04/22/1993 (2)
,e
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE AD-JUSTMENT BOARD
DATE
o 1/:/2.2./13
c:27 -
/cJ95
~p".
I "
(
\(.............'
',-
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, April 22, 1993 - 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
1. (1st request for extension) L M Loken (Imperial square Shopping
center) for a variance of 58 parking spaces to permit a shopping center
with 293 parking spaces at 1440-1494 S Belcher Rd, Sec 24-29-15, M&B
41.02, 41.03, 41.04, and 41.05, zoned CC (commercial center) and CG
(general commercial). V 92-35
Action:
continued to che meeting of May 13, 1993.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (Continued from 3/25/93 & 4/8/93) Dan's Island 1600 Condo
Assoc, Inc for a variance to allow a structure, consisting of a deck
and steps, 86 ft seaward of the coastal construction control line at
1650 Gulf Blvd, Dan's Island on Sand Key Condo, zoned RM 28 (Multiple
Family Residential), OS/R (Open Space/Recreation), and AL/C (Aquatic
Lands/Coastal). V 93-18
Action:
withdrawn as a result of Declaratory Ruling 93-9.
1. city of Clearwater for variances of (1) 14 ft to allow a structure
11 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 20 ~t
to allow a lot width of 50 ft where 70 ft is required at 900 Plaza st,
Plaza Park Sub, Blk G.. Lot 1, zoned RM 12 (Multi-Family Residential).
V 93-25
Action: Granted subject to the fol.lowing conditions: 1.) the variance
is based on the application for a va~iance and documents submitted by
the applicants, including maps, plans, surveys and other documents
submitted in support of the applicants' request for a variance.
Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the
request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the
site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this
variance being null and of no effect; 2) all requisite building permits
shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing.
2. Sunset Associates (Joel n' Jerry) for a variance of 10 ft to allow
o ft landscape buffer where 10 ft is required at 23654 U.S. 19, Sec 6-
29-16, M&Bs 41.01, 41,02, 41.04, 41.05 and 41.06 together with
Blackburn Sub, parts of Lots 1 and 12, and vacated street, zoned CC
(Commercial Center). V 93-26
Action:
Continued to the meeting of May 1.3, 1.993.
DCAB Action
1
04/22/93
\ ;J
~"
<- ~ ~
3. Marc E. smith for variances (1) of 3.5 ft and 2.0 ft to allow a
fence 6.0 ft in height where 2.5 ft and 4.0 feet is permitted; (2) of
3 ft to allow a fence 0 ft from property line where 3 ft is required;
(3) to allow zero landscaping where a landscape plan is required; and
(4) to allow no gate or opening where required; all to allow a wooden
privacy fence on the north property line at 2098 Powderhorn Dr, Walden
Woods, Lot 63, zoned RS 8 (single Family Residential). V 93-27
Act'ion: Applicant withdrew variances 11a (of 3.5 ft), 12 and #4.
Denied variance #3.
Granted variance Ilb (of 2.0 ft to allow a fence 6.0 feet in
height) subject to the following conditions: 1) the variance is based
on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the
applicants, including maps, plans, surveys and other documents
submi tted in support of the applicants' request for a variance.
Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the
request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the
site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this
variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite fence permit
shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing.
4. Thomas A. and Frances R. Caleca for variances of (1) 3 ft to allow
a dock 33 ft in width where 30 ft is permitted; and (2) 3 ft to allow
a dock 38.5 ft in length where 35.5 ft is permitted at 625 Snug Island,
Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 7A, Lot 9, zoned RS 6 (Single Family
Residential) and AL/c (Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 93-28
.
,
Action:
Denied.
..._...F'
III. Approval of Minutes of April 8, 1993
Action:
Approved as submitted.
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
v. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:~3 p.m.
DCAB Action
2
04/22/93
,~
\
"-
'-/
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
April 22, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma c. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant city Attorney
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:05 p.m. in the
Commission Chambers of 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 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.
1.
Time Extensions
1. (1st request for extension) L M Loken (Imperial square
shop~1ng center) for a variance of 58 parking spaces to
perm~t a shopping center with 293 parking spaces at 1440-
1494 S Belcher Rd, See 24-29-15, M&B 41.02, ~1.03, 41.04,
and 41.05, zoned CC (commercial center) an6 CG (general
commercial). V 92-35
In a letter dated April 1, 1993, Mr, Stephen Fowler, architect
representin9 the applicant, requested a one year time extension due
to a delay 1n the Food Lion project.
Granting of a parking variance in this case, heard on June 25, 1992,
was conditioned upon the applicant obtaining the requisite building
permit within one year of certification of the amended site plan.
Staff is to investigate the status of the project.
Ms. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 13,
1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II, Public Hearings
Item A - (Continued fl-om 3/25/93 & 4/8/93) Dan's Island
1600 Condo Assoc, Inc for a variance to allow a structure,
consisting of a deck and steps, 86ft seaward of the
coastal construction control line at 1650 Gulf Blvd, Dan's
Island on Sand Key Condo f zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family
Residential), OSjR (Open Space/Recreation), and AL/C
(Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 93-18
DCAB Minutes
1
04/22/93
~j
senior Planner Glatthorn explained this application has been
withdrawn as a result of Declaratory Ruling 93-9 J issued by the
Director of Planning and Development and the Development Code
Administrator. It was determined dune crossovers not exceeding four
feet in width, for which DNR permits are obtained, shall not be
subject to rear yard or Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL)
setback requirements. She stated permits have already been issued
for this construction.
1. city of Clearwater for variances of (1) 14 ft to allow
a structure 11 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is
required; and (2) 20 ft to allow a lot width of 50 it where
70 ft is required at 900 Plaza st, Plaza Park Sub, Blk G,
Lot 1, zoned RM 12 (Multi-Family Residential). V 93-25
Senior
Housing
Housing
housing
build a
similar
Planner Glatthorn explained the Clearwater Neighborhood
Services, in partnership with the Challenge 2000 Inf ill
Program and the city of Clearwater, construct affordable
for low to moderate income families. This proposal is to
single-family house on a non-conforming, vacant corner lot,
to the others in this North Greenwood neighborhood.
Jerry Spilatro, of Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, said 14
such houses have been built and this is only the second time
variances have been needed. He described other construction in the
area and said he hopes more people will begin to select lots in this
neighborhood,
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson
moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in
section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because,
the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship
created subject to the following conditions: 1) the variance is
based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by
the applicants, including maps, plans, surveys and other documents
submitted in support of the applicants' request for a variance.
Deviation from any of the above documents subm1tted in support of the
request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to
the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result
in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) all requisite
building permits shall be obtained within one year from the date of
this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
2. Sunset Associates (Joel n' Jerry) for a variance of 10 ft to
allow 0 ft landscape buffer where 10 ft is required at 23654
U.s. 19, Sec 6-29-16, M&Bs 41.01, 41,02, 41,04, 41.05 and 41.06
together with Blackburn Sub, parts of Lots 1 and 12, and vacated
street, zoned CC (Commercial Center). V 93-26
It was indicated this application has been revised and will need to
be readvertised.
Ms. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 13,
1993. The motion was duly seconded nnd carried unanimously.
OCAB Minutes
2
04/22/93
"
I
''-.'"
............
3. Marc E. Smith for variances (1) of 3.5 ft and 2.0 ft to
allow a fence 6.0 it in height where 2.5 it and 4.0 feet is
permitted; (2) of 3 ft to allow a fence 0 ft from property
line where 3 ft is required; (3) to allow zero landscaping
where a landscape plan is required; and (4) to allow no
gate or opening where required; all to allow a wooden
privacy fence on the north property line at 2098 PoWderhorn
Dr, Walden Woods, Lot 63, zoned RS 8 (single Family
Residential). V 93-27
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating
the applicant wishes to construct a six-foot wooden privacy fence
along the north property line of his corner lot to provide a safe
place for his children to play and to protect the property from
automobile accidents occurring on Union street. She stated staff met
with the applicant at the site and the fence plan was amended to
eliminate the need for variances #la (of 3.5 ft), #2 and #4.
Marc E. smith, the owner/applicant, stated he is willing to install
the required landscaping along the fence, if necessary. He submitted
two photographs of a fence similar to the style proposed.
Discussion ensued regarding what was originally proposed and the
fence location now being requested.
Concern was expressed regarding a siX-foot fence in close proximity
to union street. It was indicated the fence will not create a
traffic hazard because it will be set back far enough that it will
not obstruct the view of oncoming traffic on the corner of Powderhorn
Drive and Union street.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson
moved to grant #lb, a variance of 2.0 ft to allow a fence 6.0 feet in
height because the applicant has substantially met all of the
standards for approval as listed in section 45.24 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 property subject to the fol-
lowing conditions: 1) the variance is based on the application for
a variance and documents submitted by the applicants, including maps,
plans, surveys and other documents submitted in support of the
applicants' request for a variance, Deviation from any of the above
documents submitted in support of the request for a variance
regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical
structure located on the site, will result in this variance being
null and of no effect; 2) the requisite fence permit shall be
obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being tuken, Mses.
Martin and \~hi tney, Messrs. Pliska and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Gans
voted IInayll. Motion carried.
DCAB Minutes
3
04/22/93
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved
---" to deny variance #3 as requested because the applicant has not
demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed
in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there is no
condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship
was shown and the granting of the variance would violate the general
spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in sections
35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimous-
ly.
\, .'
.....,r..
4. Thomas A. and Frances R. Caleca for variances of (1) 3
ft to allow a dock 33 ft in width where 30 ft is permitted;
and (2) 3 ft to allow a dock 38.5 ft in length where 35.5
ft is permitted at 625 Snug Island, Island Estates of
Clearwater, Unit 7A, Lot 9, zoned RS 6 (Single Family
Residential) and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 93-28
senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating
the applicant wishes to enlarge an existing dock to accommodate a
larger boat by moving the existing catwalk and extending the roof.
staff feels the request appears to be supported by the standards for
approval.
Larry Fisk, marine contractor representing the applicant, presented
copies of a survey of the area. The proposal is to widen the boat
slip and convert it into a wet slip by moving the existing catwalk
five feet to the north and eliminating the existing cradle lift to
accommodate a larger boat which the applicant has purchased.
Clarification of the plan was requested and it was indicated the site
plan was drawn upside down with the "northll arrow pointing to the
south.
In response to a question, Mr. Fisk indicated the new boat is
currently docked outside the slip, between the dock and the tie poles
to the south. It is desirable to dock the boat out of the sun. The
dock will not extend any further to the east. Variance #2 is to
permit the additional length of the boat.
Dr. Thomas Caleca, the owner/applicant, stated he purchased the
property two years ago and has not modified the dock. The dock will
not extend any further into the navigable waterway and will not
obstruct access or traffic flow. He stated he would be happy to
leave the roof as it is; however, it is required by roof construction
codes to cover the catwalk. It will be the same height as what is
existing.
Two citizens 1 representing 361 Harbor Passage, which is directly
across the waterway from the subject property, spoke in opposition to
the application. Concerns were expressed the proposal will adversely
affect the use of the dock at 361 Harbor Passage, increase the
congestion, cause a navigation traffic hazard and affect property
values.
DCAB Minutes
4
04/22/93
t....,
( ,
\._.....'
\
, '
.........
Two citizens, representing 351 Harbor Passage/ the adjacent property
to the north, also objected to the proposal. Extending the dock to
the north will increase the congestion in the narrow northern end of
the waterway and further obstruct his view of the water. The owner
of 351 Harbor Passage presented material specifications of the
applicant's new boat, saying it is almost 40 feet long and will
extend into the waterway an additional eight to ten feet. He
presented photographs of the area showing the narrow width and
congestion of that area of the waterway. He felt the applicant has
create~ a self-imposed hardship by buying a larger boat.
Three letters were submitted in opposition to the application.
Mr. Fisk presented an aerial view of the site and it was noted the
dock at 351 Harbor Passage encroaches across the extended property
line onto the applicant's property.
Dr. Caleca responded to the neighbors' concerns. He explained the
new boat will only extend 3 feet outside the dock and will not pose
any navigational hazard. Removing the cradle lift and having the low
profile of the new boat in the wet slip will improve the view of the
neighbor to the north. He said having a boat this nice enhances
surrounding property values.
Dr. Caleca felt it is important to have good relations with his
neighbors and said the current request received the approval of both
adjacent neighbors. He anticipated objection from the neighbor to
the south if any attempts were made to extend the dock in that
direction.
Discussion ensued with regard to the application.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin
moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicant has
not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as
listed in section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there is
no 'condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship
was shown; the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant and the
variances are not the minimum. The motion was duly seconded and upon
the vote being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Gans and
Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko voted "nay". Motion carried.
III. Approval of Minutes of April 8, 1993
Ms. l\lhitney moved to approve the minutes of April 8, 1993, in
accordance with copies submitted to eRch board member in writing.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimOUSly.
IV. Board and Scaff Discussion
Questions were raised regarding construction on the south side of
Druid Road and whether or not it is for Dr. Sa 1 isbury (V 93-65,
2/25/93). Concern was expressed that parking requirements be met.
Staff will investigate.
DCAB Minutes
5
04/22/93
,>
i
} ,
~
(-/
,
'-"
)
It was noted that several large liveaboard boats pulled out of the
area after the denial of the King Cole Motel request (V 92-69,
2/11/93). It was indicated this decision is being appealed.
A question was raised r8garding whether or not a Board member, having
declared a conflict of interest in a particular case, is required to
leave the room during the hearing of the case. Assistant city
Attorney Lance stated there is no rule to this effect; however" it is
recommended the Board member leave the room to avoid any appearance
of influencing the Board. Concern was expressed that requiring an
applicant's repreBentative to leave the room .would place the
applicant at a disadvantage if consultation becomes necessary. It
was felt a conscientious effort should be made' to have'someone other
than a Board member represent an applicant whenever possible.
v. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m.
, /yf~-6.
1..
Chairman
ATTEST:
DCAB Minutes
6
04/22/93