary to overcome that hardship of the height and use, subject to the conditions (1) that the requisite building permit shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of this public hearing and (2) that a variance shall be obtained from the City's flood board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. 3. Lechmere Realty Ltd. Partnership, Clearwater Collection Association, and Hudson Dayton Corp (Home Depot) for a variance of 10 parking spaces to permit 1085 parking spaces at 21870 U.S. 19 North, Clearwater Collection Shopping Center, Clearwater Collection, First Replat, Lots 1-4, zoned CPD (commercial planned development). V 90-153 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating Home Depot intends to enlarge the square footage of the old Lechmere facility. Bill Whitney, Cumbey & Fair representing the applicant, indicated site conditions limit the property. 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 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 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 of the site conditions, subject to the conditions (1) that the requisite building permit shall be obtained within 6 months from certification of the requisite site plan and plat and (3) that the requisite amended plan and plat shall be certified within 6 months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. 4. Church of Scientology Flag Service Org. Inc. for variances of 1) 48 inches to erect a fence 78 inches high and 2) 10 inches to permit construction of a 58 inch high wall at 551 North Saturn Ave., Sec 11-29-15, M&B 41.03, zoned RM-24 (multiple-family residential). V 90-154 Mr. Graham declared a conflict of interest in this case. The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the request is to permit the construction of a perimeter wrought iron fence with concrete pilasters along the west and south side of the property and a concrete entrance wall fronting on the west side of the Hacienda Gardens Apartments property. A suggested condition, if approved, is that the fence permit not be issued until substantial progress is made in improving the overall appearance of the subject property which would include interior conditions. The Planning Manager informed the board of code violations on the site and indicated staff is working with the applicant to resolve the matter. Discussion ensued in regard to whether or not the Board should be addressing interior conditions of the subject property as they are not part of the application. Jefferey Linton, representing the applicant, presented before and after photographs of buildings that have been recently renovated and he indicated $1 million plus is being spent on landscaping. He said he was not aware of any existing code violations and indicated his willingness to cooperate with staff in this regard. He said the subject property is bordered by a ballpark and school with children riding bicycles through the property. He said the proposed fence would be in keeping with the area and would also provide the desired security. Discussion ensued in regard to the height of the wall and pilasters and whether or not adequate landscaping would be provided. Mr. Linton indicated the wall would be moved back 3 feet to provide landscaping. Concern had been expressed by the Traffic Engineer regarding pedestrian safety and he recommended pulling back the fence at the driveway entrance. Mr. Linton indicated he would work with staff to address this concern. 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, more specifically, because they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the code, subject to the conditions (1) that the driveway entrance be approved by the City's Traffic Engineer for visual purposes and (2) that a fence permit shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney and Messrs. Merriam, Plisko and Homer voted "aye;" with Mr. Graham abstaining. Request granted. 5. City of Clearwater for variances of 1) 3 ft to permit a 23 ft high pole sign and 2) 127 sq ft to permit a surface area of 151 sq ft at Jack Russell Stadium, 801 Phillies Dr., New Country Club Addn, Blk A, Lot 12 and Part of Blk D, zoned OS/R (open space/recreation). V 90-155 The Planning Manager requested this item be continued. A citizen spoke in regard to this application indicating she was in support of the pole sign. Mr. Graham moved to continue this request to the meeting of January 10, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney and Messrs. Merriam, Graham and Homer voted "aye;" Mr. Plisko voted "nay." Motion carried. 6. An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 134.015, 134.018, 137.012, and 137.020, Code of Ordinances, to provide that variances from the sign regulations may be granted by the City Commission, rather than by the Development Code Adjustment Board; clarifying the powers and duties of the Development Code Adjustment Board with respect to variances from the sign regulations and alcoholic beverage establishment minimum separation requirements; providing an effective date; providing for application to pending applications for variances from the sign regulations. The Planning Manager stated the proposed amendment has been prepared by staff at the direction of the City Commission. The ordinance would empower the City Commission, rather than the Development Code Adjustment Board, to hear and grant variances to the sign regulations, including variances to the amortization requirements. Concerns were expressed regarding the right to appeal to a hearing officer being eliminated. Mr. Merriam moved to recommend approval of the land development code amendment to the City Commission subject to the hearing officer appeal opportunity being retained in the ordinance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. III. Board Comments Mr. Graham requested that staff include maps to help locate the property relating to the applications. Discussion ensued in regard to what material should be included in the application packets as it was felt too much was being copied; i.e., leases, deeds, etc. Discussion ensued in regard to staff's comment sheets and concern was once again expressed that staff is still providing specific recommendations. It was felt this puts the Board in an awkward position in case of an appeal especially when the Board does not go along with staff's recommendation. Discussion ensued in regard to the hearing officer overturning the Board's decision denying Mobile Oil's request and it was felt this was not due to staff's comments. It was indicated the Board needed to be more specific in their motions. There was discussion regarding the hearing officer appeal process being less expensive than the judicial system which would afford every citizen the opportunity to appeal. There was discussion regarding enforcement of the code and it was indicated the ordinance should be used to control enforcement not the Board. Mr. Plisko expressed concern regarding the multi-ownership variances granted today and the Planning Manager said staff will investigate to see if a unity of title is necessary. The Planning Manager reported the tee shirt shop at Highland Avenue and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard used their total allowable property identification signage for the wall sign. Mr. Plisko expressed concern regarding possible illegal signs along Drew Street especially in the 1700 block. Planning & Development Director James Polatty said some of this property is located in the County. Staff is to investigate. III. Minutes of October 11, 1990 Mr. Graham moved to approved the minutes of October 11, 1990 in accordance with copies sent to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:04 p.m.