11/14/1991 (2)
'.' " ~. , ~ . .... ". '.'. . ..'./ . ". '.. ,.+.., . ". .' . ..' . ..' . . '.' .. . \ ..'. .
,
1.
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE, ADJUSTMENT BOARD
DATE
c27
.,
.j
'. :;.;,4. ": ~. :"., '~,. ,'.:." !\.,...... t,' ;~.;-:"', ",. ". . \...... ~j . .~..... \ ,~~ p'. '. 'I~J. "~'," . ~ . .;~. ".' ,t" , .' , ','
, ,
,....-:..".....,
REV I SED
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, November 14, 1991 - 1:00 p.m. - Commission Meeting Room,
City Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida
To consider requests for variances of the Land Development Code:
1.
Public Hearings
r' < ""
"-.-""".......
Item A - (continued from 10/24/91)
Betsy K and Rayford Hixon, Jr, for
variances of (l) 2.5 ft to permit
construction on a 67.5 ft wide corner
lot; (2) 3.4 ft to permit two story
addition 12 ft from Bay Esplanade Dr
right-of-way; and (3) 24 ft to permit
two story additions 1 ft and 7 ft
from Verbena St right-of-way at 821
Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 39,
Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family
residential). V 91-70
1. Robert A and Hazel L Vachon for
variance of 5 ft to permit storage
shed zero ft from a side property
line at 1750 Long St, Highland Pines
8th Add, Blk 47, Lot 11, zoned RS 8
(single family residential). V 91-73
2. Janusz and Roxana Nowicki (Gulf-
to-Bay Pawn Shop) for variance of 20
parking spaces to permit 15 spaces in
1 i eu of the 35 spaces requ ired, to
permit conversion of motel to retail
use at 2054 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13-
29-15, M&B 13.06, zoned CG (general
commercial). V 91-74
DCAB
1.
Public Hearings
Item A - Granted Hi--as requested;
#2--3.4 feet to permit two-story
addition 21.6 feet from Bay
Esp lanade Drive right-of-way;
#3--23 feet to permit two-story
addition 2 feet and 1 feet from
Verbena Street right-of-way subject
to the requisite building permit
being obtained within six (6) months
from the date of this public hearing.
1.
Denied.
2.
Denied.
1
11/14/91
:1
''.
,
''---., ,
......-...,
3. Westchester Lakes Development
Corp (Westchester Lake Townhomes) for
variance of 42 in to permit a 72 in
high wall in setback area adjoining a
street right-of-way to which property
is addressed at 2644 through 2658
Saba1 Spring Dr, Westchester Lake
Townhomes, zoned RPD 10 (residential
planned development). V 91-75
4. Lois Jean Clymer (Tak A Way/Chix
N Ribs) for vari ance of 3 park i ng
spaces to permit conversion of retail
to restaurant use at 401 Coronado Dr,
Columbia Sub No 4, Lot I, zoned CR 28
(resort commercial). V 91-76
5. George and Isabella Aivaliotis
for variances of (1) 21 ft to permit
addition 4 ft from a street right-of-
waYi and (2) 10 in to permit a 40 in
high wall in setback adjacent to
street to which property is addressed
at 28 Acacia St, Mandalay Sub, Blk
12, Lot 22, zoned RS 8 (single family
residential). V 91-77
6. John L and Sophie Lookretis
(Kally's Beachside) for variance of 8
parking spaces to permit expansion of
restaurant with 2-COP alcoholic
beverage license at 608 Manda1ay Ave,
Clearwater Beach Rev, Blk 7, part of
Lot 9, zoned CB (beach commerc i a 1 ) .
V 91-78
DCAB
3.
Continued to December 18, 1991.
4.
Denied.
5. Granted subject to the
following conditions: 1) the ramps
and planters sha 11 be i nsta 11 ed as
per the site plan submitted with the
clarification that no planter shall
be closer than 2 feet to the
sidewalk, at the entry platform,
wh i ch is the ma i n entrance to the
house, the planter wa 11 sha 11 be a
maximum of 40 inches high with this
wall sloping to a maximum of 30
inches high on either side of the
entry p1atformi 2) landscaping shall
be provided as per the site plan
submitted; 3) this variance is being
granted for a single-family residence
and 4) the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within six (6)
months from the date of this public
hearing.
6. Granted subject to the
following conditions: 1) that a
minimum of a 3-square-foot sign shall
be posted in the front wi ndaw
notifying the public that metered
parking is available on Avalon Street
and 2) this variance shall be limited
to its present owners.
2
11/14/91
J\!'.t...',
r '\
(,. 4,
, ,
\,,~~...~ '
;, ,
---.-
'I
7. Resolution Trust Corp, as
Conservator for Hollywood Federal
Bank (850 Bayway) for variances (1)
of 18 park i ng spaces to prov i de 42
parking spaces in lieu of 60 spaces
required; (2) of 34.2 ft to permit
stair tower 13.8 ft from a side
property line; (3) of 34.2 ft to
permit stair tower to encroach into
required clearspace, and (4) to
permit motel rooms to be in excess of
500 sq ft at 850 Bayway Blvd, Bayside
Sub No 6, Unit A, Blk 0, Lot 12 and
Unit C, Blk 0, Lots 13 thru 15, zoned
CR 28 (resort cornmerc i a 1) and AL/C
(aquatic lands/coastal). V 91-79
II. Board & Staff Discussion
III. Approval of Minutes of
October 24, 1991.
IV. Adjournment
DCAB
7. Granted variances of #2--25.5
feet to perml't a sta ir tower 23.5
feet from a side property line; #3--
25.5 feet to permit a stair tower to
encroach into the requ ired c learspace
and #4--as requested. All above
variances are, subject to the
conditions: 1) the applicant shall
obtain an occupational license within
12 months from the date of this
public hearing; 2) the applicant must
submit site plans for the review
process with regard to the proposed
motel development; 3) the units shall
not be sold as time shares or
condominium units; 4) these variances
apply to the owner/applicant only; 5)
all of the conditions upon which this
request was approved by the Planning
and Zoning Board will likewise apply
to the granting of this variance and
6) the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within six (6)
months from the date of this public
hearing.
Denied variance #1,
II. None,
III. Approved as submitted.
IV. Adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
3
11/14/91
........,
I
"-............
.......T.
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
November 14, 1991
Members present:
Thomas J. Graham, Chairman
Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman
John W. Homer
Alex Plisko
Emma C. Whitney
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk
Gwen J. legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission
Chambers of City Ha 11. He out 1 i ned the procedures and adv i sed that anyone
adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may
appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. He noted
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 10/24/91) Betsy K and Rayford Hixon, Jr,
for variances of (1) 2.5 ft to permit construction on a 67.5 ft wide
corner lot; (2) 3.4 ft to permit two story addition 12 ft from Bay
Esplanade Dr right-of-waYi and (3) 24 ft to permit two story
additions 1 ft and 7 ft from Verbena St right-of-way at 821 Bay
Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 39, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family
residential). V 91-70
Senior Planner Glatthorn stated variance #2 should read 3.4 feet to permit a two-
story addition 21.6 feet from Bay Esplanade Drive right-of-way. She said there
was an error on the application; however, the request did not require
readvertising. Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the
original application, to permit the owners to expand and convert an existing room
into a two-car garage and to change the existing one-car garage into living
space, was continued to allow the applicants to submit a revised application and
site plan.
DCAB
11/14/91
1
'k .
Ray Hixon, owner and applicant, st~ted he wishes to construct a two-car garage
on the southwest side of the existing house and two bedrooms over the garage.
Discussion ensued in regard to a portion of the existing house extending into the
right-of-way. Concern was expressed in granting use of the right-of-way for the
proposed addition. In response to a question, the applicant indicated he will
stay within the existing line of the present structure and what is being proposed
would be enclosed.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant
variance #1 as requested; variance #2 - a variance of 3.4 feet to permit a two-
story addition 21.6 feet from Bay Esp lanade Drive right-of-way; and variance #3 -
a variance of 23 feet to permit d two story addition 2 feet and 1 feet from
Verbena Street right-af-way 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 and the variances
are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the existing house
on the lot subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six
months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. Request Qranted.
Planning Manager Shuford arrived at 1:19 p.m.
1. Robert A and Hazel L Vachon for variance of 5 ft to permit
storage shed zero ft from a side property line at 1750 Long St,
Highland Pines 8th Add, Blk 47, Lot 11, zoned RS 8 (single family
residential). V 91-73
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to retain a storage shed which was built after the April 25th
storm.
Bob Vachon, owner and applicant, indicated a shed had existed for 15 years at
this location prior to its damage by the storm. He said the small shed erected
after the storm is similar to sheds in the neighborhood.
In response to questions, Mr. Vachon stated he does not operate any business out
of the shed, the truck in front of the subject property be longs to him, he
formerly performed maintenance work at Trinity College and the shade screen on
one side of the subject property protects aga i nst bad weather. Mr. Vachon
indicated the subject shed extends the length of the property line.
Concern was expressed that locating sheds on property lines limits the access
around adjoining properties. It was indicated the shed overhangs onto the
adjoining property.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the
variance as requested because 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;
DCAB
11/14/91
2
t<. ,
.".. .
no unnecessary hardship was shown: the variance is not the minimumi the granting
of the variance would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property
in the neighborhood, would detract from the appearance of the community, would
substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, would increase the
danger of fire and endanger the public safety and would adversely affect the
public health, safety, order, convenience, or general welfare of the community
and 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.
2. Janusz and Roxana Nowicki (Gulf-to-Bay Pawn Shop) for variance
of 20 parking spaces to permit 15 spaces in lieu of the 35 spaces
required, to permit conversion of motel to retail use at 2054 Gulf
to Bay Blvd, Sec 13-29-15, M&B 13.06, zoned CG (general commercial).
V 91-74
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the
applicant formerly converted three units of a ten-unit motel into a pawn shop and
now wishes to convert the remainder of the motel to pawn shop and other retail
uses. Ms. Glatthorn stated a previous variance granted in 1986 limited the motel
to 15 units plus living quarters. It was indicated the City1s Traffic
Engineering Department objects to parking shortages on commercial properties.
In response to questions, Ms. Glatthorn indicated current construction on the
subject property was properly permitted, the applicants were notified a parking
variance was necessary and the applicants chose to proceed with construction at
their own risk. It was not known whether or not the sign on the subject property
was in conformance.
Roxana Nowicki, owner and applicant, stated the property was purchased in 1981.
The motel was remodeled with three units being converted into a pawn shop. She
said this pawn shop is her family's main source of income. She indicated the
pawn shop has outgrown its original area in terms of storage space. Ms. Nowicki
said a store attl'acts a larger variety of customers by being aesthetically
pleas ;ng. She exp 1 a i ned pawn shop procedures and storage of merchand i se, stat i ng
the business is service oriented and it is necessary to increase space to
maintain the inventory in better order. She felt the conversion would not
require extra parking.
In response to questions, Ms. Nowicki stated she feels the four units remaining
after expanding the pawn shop would be more practical if rented for electronic
sales or repair shops which would complement the pawn shop. She indicated the
request is not financially based as a greater financial return could be obtained
from keeping the motel rentals, but she feels a motel is too much of a bother.
She has recently acquired a new sign.
John Nowicki, owner and app1icant, submitted photographs of the subject property
and discussed the proposal with the Board.
DCAB
3
11/14/91
Concern was expressed the proposed conversion to total retail without adequate
fl. ~ parking would be an overuse of the site.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the
variance as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated 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 variance is not the minimumj the granting
of the variance would be materially detrimental' to other property in the
neighborhoodj the granting of the variance 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.
3. Westchester Lakes Development Corp (Westchester Lake Townhomes)
for variance of 42 in to permit a 72 in high wall in setback area
adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is addressed at
2644 through 2658 Sabal Spring Dr, Westchester Lake Townhomes, zoned
RPD 10 (residential planned development). V 91-75
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to construct a six-foot-high block wall/fence within the setback
area adjoining a right-of-way. She said a height of 48 inches would be more
consistent with other fences in the area. She stated the subject property is a
townhouse development under construction.
~ick Geiger, representing the applicant, stated the subject property was
purchased eight years ago. He indicated the wall is necessary to prevent traffic
at the adjacent public park from using this development as a turn-around. The
six~foot height is needed for security to deter people from congregating and
loitering in the cypress head on the property. Mr. Geiger said it is necessary
to situate the wall in the setback area as the cypress head, extending up to the
proposed fence line, is environmentally protected and cannot be disturbed. He
said the proposed wall will be beautifully landscaped and he feels the police
would support the application due to the number of complaints regarding
disturbances from young people frequenting the cypress woods.
In response to questions, Mr. Geiger stated the cypress head is under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation (OER), the proposed
wall will extend from an adjacent city park fence on one side and dead end and
run along the lake on the other side.
Concern was expressed that a six-foot-high solid block wall in the area would
intensify the security problem by further obstructing visibility of the property.
It was suggested a different type of fence might be more appropriate.
Mr. Geiger stated he would redesign the fence to address the concern regarding
vis i b i 1 i ty and requested a cont i nuance to the next meet i ng to mod ify the request.
Mr. Homer moved to continue this request to the meeting of December 12, 1991.
The motion was du ly seconded and carried unanimous ly. Request continued to
December 12. 1991.
DCAB
4
11/14/91
".""+' 'It~
. ,
The meeting recessed from 2:12 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.
4. Lois Jean Clymer (Tak A Way/Chix N Ribs) for variance of 3
parking spaces to permit conversion of retail to restaurant use at
401 Coronado Dr, Co 1 umb i a Sub No 4, Lot 1, zoned CR 28 (resort
commercial). V 91-76
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the subject
property was grandfathered for indoor retail sales use. The applicant wishes to
convert two existing retail uses into a restaurant/retail situation and add 95
square feet of outdoor seating.
In response to a question, it was indicated since the existing uses on the
property are not being changed more than 50 percent only a parking variance is
required for the expanded use.
Discussion ensued regarding the history of the property and a previous variance
request to allow the conversion of a motel into two fast-food restaurants with
accompanying parking modifications being denied in May of 1987. In August of
1987, approval was given for conversion of the motel into two retail busi~essesj
however, did not necessitate a parking variance. A question was raised regarding
the difference between a fast-food and a take-out restaurant and it was indicated
there is no seating associated with a take-out restaurant or delicatessen.
Assistant City Attorney Lance returned to the meeting at 2:30 p.m.
Donna Clymer, representing the applicant, stated there are nine physical parking
spaces on the property and she does not understand why three additional spaces
are needed for this conversion. She indicated adjacent properties have
grandfathered back-out parking onto Coronado Drive; however, they do not. She
stated the existing nine parking spaces are on the north side off Fifth Street,
which is a small quiet side street.
Ms. Clymer clarified a drawing of the proposed restaurant/deli and survey of the
property that had been submitted with the application. She wishes to have
seating for 40-45 patrons. She stated a limousine parked on the property is used
for hauling cases of merchandise and supplies.
Twelve letters were presented in support of the application.
One citizen spoke in regard to the application. She said she did not object to
the outdoor seating but expressed concern regarding possible future alcoholic
beverage sales.
One petition with eleven signatures was submitted expressing opposition to the
application if it would lead to future alcoholic beverage sales.
DCAB
5
11/14/91
I"V: ,
f .~,
".
Ms. Clymer stated she cannot speak for the future, but has no present plans to
request alcoholic beverage sales. She said the business is clean, safe and quiet
and creates no overflow parking problems. She said she respects the neighborhood
too much to ever allow anything objectionable on her property.
Discussion ensued in regard to the applicant being repeatedly denied alcoholic
beverage sales. It was indicated adequate parking cannot be provided due to the
limited lot size and location of the existing building. It was felt granting the
variance would permit an even more intense use of the property and be contrary
to the intent of the Code.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the
variance as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated she 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; the variance is not a minimum; the granting
of the variance would be materially detrimental and injurious to other properties
in the neighborhood, would detract from the appearance of the community, would
substantially increase the congestion in the public streett would adversely
affect the general welfare of the community and 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.
5. George and Isabella Aivaliotis for variances of (1) 21 ft to
permit addition 4 ft from a street right-of-waYi and (2) 10 in to
permit a 40 in high wall in setback adjacent to street to which
property is addressed at 28 Acacia St, Mandalay Sub, Blk 12, Lot 22,
zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-77
Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes
to modify an existing single-family house which is non-conforming. Ms. Glatthorn
stated the City. s Traffic Engineering Department recommends the proposed planters
be placed no closer than two feet from the sidewalk to allow room for repair or
replacement.
Alex Konstantinidis, architect representing the owner and applicant, stated he
wishes to improve the structure by enclosing the balcony in order to control
water leakage onto the first floor, construct a straight interior stairway with
a mechanical lift device enabling the elderly owner to more easily access the
second floor and surround the ramp with planters to minimize the visual impact
of having a handicap ramp at the front of the house.
In response to questions, Mr. Konstantinidis stated the house will be occupied
strictly by the owner and his family. There is a back entrance into house, but
no entry on the side of the stairs, a kitchen upstairs with a wet bar downstairs.
The proposed interior stairway would facilitate the installation of a lift
device.
Oiscussion ensued regarding whether or not the proposed planter wall is the
minimum.
DCAB
6
11/14/91
',~
In response to questions, Mr. Konstantinidis stated the applicant has owned the
subject property for approximately ten years and suffered a stroke last year.
He currently resides in the house with his two sons and their families.
In response to a citizen's question, Mr. Konstantinidis stated a medical history
of the applicant was not submitted with the application. The owner is not
currently confined to a wheelchair, but due to his age and condition of his
health, he wishes to plan ahead in anticipation of future needs.
Concern was expressed regarding the proposed modifications to the house. It was
felt the redesign of the second floor would be overbuilding the house and would
allow for conversion into a duplex at a later date.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the ramp could be relocated behind the
carport and the planter walls minimized. It was pointed out that putting the
ramp behind the house would interfere with the driveway and the garage and the
increased height of the planter walls was necessary to support the ramp. It was
felt a hardship exists with regard to the owner's access to the second floor.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Pliska 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 and the variances are the
minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the existing residence on
a corner lot and the grade differential from the existing floor to grade
providing a handicapped ramp within this area subject to the conditions: 1) the
ramps and planters shall be installed as per the site plan submitted with the
clarification that no planter shall be located closer than 2 feet to the sidewalk
at the entry platform which is the main entrance to the house; 2) the planter
wall shall be a maximum of 40 inches high with the wall sloping to a maximum of
30 inches high on either side of the entry platform: 3) landscaping shall be
provided as per the site plan submittedi 4) this variance is being granted for
a single-family residence and 5) the requisite building permit shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Request Qranted.
6. John L and Sophie lookretis (Kally's Bcachside) for variance of
8 parking spaces to permit expansion of restaurant with 2-COP
alcoholic beverage license at 60B Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach
Rev, Blk 7, part of Lot 9, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 91-78
Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the proposal involves
the expansion of an existing restaurant into adjacent retail space, the
construction of which is already completed. The occupational license is on hold
pending approval for alcoholic beverage sales.
DCAB
7
11/14/91
r '\ Mike MacKinzie, attorney representing the applicant, stated the subject property
has been used as a restaurant since 1958. Mr. MacKinzie stated the expansion is
being done to bring the building into compliance with City codes. He distributed
a sketch of the parking available in the area and indicated the support of
neighbors on Avalon Avenue. '. .,.,..
John Lookretis, applicant, stated he obtained the. necessary permits for
remodeling prior to beginning construction but was not aware a parking variance
was required for the expansion.
Ten letters were presented in support of the application.
One citizen spoke in opposition to the application, stating he owns a laundry and
dry cleaning business to the south of the subject property. He said a parking
problem already exists in the area and he feels alcoholic beverage sales will
increase the traffic flow.
Mr. MacKinzie stated the metered parking lots in the area are seldom full and he
believed the proposed use of the property would be a betterment for the north end
of Clearwater Beach.
Discussion ensued regarding the application and available parking in the area and
a suggest i on was made to place a s i go on the property direct i ng restaurant
traffic to nearby parking lots.
There was discussion regarding this establishment being an excellent restaurant
and an asset to the area; however, concern was expressed that the intent to have
alcoholic beverage sales was not made known at the start. It was felt a policy
should be implemented by the City to include on the application whether or not
the applicant intends to have alcoholic beverage sales in the future.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 is the minimum necessary to overcome
the hardship created by the lot size and land availability for the building and
because this property is located in the beach commercial district and there is
public parking available within 200 feet subject to the conditions: 1) that a
minimum of a 3-square-foot sign shall be posted in the front window notifying the
public that metered parking is available on Avalon Street; and 2) this variance
shall be limited to its present owners. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Request qranted.
Mr. Plisko and Ms. Glatthorn left the meeting at 4:15 p.m.
The meeting recessed from 4:15 to 4:25 p.m.
DCAB
B
11/14/91
..... j"
7. Resolution Trust Corp, as Conservator for Hollywood Federal Bank
(850 Bayway) for variances (1) of 18 parking spaces to provide 42
parking spaces in lieu of 60 spaces required; (2) of 34.2 ft to
permit stair tower 13.8 ft from a side property linei (3) of 34.2 ft
to permit stair tower to encroach into required clearspace; and (4)
to permit motel rooms to be in excess of 500 sq ft at 850 Bayway
Blvd, Bayside Sub No 6, Unit A, Blk 0, lot 12 and Unit C, Blk 0,
Lots 13 thru 15, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial) and AL/C (aquatic
lands/coastal). V 91-79
Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail stating the request is to permit
the re-establishment of an existing vacant restaurant originally built in the
1970's under different zoning requirements. The applicant is requesting the
previous permitted uses be allowed again as the occupational licenses for this
building have expired. He stated the applicant hopes to re-establish the
existing vacant restaurant, 20 hotel/motel units and one dwelling unit. Also,
thirty marina slips are being requested.
Discussion ensued with regard to the previous use of the property and it was
indicated the ground floor was a restaurant with 13 boat slips and the upper
floors were used for four to six motel units, recreation, meetings and exercise
rooms. In response to a question, it was stated clearspace provides a corridor
for the public's view of the water. It was stated a paved parking lot is not
considered to be clearspace.
Assistant City Attorney lance returned at 4:40 p.m.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated variances are being
requested to utilize an existing structure which was developed in the early
1970' s. The property was ori gi na lly des i gned to have extens i ve motel un its,
retail and a larger marina than the current request. He indicated the applicant
now wishes to expand the existing marina and build a restaurant with an office
on the first floor, one dwelling unit and motel units on the remaining floors.
Mr. Cline said the property is unique and feels the request is appropriate
because there is a hardship under the existing code. ~1r. Cline indicated
approving a parking variance will not overtax the property as the marina and
restaurant have different peak hours and the touri st commun ity expects waterfront
facilities. He feels the type of facility proposed will not be detrimental, but
will be a plus to the area and will put an existing property into use.
Gary Welsh, representing the applicant, discussed the parking situation for the
property indicating the proposed use will require less parking than what
previously existed. Mr. Welsh stated the parking is being reconfigured and the
driveways could be considered as clearspace.
Discussion ensued regarding the vacant building having been built to provide
services to the Clearwater Point Condominium residents and not built as a stand
alone building.
DCAB
11/14/91
9
\.:~.:* I~' . ,:" ", ':~II '..; ..... ..;'t.:'~":'..,~ ,J'.. , .", .'. ~" -t-'+:,~~:.., ': . ~"~'~' . . +' '... J" ..: t.... . :. . "'. . ~ ':1. ','. ~ .,. .
(pJ.,-t- <
I Jeff Kierlieber, representing the potential owners, stated he lives in the area
and the intent is to have a quiet, upscale, first class establishment. Rental
motel units are being proposed above the restaurant area and he feels this to be
the only feasible use. It is an extremely difficult site as it is not a drive-by
but a destination site. He said in order for the property to survive it must be
correctly marketed indicating the marina facilities are important to make this
operation viable. He feels all uses will be compatible with each other and will
not be a burden for the site or the neighborhood.
Five citizens spoke in opposition to the application indicating this is an
overuse of the property and expressed concern regarding insufficient parking
available in the area and the possibility of charter boats using the marina. It
was felt this was a valuable piece of property and a suggestion was made to tear
down the existing building and build an underground parking condominium which
would increase the City's tax base.
Two letters and a petition containing 165 names were presented in opposition to
the application.
In response to a question, it was indicated a marina expansion would require a
conditional use and an environmental review would occur.
In rebuttal, Mr. Cline said the uses are complementary to each other and would
not double up the parking. He indicated a charter service would not be operated
from the marina.
Discussion ensued in regard to the proposed location of the stairwell and it was
indicated the original footings for the stair tower were in this location;
however, it was felt it was possible to relocate the stairs out of the required
clearspace. Although there was no objection to making the uses compatible with
the neighborhood, concern was expressed to expanding the boat slips and having
motel rooms in excess of 500 square feet.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant
variance #2 - a variance of 25.5 feet to permit a stair tower 23.5 feet from a
side property line; variance #3 - a variance of 25.5 feet to permit a stair tower
to encroach into the required c learspace and variance #4 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 owner or applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome
the hards hip created by the lot size and the f ac il it i es con s tructed thereon
subject to the conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain an occupational license
within 12 months from the date of this public hearing; 2) the applicant must
submit site plans for the rev i ew proces s wi th regard to the proposed mote 1
development; 3) the units shall not be sold as time shares or condominium units;
4) these variances apply to the owner/applicant only; 5) all of the conditions
upon \'Jhich this request was approved by the Plannin9 and Zoning Board will
likewise apply to the granting of this variance and 6} the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
DeAR
10
11/14/91
rr-"
~
r"',
~ilt..~:f.i
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny
variance #1 as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he or she has
met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the land
development code because no unnecessary hardship was shown; the variance is not
the minimum; the request is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to
secure a greater financial return from the property: the granting of the variance
would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the
neighborhood; the granting of the variance would adversely affect the general
welfare of the community and 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 upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer and Gans
voted "aye"; Mr. Graham voted lInayu. Motion carried. Request qranted.
III. Approval of Minutes of October 24, 1991
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of October 24, 1991 in accordance with
cop,ies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Approved as submitted.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
)
DCAB
11
11/14/91