07/23/1992 (2)
, I. L. .
'1 :.
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE AD..JUSTMENT BOARD
, I
DATE . t)~/U/L~
c97 9// .
~/.........
/
"'-j
~<JI
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 23, 1992
Members present:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Thomas J. Graham
Otto Gans
John W. Homer
Absent:
Alex Pliska, Chairman (excused)
Also present:
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk
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 60G Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub No 5, Blk A, Lot 7,
zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 91-25
Planning Manager Shuford stated this request was continued because
there were concerns the revised site plan submitted to the Building
Department for review showed a substantially different use than
what was originally intended. The proposed retail use was changed
to retail/restaurant. There were also questions regarding for what
purpose the second floor apartment and the 301 square-foot storage
area on the first floor would be used.
DCAB
1
07/23/92
","r'.~1iI.
( '\
~, ,
'........'
Mr. Koumoulidis, the owner, addressed these concerns in a letter
dated July 14, 1992. He stated the second floor apartment is to be
used as his permanent residence and the 301 square foot storage
area will be used only for personal storage.
There was discussion regarding the July 15, 1992 memo from
Assistant City Attorney Lance in regard to placing additional
conditions on time extension requests which stated the Board is
wi thout jurisdiction to do anything other than grant the time
extension.
David Himes, engineer representing the applicant, stated revised
plans have been submitted and he hopes to pull the permit by August
26, 1992. He submitted copies of the revised plan to the Board.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed use. It was felt the 1500
square-foot, two bedroom apartment contains sufficient area for
storage upstairs. Concern was expressed regarding the possibility
the downstairs storage area could be converted to additional retail
or restaurant area by future owners. It was indicated any new
additions to the retail/restaurant area would require additional
parking.
Discussion ensued with regard to the parking variance which was
originally granted and it was indicated a variance of ONLY ONE
parking space was granted.
A question was raised whether or not the owners's letter of July
14, 1992 regarding the use of the second floor apartment and the
downstairs storage space could be used as an enforceable document
if the use of this area changed. Attorney Lance indicated the
letter is part of the record.
Assistant City Attorney Lance stated when variances are granted at
a public hearing, the application and supporting documents are a
part of the record and if the original plans submitted are changed,
the application changes. He referenced the Board's rules regarding
reconsiderations, stating ",.,hen original plans are changed and,
submitted, a new public hearing is appropriate with area property
owners being informed. He stated, if reconsidered, the public
hearing for reconsideration of the application would be
readvertised at the applicant's expense.
Mr. Himes requested reconsideration of the application due to the
submittal of new plans.
Mr. Homer moved to reconsider this application at the meeting of
September 10 I 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
DeA8
2
07/23/92
t:,,\ II. Public Hearings
Item A - William D and E Helen Lee/Paul S and Noreen H
Hodges for a variance of 6.45 It 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
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application was continued to
allow time to resolve code violation concerns. He stated the
City's Standard Housing Supervisor has stated in a memo dated July
16, 1992, the major code violations have been corrected and
approval of the variance is recommended.
Paul Hodges, owner and applicant, referred to a letter from the
lender indicating the loan, when approved, will include funds to
make necessary repairs to bring the home into compliance. A copy
of this letter was submitted for the record.
Nina Selsavage, attorney representing Helen Lee, co-owner, stated
the new lot line is being requested in order to bisect the parcel
and allow the homes to be sold separately. She indicated the
existing lot line runs through the homes instead of between them.
She said there is a potential buyer for 301 Vine Avenue and the
only housing violation remaining on this lot is for painting. She
requested notification be sent to Ms. Lee of any other violations.
Discussion ensued in regard to approval of this request minimizing
an existing non-conformity.
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 shape and conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would
resul t in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and the
variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created
by the location of the existing houses on the platted lot line
within a neighborhood where many lots are smaller than the current
code requires and the granting of this variance would minimize the
nonconformity subject to the condition that the applicant shall
file for an administrative lot division or subdivision plat,
whichever applies, with the Ci.ty of Clearwater Planning and
Development Department within six (6) months from the date of this
public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unani-
mously. Request qranted.
DCAB
3
07/23/92
fI:"
1. Robert H Chapman and Marjorie E Madigan, Trustees,
for a variance of 16.5 ft to permit a building addition
8.5 ft from street right-of-way at 712 Eldorado Ave,
Mandalay Sub, Blk 2, Lot 4 and portion of vacated street,
zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 92-40--To be
continued.
In a letter dated July 21, 1992, Robert Chapman requested a
continuance, stating he would be out of town and could not attend
the hearing.
Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of August 13,
1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimous ly.
Request continued.
2. Mark C Ploch for variances of (1) 7 ft to permit a
dock width of 28 ft; (2) 6 ft to permit a dock length of
36 ft; (3) 3.5 ft to permit dock placement 15.5 ft from
extended east property line; and (4) 4.5 ft to permit
dock placement 16.5 it from extended west property line
at 222 Bayside Dr, Bayside Sub No 4 Unit A, Blk 1, Lot F,
zoned RS 8 (single family residential) and AL/C
(aquatic lands, coastal). V 92-41
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail
stating the applicant wishes to construct a roof above an existing
( private dock, installing a boat lift in a location having suffi-
'v cient water depth for his boat. He stated it is recommended the
roof not exceed 12 feet above mean high water.
~..T
DCAB
4
07/23/92
Al Schmoyer, representing the applicant, stated the roof is
proposed to be ten feet above the dock, which is' two feet above
mean high water. In response to questions, he stated the proposed
gabled roof has a low pitch and will comply with the twelve-foot-
mean high water requirement. He indicated two tie poles exist, the
boat is a 30-foot fishing boat and ,the additional dock length is
needed to extend to water deep enough to accommodate his boat.
Mr. Schmoyer said adjacent property owners were not available
locally to sign off on the County dock permit application. He said
one adjacent property is for sale and the dock permit application
is being sent to the other owner for signature. He indicated both
adjacent owners were in support of the application.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the request is the
minimum as it was felt sufficient water depth exists near the sea
wall and gabled roofs are not common in the area. Mr. Schmoyer
indicated the attractive, low profile design of the roof will
protect the boat from birds and sun and is in keeping with the
character of the surrounding area, the lift is an overhead lift and
the water'is too shallow next to the sea wall.
".. ~ ,
r '
,
",--"
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans
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 owner or applicant and the
variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship
created by the lot size subject to the conditions: 1) the roof
shall not project more than 12 feet above mean high water and 2)
the requisite building permit shall be obtained wi thin six (6)
months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly
seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney and Messrs.
Gans and Graham voted ilayell; Mr. Homer voted ilnay". Motion
carried. Request qranted.
It was indicated the dissenting vote was cast to maintain consis-
tency regarding requests for covered docks.
3. Michael Band Amada G Steeves for variances of (1)
24.5 ft to permit a dock length of 62 ft; and (2) 0.75 ft
to permit a dock width of 27 ft at 173 Devon Dr, Bayside
Sub, part of Lots 36 and 37, zoned RS B (single family
residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 92-42
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail
stating clarification is needed because the application requests a
dock length of 62 feet but the drawing submitted with the applica-
tion shows a length of 60.5 feet.
It was indicated the City Harbormaster found no navigational
hazards pertaining to the application.
Michael Steeves, the applicant, stated staff had suggested the
additional dock length for extra leeway in construction and
indicated he had no objection to a dock length of 60.5 feet as
shown on the drawing. He wi thdrew variance ff: 2, s ta ti ng the
calculations used were in error and a variance for dock width will
not be required.
In response to questions, Mr. Steeves indicated a sailboat with a
six-foot draft will be anchored at the subject dock, the existing
tie poles will be cut off and used for the dock structure and two
new tie poles will be placed approximately 16 feet south to the end
of the "L". He stated the sailboat has a 12-foot beam and will
approach the dock from the south.
It was stated for the r.ecord a telephone call was received from one
adjacent property owner, indicating her wish to rescind her signa-
ture of approval on a county navigational control permit; however,
failed to appear at the hearing or follow up with a letter.
DCAB
5
07/23/92
r'c."
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans
moved to grant variance 11 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 and the
variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created
by the lot size subject to the requisite building permit being ob-
tained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimous ly. Request
qranted.
III. Approval of Minutes of July 9, 1992
It was requested to correct page one to reflect that David Himes is
an engineer, not an architect. The minutes will be corrected to
reflect this.
Mr. Horner moved to approve the minutes of July 9, 1992, as
corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
Discussion ensued with regard to changes in plans after variances
have been granted.
The Assistant City Attorney suggested the Board consider adding a
( standard condition to motions to grant variances that the requested
,_____ variance is subject to the applicant completing the proposed
structure in accordance with the plans and specifications that have
been submitted in support of the application. Consensus of the
Board was for Mr. Lance to draft this condition for addition to
motions.
Concern was expressed regarding larger boat lifts obstructing
waterfront views. The Planning Manager stated Code amendments
regarding docks will be forthcoming.
v. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.
\
.~\~~"
DCAB
6
07/23/92
{"y~
Chairman
/ Qh>I ~
ATTEST:
';;~~~~
Assist,~ ity Clerk
, ,
"'-'
\
....,.' '
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, July 23, 1992 - 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:
I.
Time Extensions
A. Valentino Koumoulidis (2nd
request for extension - contin-
ued from July 9, 1992) for vari-
ances 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 ft of clear space at
606 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub No
5, Blk A, Lot 7, zoned CR-28
(resort commercial). V 91-25
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 7/9/92)
William 0 and E Helen Lee/Paul S
and Noreen H Hodges for a vari-
ance of 6.45 ft lot width to
permi t a 63.55 ft wide corner
lot at 301 and 3D3 Vine Ave,
Plaza Park, Blk C, Lots 11 and
12, zoned RM 12 (multiple family
residential). V 92-37
1. Robert H Chapman and Marjo-
rie E Madigan, Trustees, for a
variance of 16.5 ft to permit a
building addition 8.5 ft from
street right-of-way at 712
Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk
2, Lot 4 and portion of vacated
street, zoned RS 8 (single fami-
ly residential). V 92-40--To be
continued.
DCAB
I.
Time Extensions
A.
Continued to September 10,
1992 for reconsideration.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - Granted subject to the
condition that the applicant
shall file for an administrative
lot division or subdivision
plat, whichever applies, with
the city of Clearwater Planning
and Development Department with-
in six (6) months from the date
of this pUblic hearing.
1.
continued to the meeting of
August 13, 1992
1
07/23/92
~ ' 4 '. ", . . . ..'. ': . " ,,~', >.... ,., {..,' '...~ '.. ". ". ~ :. " , . . '. .. , . ,: '+., . "
("-,
''-.,..- ,
~j
2. Mark C Ploch for variances
of (1) 7 ft to permit a dock
width of 28 ft; (2) G ft to per-
mit a dock length of 36 ft; (3)
3.5 ft to permit dock placement
is.s ft from extended east prop-
erty line; and (4) 4.5 ft to
permit dock placement 16.5 ft
from extended west property line
at 222 Bayside Dr, Bayside Sub
No 4 unit A, 8lk 1, Lot F, zoned
RS 8 (single family residential)
and AL/c (aquatic lands,
coastal). V 92-41
3. Michael Band Amada G
steeves for variances of (1)
24.5 ft to permit a dock length
of 62 ft; and (2) 0.75 ft to
permit a dock width of 27 ft at
173 Devon Dr, Bayside Sub, part
of Lots 36 and 37, zoned RS 8
(single family residential) and
AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal).
V 92-42
III. Approval of Minutes of
July 9, 1992
2. Granted subject to the fol-
lowing conditions: 1) that the
roof shall not project more than
12 feet above mean high water
and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within
six (6) months from the date of
this pUblic hearing.
3. Granted variance #1 subject
to the building permit being ob-
tained within six (6) months
from the date of this public
hearing. withdrew variance #2.
III. Approved as corrected.
IV. Board and staff Discussion IV.
v.
Adjournment
DCAB
V.
Adjourned at 2:43 p.m.
2
07/23/92