Loading...
11/29/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD November 29, 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. Extensions A. (1st request for time extension) Robert L. Bradley (Sand Dollar Apartment Motel) for variances of (1) 3.3% lot open space to allow 21.7% lot open space and (2) 86.6 ft to allow construction on a lot 63.4 ft wide at 128 Brightwater Dr, Bayside Sub #2, Lot 51, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 90-65 The applicant requested a six-month to one-year time extension in which to obtain a building permit. Mr. Plisko moved to grant a six-month time extension to May 10, 1991, in which to obtain a building permit. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Extension granted. B. (2nd request for time extension) Farmers State Bank of Greenfield for a variance of 8% lot open space to permit 37% lot open space at 420 Palm Island NE, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 6B, Lot 84, zoned RS-6 (single family residential) V 89-183 Robert Schwartz, representing the applicant, stated an extension is being requested due to changes in FEMA regulations regarding the "50 percent" rule. Mr. Merriam moved to grant a six-month time extension to May 9, 1991, in which to obtain a building permit. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Extension granted. II. Public Hearings ITEM A - (continued from 10/25/90) 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 After further review of the application, it was determined an additional variance will be required. Mr. Plisko moved to continue this item until the meeting of December 13, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM B - (continued from 11/08/90) Variances for that portion of the proposed wall adjacent to the Isle of Sand Key Condominium I - 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 George Greer, representing the applicant, stated a meeting was held on November 12, 1990 with the interested parties and he indicated no objection was voiced in regard to this request. 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, because it arises from a condition which is unique to this property and the particular physical surroundings involved, the location of this property on Sand Key adjacent to high-rise condominiums, and the strict application of this Development Code would result in unnecessary hardship on the applicant, subject to the conditions that 1) a variance shall be obtained from the City's flood board and 2) 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. ITEM #1 - Bellwether Properties of Florida Ltd. for variances 1) of 1028 sq ft business identification signage to permit a total of 1028 sq ft business identification signage, 2) of four business identification signs to permit a total of four such signs, and 3) to permit signs subject of request to remain after expiration of amortization period at 2601 U. S. 19 N., Sec 30-28-16, M&Bs 41.01 and 41.02, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-150 The Planning Manager stated that the attorney representing the applicant would be late and asked the Board to continue this item to later in the meeting. Mr. Graham moved to continue this item until the end of the meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the signs are in place and he indicated a determination needs to be made regarding whether or not these entrance designs can be considered wall decorations. Steve Siebert, attorney representing the applicant, submitted pictures showing the four signs at issue. He said Bellwether Properties of Florida owns and operates the common areas of the mall representing 160 of the tenants. He said four of the entrances have the same starburst design, two of which contain the word "Countryside" above the starburst. Mr. Siebert indicated he has been working with staff for over a year trying to determine how these entrance designs are governed by the code. He said the logo is not recognizable and was part of a renovation that was done to the mall in 1988. Originally, the words "Countryside Mall" was over the entrances and the block lettering was larger than what is in the current sign. Mr. Siebert stated he believes the signs are more for direction than for advertisement. He said the individual property owners, including the four anchor stores, could not form an agreement formulating a request for an overall sign plan. In response to questions, it was indicated the word "Countryside" is 70 square feet and only appears on two of the signs. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not these entrance designs are merely decorative. 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, because the Board views the four diamond-shaped graphics over the four main entrances of the mall strictly as graphics or part of the fascia system that is backlit, that could be interpreted as a light fixture. In no way is the Board allowing a variance for these. They just do not feel they fit in the Code and the square footage as advertised has to be allowed. The Board agrees this variance is for the actual name of the two signs, and if the signage is changed in the future, that it be limited only to the two Countryside signs that are approximately 140 square feet, subject to the condition that a sign permit shall be obtained within the next month. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #2 - City of Clearwater/Little Theatre of Clearwater, Inc. for a variance of 15 ft to permit addition 10 ft from a rear property line at 302 Seminole Street, Sue Barco Sub, All of Lots 19-21 and part of Lot 22, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 90-156 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the property is currently leased from the City of Clearwater by the Little Theatre of Clearwater. The applicant wishes to undertake a small building addition to house necessary theatre equipment. Wallace Dawson, Board of Directors representing the applicant, stated they have a substantial problem in storing equipment. He said the storage area will be for equipment used in the production of plays. He indicated the owner of the marina directly to the north has no objection and felt it would be advantageous to her in eliminating the area where transients spend the night. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the variance, if granted, would run with the land and concern was expressed regarding future use of the property if the building is torn down. 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, because 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 created by the shape of the property, subject to the conditions that 1) the variance shall run only with the current user, that is, if the building is torn down, the variance is voided and 2) 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. ITEM #3 - Charles H. and Beverly Scarbrough for variances of 1) 17.7 ft to permit construction on a 52.3 ft wide corner lot and 2) 20 ft to permit carport 5 ft from a street right-of-way at 1132 Howard Street, Carolina Terrace Annex, Lot 13, zoned RS-8 (single-family residential). V 90-158 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the variance is being requested in order to build a carport. He indicated most of the lots in this area are substandard. Charles Scarbrough stated the carport would protect his car from the sun, as the vinyl top is deteriorating from the heat. A citizen spoke in opposition expressing concern that a 20-foot variance was considerable, and if approved, would set a precedent on Howard Street. She indicated the subject property is in the South Clearwater area which the residents have been trying to upgrade and she indicated the applicant has full use of the property. She said the South Clearwater Citizens for Progressive Action met last night and that the majority of the group was opposed to this request. Mr. Scarbrough submitted photos of the subject property. Discussion ensued regarding the 25-foot setback requirement not being uniform throughout the neighborhood. Concern was expressed that constructing a carport out to such an extent would be detrimental to the neighborhood in general. Concern was also expressed that granting variances of this type in older neighborhoods would start a trend for building in the front setback. 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 was no unnecessary hardship shown, it is not a minimum variance, it would be materially detrimental or injurious to other properties in the neighborhood and it would violate the general spirit and intent of the Land Development Code as expressed in Section 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #4 - Farmers State Bank of Greenfield for variances of 1) 5 ft to permit a pool enclosure 2 ft from a rear property line and 2) 6.7 ft to permit pool enclosure 0.3 ft from a side property line at 420 Palm Island N.E., Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 6B, Lot 84, zoned RS-6 (single-family residential). V 90-159 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the variance is being requested to build a pool enclosure. The location of this property creates a situation in which waterviews are involved. Robert Schwartz, representing the applicant, stated the present deck under today's standards would not meet code. He indicated the enclosure for the pool can be seen through and the block wall would be coming down. He said the owner plans on becoming a full-time resident and would like the enclosure for safety reasons and to keep the pool clean. In response to questions, it was indicated the same individual who owns the bank also owns the house with the deed being in the bank's name. A citizen expressed concern regarding building up to the water's edge and he felt granting this request would do nothing to enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Schwartz stated the proposed enclosure would be 5 feet from the rear property line and not 2 feet as appears in the request. He said he wishes to modify the side setback from 0.3 feet to 3 feet from the pool's edge, to allow room for walking around the pool. In response to a question, Mr. Swartz indicated he did not feel the applicant would object to removing the concrete outside the screen enclosure. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the screened enclosure would substantially obstruct the view, and it was indicated there was not much opposition from the neighbors. Concern was expressed regarding the rear setback as it was indicated an attempt is being made to hold waterfront setbacks on Island Estates. There was discussion regarding the side setback being a minimal request. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to deny variance #1 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, it would be materially detrimental to other properties in the neighborhood, it would adversely affect the public health, safety, order, convenience, or general 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. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant variance #2 as follows: 1.5 feet to permit a pool enclosure 5.5 feet from a side property line where a 7 foot setback is required because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, because it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings of the property involved and the strict application of the Development Code would result in an unnecessary hardship and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship of the pool location adjacent to the house on this property, subject to the conditions that 1) the remaining concrete deck and decorative wall outside the screen enclosure shall be removed, 2) the required variance shall be obtained from the City's flood board and 3) that the requisite building 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, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Merriam, Graham and Plisko voted "Aye," Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #5 - James H. and Debra E. Dickens for a variance of 10 ft to permit construction of a wood deck zero ft from a rear property line at 413 Midway Island, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 3, Lot 54, zoned RS-8 (single-family residential). V 90-160 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the variance is being requested to permit the construction of a wooden deck. The proposed deck will be designed to be easily disassembled and removable to allow ease of repair to the existing tie-backs in the seawall and will be constructed level with the existing pool. He said the applicant claims the slope of this portion of rear yard is so dramatic that the yard has little use. James Dickens stated he would like to extend the deck from the pool out to the seawall. He indicated he wished to lift his small wave-runner directly onto a deck, rather than onto his yard to help prevent erosion and protect the yard. He indicated the deck would beautify the appearance of the yard and would not be visible from the street or by the neighbors. One letter in support was submitted for the record. In response to a question, it was indicated the deck would add recreational area to the rear yard. Concern was expressed in regard to the size of the proposed deck. 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 this 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 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #6 - Countryside Village, Ltd. for variances of 1) one additional business identification sign and 2) 32.5 sq ft to allow for total surface area of 82.5 sq ft at 2547 Countryside Blvd., Countryside Village Square Sub, Lot 5, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-161 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the variances are being requested for the Jo To Japanese Restaurant located in the corner of Countryside Village Square Shopping Center. Mr. Plisko stated the Countryside Square site plan contained in the Board's packets was prepared by his firm; however, he has not done any work on this project for approximately a year and did not feel he had a conflict of interest with regard to this case. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated one sign is proposed to be attached to the building's south wall and one to the building's east wall. He said there are two frontages towards public access transportation roadways with one being the parking lot which is an exit and entryway from Village Drive. The larger sign would contain the name and logo of the restaurant and the second sign would only carry the logo. In response to questions, it was indicated there would not be a sign on the north side of the wall and the subject restaurant is replacing three former tenants. Discussion ensued regarding the visibility of the two signs from the same location and it was felt one sign was sufficient. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to deny the variances 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 this property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, they are not minimum variances, they are based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property and they 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. Graham, Homer and Plisko voted "Aye," Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. The meeting was recessed from 2:30 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. ITEM #7 - Community Pride Child Care Center of Clearwater, Inc. for variances of 1) 30 inches to permit a 60 inch high chain link fence in setback area adjacent to street to which property is addressed, 2) 24 ft to permit building addition 11 ft from a street right-of-way (Missouri Ave) and 3) three (3) parking spaces to allow 18 spaces at 211 S. Missouri Ave., Hibiscus Gardens, Blk L, All of Lots 8-10 and part of Lots 7, 11 and 12, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 90-162 Mr. Plisko declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case. The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the variances are being requested for a proposed child care facility. Martha Skelton, representing the applicant, stated the facility would serve low and moderate-income families. She said the existing building was formerly known as the Thrift Shop, owned by the YWCA. She said Community Pride is currently renting the YWCA main building which serves 45 children who will eventually be moved into the thrift shop building. Money is available from the Community Development Block Grant. Ms. Skelton said they are working with the Junior League of Clearwater-Dunedin. There will be two classrooms for infants, two classrooms for toddlers, a kitchen and office space. The fence is for safety reasons and is a requirement by the license board. The setback variance will allow the proposed addition to be in conformity with the existing building. Ms. Skelton said the children do not always arrive at one time and the teachers' hours are staggered. Some of the teachers and parents will be using public transportation. In response to questions, it was indicated there would be a total of 16 or 17 employees. This number includes two staff members in each classroom, one office personnel and one cook. One citizen spoke in support of the application stating the community of Clearwater is in great need of this project. She indicated the Junior League of Clearwater-Dunedin has committed $65,000 over the next three years, plus additional fund-raising. They feel it is centrally located and will serve the needs of the people. Discussion ensued regarding parking requirements for daycare centers and it was indicated there are no specific requirements. This center does not get the benefit of City Annex parking, because they are out of the core area. In response to a question, it was indicated the easement on the south side will allow future owners of the main building to erect a sign on this easement or to adjust it for a street entrance. It was indicated the property in this area was unique in the way it was subdivided. 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, because it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings or shape of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot shape, subject to the conditions that 1) the landscaping requirements of Section 136.023 for new construction shall be met, 2) the chain link fence shall be a green coated type to soften the appearance of the fence, 3) the existing concrete sidewalk shall be extended to join the existing concrete sidewalk on Missouri Avenue, 4) all signage on the site shall be brought into compliance with City regulations and 5) the requisite building 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, Mrs. Whitney and Messrs. Merriam, Graham and Homer voted "Aye." Mr. Plisko abstained from voting. Request granted. ITEM #8 - George L. Funderburke for a variance of 5 ft to permit garage 5 ft from a rear property line at 1133 Woodlawn St., Tennessee Terrace Sub, Lot 1, zoned RS-8 (single-family residential). V 90-163 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating that the variance addressing the property width was overlooked; however, the applicant has agreed to combine Lots 1 and 2 through a unity of title resolving the need for an additional variance. In response to a question, it was indicated the applicant is aware he will not be able to sell the lots separately once a unity of title is recorded. George Funderburke stated he wants to build a 22-foot deep garage to accommodate a full-size car. In response to questions, Mr. Funderburke indicated he was going to park two vehicles in the garage, that the original single garage, built in 1925 was 10 feet by 18 feet, that there was a large oak tree on Lot 2 and it would be a long distance to bring the driveway off Washington Avenue. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not there would be difficulty in parking two cars in a garage of the size that is being proposed. One citizen spoke in opposition to the request indicating South Clearwater is a sensitive area. She expressed concern that building a garage on Lot 1 would overload the lot. She also expressed concern to the possibility of a house being built on Lot 2. Mr. Funderburke stated he would like to park his car and pickup truck in the garage rather than on the driveway. He stated he is willing to file a unity of title. Discussion ensued regarding the unity of title and it was indicated it would be recorded. 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, because it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings and shape of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of the location and size of the lot, subject to the conditions that 1) the two lots shall be recorded under a unity of title and that unity of title shall be submitted before a building permit can be obtained and 2) the requisite building 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, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Merriam, Homer and Plisko voted "Aye," Mr. Graham voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #9 - Friedrich E. and Yvonne L. Ulfers for variances of 1) 0.8 ft to permit carport addition 4.2 ft from a side property line and 2) 5.2 ft to permit carport addition 4.8 ft from a rear property line at 761 Bruce Ave., Mandalay Sub, Blk 24, Lot 7, zoned RS-8 (single-family residential). V 90-164 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the variances are being requested to permit construction of a carport addition at the rear of the subject property. The addition would be adjoining an existing accessory apartment. A previous request heard by the Board to permit construction of an enclosed garage was denied. There is a large bus currently parked on the property which is being used for storage. In response to questions, it was indicated the City controls public nuisances (e.g. stored junk) through code enforcement. Mrs. Ulfers stated she applied for a variance to have a garage built approximately four years ago which she wanted to use for storage rather than using the bus. At that time, she was denied a variance for a rear setback and granted a variance for a side setback. She said construction of the carport was done without obtaining a permit. A petition with 10 signatures and two letters of opposition were submitted for the record. Pictures of the site were also submitted for the record. One citizen spoke in opposition to the request expressing her displeasure at the appearance of Mrs. Ulfer's property, the carport in particular. She indicated mostly junk is being stored on the property. Mrs. Ulfers stated she has a 6-foot fence around the property. Discussion ensued regarding the bus on the property and, in response to a question, Mrs. Ulfers indicated there is not a current tag on the bus, that it was being used strictly for storage. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the existing carport was constructed in accordance with code and it was believed it was not. 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, because they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, that is, the outbuilding is existing and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship to replace what was an enclosed garage at one time, subject to the conditions that 1) the existing lean-to with enclosed walls shall be torn down and replaced with a carport with three open sides and no enclosures that meets current building code, 2) the bus shall be removed, 3) the general area shall be cleaned up, that is, no paint cans, gas containers and trash be present that would cause vermin and rats to collect, 4) the site shall be reviewed by the County Health Department, 5) the structure shall remain a carport and never be altered and 6) the requisite building 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, Messrs. Merriam, Homer and Plisko voted "Aye," Mrs. Whitney and Mr. Graham voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #10 - SCC Development Corp., Inc. for a variance of 15 ft to permit homes 10 ft from McKinley Street right-of-way at 325 and 331 Feather Tree Drive, Feather Tree Sub, Lots 32 and 33, zoned RS-8 (single-family residential). V 90-165 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to continue the existing rear property line setback already established along Feathertree Drive for lots that have been developed. Michael A. Sofarelli, representing the applicant, stated he is requesting a 7-1/2 foot variance for Lot 32 which would put them 17-1/2 feet away from McKinley Street. The variance would allow for a screened porch. The plat was approved in 1989 by the City Commission and the original plat did not designate Lot 32 as a dual-frontage lot. He said not being able to build on this lot could result in litigation. Mr. Sofarelli indicated this is a unique situation in that a dead end street abuts the back of the building lot. Discussion ensued regarding requesting the maximum of a 15-foot variance rather than the minimum 7-1/2 foot variance. It was indicated, if the sale of the home fell through, having the maximum variance would provide better selectability for another buyer and Lot 33 is not yet sold. Mr. Sofarelli, indicated for this reason, he is requesting the minimum variance for Lot 32 and the maximum for Lot 33. It was indicated a variance will be required if a 6-foot high fence is erected. Two letters of support and one letter of opposition were submitted for the record. One area resident expressed concern in regard to allowing a maximum variance on Lot 33. She indicated she did not object to the proposed fence if it was 6 feet. Another area resident questioned whether or not a house would be moved onto the lot or newly constructed. In response to the above, Mr. Sofarelli stated a newly constructed house would go on the lot and he would be willing to erect a 6-foot high fence. Discussion ensued in regard to the City having requested the 6-foot high fence and having overlooked the need for a variance for this fence. The Planning Manager stated staff is in the process of putting forward a series of code amendments to the fence regulations that will go to the City Commission on December 20, 1990 for receipt and referral. One amendment would allow 6-foot high fences to be erected in the setback area from which the property is not addressed in single family properties. It was indicated the City could possibly initiate the application for the fence. Discussion ensued regarding the Board's preference for the variance to be the same for both lots. Concern was expressed in giving blanket variances. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant a variance of 7.5 feet to allow homes to be built 17.5 feet from the McKinley Street right-of-way on Lots 32 and 33 because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, because they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was 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 it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of the location of the McKinley Street right-of-way adjacent to the Feathertree Subdivision and to the lots, subject to the conditions that 1) the fence shall be constructed to the maximum height allowable at the time a certificate of occupancy is obtained; if this height is less than 6 feet, then a variance request shall be initiated by the City to provide a 6-foot high fence; if the variance is not approved, the fence shall be constructed to the height allowable at the time the certificate of occupancy is issued, 2) all required landscaping shall be provided on the exterior of the fence, 3) no vehicular traffic from the rear of the property shall be allowed and 4) the requisite building permits shall be obtained for Lots 32 and 33 within one year from the date of this public hearing. In response to a question, it was indicated the fence would need to be setback 3 feet from the property line. Discussion ensued in regard to other properties in the area having 6-foot high fences and the varying jog of the fences on the lots. It was indicated landscaping would be required in front of the fence. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Mr. Sofarelli felt the City was at fault in not restricting access at the time of platting of this subdivision and requested waiver of the $450 application fee for this request. It was indicated staff does not have the authority to waive fees. ITEM #11 - Trizec Properties, Inc. (Dillards) for variances of 1) three (3) business identification signs to permit a total of four such signs and 2) 555.35 sq ft business identification signage to permit 683.35 sq ft of such signage at 20505 U.S. 19 N. #162, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 32.01 and 32.02, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-166 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the variance is being requested by Dillard's, who is taking over Ivey's in Clearwater Mall. Joe Cassiere, representing the applicant, stated the department stores at the regional shopping centers require more square footage of signage than most sign ordinances allow. He said the department store signage must be functional and effective in permitting easy vehicular and pedestrian identification. The wall signage must also be of the proper proportion to the scale of the building. Mr. Cassiere indicated Dillard's does not have name recognition in Clearwater. He stated the proposed signs are in proportion with the building and will not cause a negative impact on adjacent property nor adversely affect the public safety of the City. He said it is the minimum signage necessary to create a positive statement which gives the customers the ability to easily and quickly locate a store at the mall. He said it does not secure a greater financial return from the property, but places Dillard's on equal footing with the other three anchor stores. A drawing of the site was presented. In response to questions, it was indicated Dillard's is trying to attract traffic from the inner-ring and outer-ring roads, as well as from Sky Harbor Drive. It was noted a variance allowing the signs to remain after the amortization period was overlooked. Discussion ensued in regard to the signs being in scale with the building and not overpowering; however, it was felt three signs were not necessary. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant the variances as requested in the advertisement because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, because they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, the three other anchor stores have the same advantage of signage on their buildings and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of the location of Dillard's on the site, subject to the conditions that 1) the variance be limited to a variance of two business identification signs to permit a total of three such signs and 332.94 square feet business identification signage to permit 460.94 square feet of such signage, 3) the requisite sign permit shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing and 4) all signs shall be brought into conformance with the sign code on or before October 13, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. III. Board Comments Mr. Merriam expressed concern regarding hedges along seawalls not being regulated as they can obstruct the view just the same as screen enclosures. Discussion ensued regarding staff providing specific recommendations, and it was indicated this would be discussed at the next meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the Mobil Oil appeal and the Board's decision being overturned. IV. Minutes of October 25, 1990 Mr. Merriam moved to approve the minutes of October 25, 1990 in accordance with copies sent to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. V. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.