07/09/1992 (2)
. '.' ." ~ 01: .' J. .' ' . . . . '. .
, '
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
d7~'/9;b .
~ 7- gY5
DATE
"
r'"
........'
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 9, 1992
Members present:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Thomas J. Graham
otto Gans
John w. Homer
Absent:
Alex Plisko, Chairman (excused)
Also present:
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Mary K. Diana, Assistant city Clerk
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the ,Vice-Chairman at 1:00 p.m.
in the commission Chambers of city Hall. She outlined the proce-
dures 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 weeks. She 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. Time Extensions
A. Valentino Koumoulidis (2nd request for extension -
continued from June 25, 1992) for variances of (1) 83 ft
to permit a 67 ft wide lot; (2) 1 parking space to permit
6 spaces; (3) 24.85% front yard open space to allow
25.15%; (4) 3.5 ft to permit 1.5 ft of perimeter land-
scape buffering; and (5) 12.8 ft to permit 0 ft of clear
space at 606 Bayway Blvd, Bayside sub No 5, Blk A, Lot 7,
zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 91-25
David Himes, engineer representing the applicant, indicated a
revised site plan has been submitted to the Building Department. He
presented a copy of the revised plan for the record. There was
some concern that the new plan showed a different use for the
property than what was originally intended.
DCAB
07/09/92
1
f'~
'...."
Discussion ensued regarding the intended use of the second floor
apartment and the 301 square-foot storage area on the first floor.
In response to a question, Mr. Himes said he was not sure if the
second floor apartment is proposed to be the owner's unit.
Mr. Graham moved to grant a time extension subject to the requisite
building permit being obtained on or before August 26, 1992. The
motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney
and Mr. Graham voted "aye" i Messrs. Homer and Gans voted "nay".
Motion failed due to a tie vote.
The meeting adjourned from 1:30 p.m. to 1:35 p.m. to verify that a
tie vote on extension requests resulted in a denial of the request.
Concerns were expressed regarding the proposed change in use of the
first floor from professional services and retail to restaurant
and not having the plans approved within specified time limits.
Discussion ensued in regard to pa~king requirements for both uses.
Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of
July 23, 1992, for further discussion and requested verification
that the second floor unit will be an owner's unit and for what
purpose the 301 square feet of area on the ground floor will be
used. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
B. Robert E. MaIka (Rose Garden Restaurant) (3rd request
for extension - continued from June 25, 1992) for a
variance of 14 seats to permit 2-CQP licensed establish-
ment with 36 indoor seats at 348 and 348-1/2 Coronado
Dr., Lloyd-White-Skinner SUb, Lots 118-119, zoned CR-28
(resort commercial). V 91-17
Planning Manager Shuford stated the applicant has submitted plans
for building permit review.
George Greer, attorney representing the applicant, indicated the
plans were submitted for review on April 23, 1992, and will require
minor amendments. He said the permit is expected to be issued next
week.
Mr. Graham moved to grant a time extension subject to the building
permit being obtained on or before August 24, 1992 and the
requisite occupational license being obtained on or before December
8, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request qranted.
Mr. Greer was requested to inform the applicant that commercial
parking on the subject property is illegal.
DCAB
07/09/92
2
t' ,"~'t. .. . > . ':. ,., .'.. 'j';" " ,. .."... "~j,,' " : ~ ". '. .' . '.,' . .,': t, ';', ,,' ,', I
,,,--,
II. pUblic Hearings
Item A - (continued from 6/25/92) Mary L Lea, as Trustee,
for variances of (1) 12.25 ft to permit a dock 38.5 ft in
width; (2) 9.25 ft to permit dock placement 10.75 ft from
extended property line; and (3) 22.08 ft to permit dock
length of 59.5 ft at 1039 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub,
Blk 271, Lot 1, zoned RS B (single family residential)
and AL/c (aquatic lands/coastal). V 92-34
Planning Manager Shuford stated this item was continued from
June 25, 1992, in order to add a variance for dock length. He
explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to
expand an existing private dock, replacing one set of boat davits
on the north side with a boat house containing a lift, in character
with neighboring waterfront properties.
clark Lea, representing his parents, the owners/applicants, stated
only the north side of the dock has sufficient water depth to
locate the boat due to sand filtering in from Dunedin Pass at low
tide, extending halfway under the dock. He indicated signatures of
the adjacent property owners have been obtained in support of the
application. He said the request has been approved by the city
Harbormaster.
In response to questions, Mr. Lea indicated only the boathouse will
be added and the sling is necessary as the existing davits are not
strong enough to lift the 23-foot boat.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the request is the
minimum and it was felt this was not an overintensive use of the
dock.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer
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 subject to the
conditions: 1) the applicant shall be restricted to not more than
two berthing slips at the proposed' dock and 2) 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.
1. William 0 and E Helen Lee/Paul S and Noreen H Hodges
for a variance of 6.45 ft lot width to permit a 63.55 ft
wide corner lot at 301 and 303 Vine Ave, Plaza Park, Blk
c, Lots 11 and 12, zoned RM 12 (multiple family residen-
tial). V 92-37
."'-4~,.
DCAB
3
07/09/92
. r :. ~ . "'. '.. ..., ,.' , ',' '4' '~ ~. ,.... . " .... ~"' " ',:' :, ' . ". '". . f, . . .
("'
"",
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail
stating the applicant wishes to establish a new lot line for a
corner property consisting of two residences on two previously
platted non-conforming lots. He stated the new lot line is
proposed for 301 vine Avenue; however, housing code violations
exist at 303 Vine Avenue. Staff recommended a condition allowing
no division of property until all code violations have been
corrected.
Concern was expressed the proposed division creates an additional
non-conformity; however, it was indicated this variance is required
to draw the new lot line.
Concern was expressed to imposing conditions involving code
violations on the granting of variances. It was felt the City
should require code violations to be corrected before requests for
variances are processed and this Board should not be used as a tool
to accomplish this.
Paul Hodges, owner and applicant, indic~ted the rent payments of
303 Vine Avenue are in arrears and the tenant is the prospective
buyer of the property. The tenant has agreed to rectify the
existing housing code violations, the cost of which has been
negotiated in the selling price. It was indicated the financing
package from the lender addresses the code violations. There was
discussion regarding the difficulty in enforcing housing code
violations because of ownership changes.
Discussion ensued regarding bringing the property into compliance
prior to granting the variance. Mr. Hodges felt this would be
difficult due to the cost of repairs amounting to approximately
$5,000. He stated renegotiations would be necessary to correct
violations prior to selling the property. It was not known if the
prospective buyer was aware of the possibility the sale could be
delayed pending correction of the housing violations. A recommen-
dation was made for the buyer and lender to discuss the code
violations allowing the lending institution to be the enforcer.
Mr. Hodges requested a continuance to the next meeting to allow
time to resolve the code violation concerns. It was recommended
the prospective buyer also attend the hearing.
Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of July 23,
1992. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken,
Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Gans and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Homer voted
"nay". Motion carried. Request granted.
Mr. Horner indicated he cast the dissenting vote because he felt
this board was being used as an enforcement board.
'...........
DCAB
4
07/09/92
'"'--,
2. Diocese of st. Petersburg (st Cecelia Catholic
Church) for a variance of 7 ft to permit construction of
a carport within side yard setback at 905 S Prospect Ave,
Mount Orange Revised, Blk C, Lots 18 thru 20, part of
Lots 12 thru 17, and part of Lots 21 thru 23, zoned P/SP
(public/semi-public). V 92-38
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail
stating the applicant wishes to construct a four-space carport as
an accessory structure. He noted on April 13, 1989, a variance for
5 parking spaces was denied and referred to the possibility that an
existing fence on the property was not permitted.
Barry ullman, architect representing the applicant, stated the
existing building and lot were permitted in 1990 and the parking
area has been landscaped to meet code. He indicated the carport
structure is intended to provide covered parking for the pastor and
his staff. He presented photographs of similar cantilevered
parking structures and indicated the style will tie in with the
design of the building.
In response to a question, Mr. ullman stated the proposed structure
has only two support columns.
Tom Morrison, construction manager for the diocese, stated the
fence in question was on the original site plan and was in
existence in 1990 when the certificate of occupancy was issued. He
said it replaced a cedar and chain link fence. In response to a
question, he stated the carport would protect older staff members
from the heat of the sun and inclement weather.
One letter was submitted in support of the application.
Concerns were expressed regarding the stability of the design and
the closeness of the carport roof to a neighbor's rear porch. Mr.
Ullman indicated the cantilevered design is stable, the carport is
being placed as near the church building as possible and will not
block any light or view.
Discussion ensued regarding the previous variance applications for
the site. In response to a question, Mr. Morrison stated it will
be many years before existing trees on the property will shade the
parking area. Concern was expressed the application was not a
minimum, there was no demonstration of hardship, the carport was
too massive and the proposed location was not appropriate. It was
indicated the adjacent property owner did not object, the design of
the carport was dictated by the Building Department and the use of
the structure was a public non-profit one.
DCAB
5
07/09/92
. I j'., , ,', .,".', ' rI . " " i , ., :.,. .. '. . " ,~ . ' .' f ". I' . I i 1 ,I .... ' ' . j . ", ..,. . . .... ., ., ",
t"~
...........
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham
moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in
Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically
because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to
the property and not caused by the owner or applicant; the
particular physical shape, and conditions of the property involved
and the strict application of the provisions of this development
code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and
the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship
created by the size of the particular parcel, the location of the
oak trees and the use of this property as a parking lot meeting the
City of Clearwater current code requirements and the use of the
property is more for a public non-profit use as opposed to a
private use subject to the conditions: 1) the carport shall be a
cantilevered design as indicated on the site plan; 2) the fence in
question shall be reviewed and permitted and/or accepted by the
City Building Department and J) the requisite building permit shall
be obtained within ninety (90) days from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being
taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Gans
voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted.
The meeting recessed from 2:53 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
3. Joseph E and Elizabeth J Mannion for a variance of 5
ft to permit a structure 35 ft in height at 887 Gulfview
Blvd S, Bayside Shores, Blk A, part of Lot 2, zoned RM 28
(multiple family residential). V 92-39
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail
stating the applicant wishes to remodel an existing two-story,
single-family home to include a new roof, loft area, widow's walk
and expansion of the porch and balconies on the rear, side and
front of the house. He indicated adjacent condominium heights are
in excess of 35 feet and the applicant feels the granting of this
variance would allow this structure to be more consistent with the
surrounding structures. Mr. ShUford stated the rear porch addition
extends within 3.5 feet of the seawall and a variance to allow
construction in the lB-foot setback was approved on June 17, 1992,
by the Building and Flood Adjustment Board.
Patty stough, architect representing the applicant, stated this
residence was in existence prior to the surrounding buildings and
will remain a single-family residence. She indicated the multiple-
family dwellings in the area are allowed to be up to 80 feet in
height. She presented photographs of the subj ect property and
explained drawings of the proposed remodeling, stating a victorian
appearance is desired for the facade.
DCAB
6
07/09/92
r",
In response to questions, Ms. stough indicated there is no intent
to install a spa on the widow's walk, which will be accessed
through the attic. She said the style is similar to the Key West
style of architecture
Two letters from adjacent property owners were submitted in support
of the application.
One citizen, representing Clearwater Point Condominiums, spoke in
opposition to the application, stating he feels the view from his
unit will be obstructed. He presented photographs of the Mannion
residence taken from his balcony and requested this hearing be
postponed until condominium residents return from vacation and are
able to review the application.
Mr. Mannion, owner and applicant, stated he feels his request is
reasonable and will enhance his property.
In response to questions, Mr. Mannion indicated the roof access
area will not be used for a spa, but only for observation and
sunbathing. He stated a concrete slab in front of the house will
be eliminated and the porch addition is proposed to extend
completely around to the east side of the house to tie in with the
architectural design.
Ms. stough affirmed approval has been received from the Flood Board
to extend the porch to within 3.5 feet of the seawall, stating the
grass in this narrow strip will be replaced by sandbed paving
stones.
The applicants were complimented for their efforts in improving
their property.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham
moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has
sUbstantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in
section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically
because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to
the property and not caused by the owner or applicant; the
particular physical surroundings, shape and conditions of the
property involved and the strict application of the provisions of
this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon
the applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome
the hardship created by the location of this house on the water-
front surrounded by high-rise and mid-rise condominiums that are
much taller subject to the conditions: 1) the deck on the roof
surrounded by the widow's walk railing shall be used only as an
observation deck and no permanent structure shall be placed there
other than the wooden deck used to walk upon and 2) 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 granted.
DCAB
7
07/09/92
,'.. :':.: "'" .".' '. .; '~:' .~.. ~... ", " .... '. '. .;'. I " ..' I~'" ~ ..~._,.' I ~ ..:.
III. pUblic Hearings - To consider requests for variances of the
Land Development Code:
An Ordinance of the city of Clearwater, Florida, relating
to the Land Development Code; amending Chapter 134, Code
of Ordinances, relating to signs and sign regulations;
amending section 137.005, Code of Ordinances, relating to
definitions; providing an effective date.
Planning Manager Shuford explained the proposed sign code amend-
ments, stating some issues remain to be resolved.
John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the purpose of the
ordinance is to simplify and clarify the city sign code and bring
it into conformance with the county code.
In response to a question regarding conforming strictly to the
countywide sign code, it was indicated the city's is sometimes more
restrictive.
There was discussion regarding possible problems with attached
signs such as "publixll and "Eckerd".
Concern was expressed regarding impact on older shopping centers.
..,.........
In response to a question! Mr. Richter indicated the changes
regarding free-standing s1gns are negligible except in the
commercial center zoning district.
Discussion ensued regarding attached
designations in place of property and
distinctions.
and free-standing sign
business identification
Discussion ensued in regard to a need for "ease of reference" for
identifying areas eligible for sign bonuses.
There was discussion regarding projecting signs being more visible
and better able to get the message out. It was felt a visibility
problem exists for the businesses on Cleveland street and staff was
requested to look into larger projecting signs in urban centers.
A suggestion was made to include a comparison between free-standing
and attached signs as part of the Code.
Discussion ensued with regard to changes in allowed sign sizes and
various other sections of this lengthy ordinance. Staff was
commended for their efforts in drafting the new sign code.
Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval of the proposed sign
ordinance providing: 1) staff relook at sign allowances for
shopping centers to ensure there will be no major impact on the
older centers; 2) the urban center district have consistent
'.~...
DCAB
8
07/09/92
" '~,,'. ., :; ,:,' .,' .,", ". . k '. ',' .... ."
,"""....
attached sign area requirements throughout; 3) consideration be
given to allowing larger than eight square feet projecting signs in
the urban center district and 4) a summary table of sign allowances
in each zoning district with bonus provisions for ease of reference
be included. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Approval of Minutes of June 25, 1992
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of June 25, 1992, in
accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
v. Board and Staff Discussion
\.~_.'I','
Discussion returned to imposing conditions relating to code
violations on variance requests. It was felt this enforcement is
not within the Board'S jurisdiction.
Mr. ShUford indicated there have been problems in the past when
certain property owners, being found in violation of building
codes, transferred ownership to another individual, causing
administration to undergo another lengthy violation notification
process. He felt housing code violations should run with the
property owner instead of the property. He stated future appli-
cants will be informed administrative lot divisions will not be
processed until any code violations are corrected.
A suggestion was made to charge an administrative fee and record
the notice of a code violation so it would appear on the title
search.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 p.m.
~Q;~ ()
Chairman ~
ATTEST:
A?{~~
I ,
",""",','
DCAB
9
07/09/92
("':.,
Ie.......
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, July 9, 1992 - 1:00 p.m. - Commission Meeting Room,
city Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, Florida
I.
Time Extensions
A. Valentino Koumoulidis (2nd
request for extension - contin-
ued from June 25, 1992) for
variances of (1) 83 ft to permit
a 67 ft wide lot; (2) 1 parking
space to permit 6 spaces; ( 3 )
24.85% front yard open space to
allow 25.15%; (4) 3.5 ft to per-
mit 1.5 ft of perimeter land-
scape buffering; and (5) 12.8 ft
to permit 0 it of clear space at
606 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub No
5, Blk A, Lot 7, zoned CR-28
(resort commercial). V 91-25
B. Robert E. MaIke (Rose Garden
Restaurant) (3rd request for
extension - continued from June
25, 1992) for a variance of 14
seats to permit 2-COP licensed
establishment with 36 indoor
seats at 348 and 348-1/2
Coronado Dr., Lloyd-White-Skin-
ner Sub, Lots 118-119, zoned CR-
28 (resort commercial). V 91-17
II. PUblic Hearings - To con-
sider requests for variances of
the Land Development Code:
Item A (continued from
6/25/92) Mary L Lea, as Trustee,
for variances of (1) 12.25 ft to
permit a dock 38.5 ft in width;
(2) 9.25 ft to permit dock
placement 10.75 ft from extended
property line; and (3) 22.08 ft
to permit dock length of 59.5 ft
at 1039 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel
Sub, Blk 271, Lot 1, zoned RS 8
(single family residential) and
AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal).
V 92-34
DCAB
I.
Time Extensions
A. continued to July 23, 1992,
requesting verification that the
second floor unit will be the
O\'1ner's unit and the intended
use of the 301 square feet of
area on the ground floor.
B. Granted a time extension to
August 24, 1992, subject to the
conditions: 1) the requisite
building permit shall be ob-
tained on or before August 24,
1992 and 2) the requisite occu-
pational license shall be ob-
tained within six (6) months
from the date of this public
hearing.
II. Public Hearings - variances
Item A - Granted subject to the
following conditions: 1) the
applicant shall be restricted to
not more than two berthing slips
at the proposed dock and 2} the
requisite building permit shall
be obtained within six (6)
months from the date of this
public hearing.
1
07/09/92
J~"
......._r
1. William D and E Helen
Lee/Paul S and Noreen H Hodges
for a var iance of 6.45 ft lot
width to permit a 63.55 ft wide
corner lot at 301 and 303 Vine
Ave, Plaza Park, Blk C, Lots 11
and 12, zoned RM 12 (multiple
family residential). V 92-37
2. Diocese of st. Petersburg
(st Cecelia Catholic Church) for
a variance of 7 ft to permit
construction of a carport within
side yard setback at 905 5 Pros-
pect Ave, Mount Orange Revised,
Blk C, Lots 18 thru 20, part of
Lots 12 thru 17, and part of
Lots 21 thru 23, zoned P/SP
(public/semi-public). V 92-38
3. Joseph E and Elizabeth J
Mannion for a variance of 5 ft
to permit a structure 35 ft in
height at 887 Gulfview Blvd 5,
Bayside Shores, Blk A, part of
Lot 2, zoned RM 28 (multiple
family residential). V 92-39
III. pUblic Hearing to consider
applications for the following
Land Development Code Text
Amendment:
1. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE;
AMENDING CHAPTER 134, CODE OF
ORDINANCES, RELATING TO SIGNS
AND SIGN REGULATIONS; AMENDING
SECTION 137.005, CODE OF ORDI-
NANCES, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
DCAB
1.
Continued to the meeting of
July 23, 1992.
2. Granted subject to the fol-
lowing conditions: 1) the car-
port shall be a cantilevered
design as indicated on the site
plan; 2) the fence in question
shall be reviewed and permitted
and/or accepted by the city
Building Department and 3) the
requisite building permit shall
be obtained within ninety (90)
days from the date of this pub-
lic hearing.
. '.
3. Granted subject to the fol-
lowing conditions: 1) the deck
on the roof surrounded by the
widow's walk railing shall be
used only as an observation deck
and no permanent structure shall
be placed there other than the
wooden deck used to walk upon
and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within
six (6) months from the date of
this pUblic hearing.
III. Public Hearing - LDCTA
1. Recommend approval with the
following recomi;iendations: 1)
staff relook at sign allowances
for shopping centers to insure
there will be no major impa~t on
the older centers: 2) t~~ urban
center district have consistent
attached sign area requirements
throughout; 3) consideration be
2
07/09/92
t:~
.~,
I
'...~ ,.
I
~---'
IV. Approval of Minutes of
June 25, 1992
V.
Board and Staff Discussion
VI. Adjournment
DCAB
given to allowing larger than
eight square feet projecting
signs in the urban center dis-
trict and 4) a summary table of
allowable attached and free-
standing signs in each zoning
district with bonus provisions
for ease of reference be
included.
IV. ApproveG as submitted
V.
VI. Adjourned at 4:48 p.m. .
. i
1
i
.1
j
"
J
07/09/92