06/14/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
June 14, 1990
Members present:
John W. Homer, Chairman
Thomas J. Graham, Vice-Chairman
Kemper Merriam
Alex Plisko
Emma C. Whitney
Also present:
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official
Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision
of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two (2) weeks. He noted that Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision
of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 5/10/90) Mobil Oil Corporation for a variance of 22 ft to permit canopy (fascia) 3 ft from a street right-of-way at 1601 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Longview Sub, Lots
1 & 2, zoned CG (general commercial). V 90-67
The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the item was continued in order for staff to re-evaluate the code interpretation regarding canopies (fascias).
Angela Adams, attorney representing the applicant, stated the new canopy and pump islands will be located behind the setback line. The proposed canopy will not encroach any further
than the present one. The curb cut off Lake Avenue closest to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard will be eliminated and landscaping provided. She indicated the site will be brought into conformance
with code and she said the applicant wishes only to replace what is currently there.
In response to a question, it was indicated the extension of the canopy would provide protection from the weather for customer traffic and also provide for adequate lighting of the
area at night.
Discussion ensued concerning whether or not the variance is minimal, whether a hardship exists and the fact this request causes the extension of an existing non-conformity.
Mr. Graham moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the
Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, it is not a minimum variance and it would violate the general
spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Section 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied.
Item B - (continued from 4/26/90 and 5/24/90) Igor and Denise Vinner for variances 1) of 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to
which property is not addressed and 2) to permit zero landscaping on right-of-way side of fence at 11 Bayview Ave, Sec 16-29-16, M&Bs 22.02 and 22.07, zoned RMH (mobile home park).
V 90-54
The Planning Manager stated the item had been continued due to difficulty of the applicant in obtaining a survey. It had been indicated at the last meeting staff could assist in determining
the right-of-way lines for the applicant. Aerial photographs of the property indicate there appears to be room for landscaping between the street and the fence.
Discussion ensued in regard to staff providing surveys for future applicants and the Planning Manager indicated this was not staff's intent.
Concern was expressed in granting this variance without a survey.
Mr. Graham made a motion to continue this item to the end of the meeting since the applicant was not present at this time. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
As the applicant was still not present at the end of the meeting and a survey had not been obtained, Mr. Plisko moved to deny the variances as requested. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Request denied.
ITEM #1 - Philip and Barbara J. Las Cola for a variance of 20 ft to permit storage shed 5 ft from a street right-of-way (Druid Rd.) at 2057 Druid Rd, Druid Park, Blk 1, Lot 20, zoned
RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-86
The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the variance is to permit an illegally erected storage shed to remain.
Philip LasCola stated he was unaware of the need for the shed to be permitted. He indicated the shed would allow for the storage of gas powered equipment that he does not wish to store
in his garage because of safety concerns. Due to the heavy landscaping and trees on the lot, he feels the shed is in the most feasible location.
In response to a question, Mr. LasCola indicated he keeps one car in his two-car garage.
One letter in objection was submitted for the record.
Concern was expressed in regard to erecting sheds in front setbacks and it was indicated most of the sheds on Druid Road are located behind fences.
It was felt the storing of gas powered equipment in the garage would not cause a safety hazard and there discussion in regard to relocating the shed to another location.
Mr. Graham moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the
Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, the hardship was caused by the applicant, it will be materially
detrimental or injurious to other property or the neighborhood and it would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Section 131.005 and 131.006.
The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Merriam, Graham and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied.
ITEM #2 - Jack E. and Erin L. Russell III for a variance of 3 ft to permit screen room addition 7 ft from a rear property line at 2197 Springrain Circle, Springlake of Clearwater, Lot
37, zoned RPD 7.6 (residential planned development). V 90-87
The Planning Official stated staff recommends continuation of this item to June 28, 1990, until an interpretation of the City Commission's policy regarding enclosures in residential
planned development (RPD) projects can be made.
Mr. Merriam moved to continue this item to June 28, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #3 - Robert J. and Wilma A. Radford for a variance of 4 ft to permit pool enclosure 3 ft from a rear property line at 2440 Parkstream Ave, Countrypark Sub, Blk A, Lot 6, zoned
RS-6 (single family residential). V 90-88
The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the pool/spa was originally constructed with the house and the rear yard is currently fenced.
Robert Radford stated the house was built in 1986 with the pool and spa constructed 8 feet from the property line. He indicated he was unaware of the setback requirement when he purchased
the home. The variance is being requested to provide safe access area around the pool/spa. He feels the property is unique due a vacated right-of-way behind the property.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, it is the minimum necessary
to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the existing location of the pool/spa and it backs up to a vacated right-of-way, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained
within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
ITEM #4 - American Diversified Capital Corporation for a variance of 22 ft in height to allow homes up to 47 ft in height at 1611 Gulf Blvd., Sec 30-29-15, M&Bs 11.01, 12.01 & 12.03,
zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential) per RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-89
The applicant requested this item be continued.
Robert Meese, member of condominium board of directors, requested the item be continued until the board has had an opportunity to discuss their concerns.
Mr. Plisko moved to continue the item to the meeting of July 26, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #5 - Stanislaw and Kazimiera Budzinski for a variance of one parking space to permit conversion of a 375 sq ft motel room to fast food use (ice cream store) at 201 Gulfview Blvd,
Lloyd-White-Skinner, Lots 48-52 & 98, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-90
The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating there has been a recent parking variance granted on this property for Britt's Restaurant. This is the third request
for conversion of a ground floor motel unit to retail use on this site. Public parking is available nearby.
Stan Budzinski stated all the ground floor units are being converted to retail use which will consist of a gift shop, restaurant and ice cream shop.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the request was based primarily on financial gain and the granting of the variance setting a precedent for other motel owners.
Mr. Merriam moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the
Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, it is not a minimum variance, it is based primarily upon the desire
of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property and the applicant already has reasonable use of the property. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote
being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Merriam, Plisko and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Graham voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied.
The Assistant City Attorney left the meeting at 2:15 p.m.
ITEM #6 - Steve and Filitsa Panos for a variance to permit repair of dock where City has found replacement of more than 50% of dock required (nonconforming dock) where dock will not
conform to width, length and positioning requirements at 109 Devon Dr,. Replat of Bayside, Lot 52, zoned RS-8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-91
The Planning Manager explained the application stating the request is to permit repair of a non-conforming dock requiring more than 50 percent to be repaired. He stated the Building
Official requested removal of the dock on December 22, 1989 due to its dangerous state of disrepair. Staff further advised the dock could be repaired only to the extent that would bring
it into conformance with code. A permit was issued without knowledge of the action by the Building Official and a stop work order was issued but only after decking and stringers had
been removed.
Margot Pequignot, attorney representing the applicant, stated this dock has been a highly contested issue contributing to neighborhood disputes. She indicated the dock was built before
permits were needed. The applicant did obtain County and City permits. The lot is pie shaped with a very small waterfront lot width and the applicant wishes only to rebuilt the original
dock.
Two citizens spoke in opposition questioning the percentage of dock replacement, the survey used in the application and the year the dock was
built. They expressed concerns due to site constraints, riparian encroachment, tax assessment and insurance liability. One petition with 15 signatures and 2 letters in opposition were
submitted for the record.
In rebuttal, Ms. Pequignot stated the neighbors are concerned primarily with financial return. She indicated liability would not be a concern due to the positioning of the dock. She
said there are other docks on Devon Drive that are non-conforming.
Discussion ensued in regard to the shape of the lot, the dock extending into the adjoining properties and the dock being in existence for many years.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, the particular physical
surroundings and shape of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied and it is the minimum necessary
to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the shape of the lot, subject to the conditions that the applicant shall obtain an independent survey, acceptable to the City Attorney
to reconstruct the dock within the extended property line of the subject property, the reconstructed dock shall not extend further than 28.5 feet from the seawall into Clearwater Harbor,
tie poles and davits shall not be established on the dock to allow a boat to hang onto the two properties on either side of the subject property and that a building permit be obtained
within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Merrian, Graham and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mrs. Whitney and
Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted.
The Board recessed from 3:20 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.
ITEM #7 - John T. Blakely for variances of 1) 51.5 ft to allow dock length of 89 ft, and 2) 12 ft to permit dock 8 ft from an extended side property line, at 191 Devon Dr, Replat of
Bayside, Lot 32 & part of Lot 33, zoned RS-8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-92
The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the request would allow for an addition to an existing dock.
John Blakely indicated his adjacent neighbors did not object to the request. He indicated there has been silting due to the unique location of his property on the curve of a finger.
He submitted photographs showing the waterway. He indicated a boat cradle lift had been recommended but it is necessary to extend the dock for more water depth.
Robert Moore, representing the applicant, stated the dock was built before the present code on the property line. To be more in compliance with the code, part of the dock would be
eliminated. He also felt the last tie pole could probably be removed.
In response to a question, it was indicated, if the cradle lift ran perpendicular to the existing dock, the inboard portion of the cradle would hit the ground before putting a boat
on it.
One letter of objection was submitted for the record. Mr. Blakely said he was not aware of this objection.
Discussion ensued in regard to the cradle boat lift and it was indicated this type lift has less overhead view obstructing devices than other lifts.
Concern was expressed in regard to whether or not a covered boat house would obstruct the view and it was felt it would not.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant the variances as requested (he pointed out the variance that is being granted is a 25 foot extension
onto the existing dock because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, they arise from a condition
which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of the lot, subject
to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
ITEM #8 - Branch Sunset Associates, Ltd (Blockbuster Video) for variances of 1) 24 sq ft business identification signage to permit a total of 72 sq ft, and 2) one business identification
sign to permit two such signs, at 1856 U.S.19 N, Blackburn Sub, part of Lots 1 & 12 AND Sec 6-29-16, M&Bs 41.02, 41.04, 41.05 & 41.06, zoned CC (commercial center). V 90-93
The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating three signs are being proposed to be placed on the canopy.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated the applicant wishes identification from Sunset Point Road and U.S. 19. He indicated they are willing to reduce the window signage
by two-thirds. He said the proposed signage would provide for ingress/egress traffic control at this location.
In response to questions, Mr. Pressman indicated the business's logo is on the north side of the building and that the applicant did not plan to advertise on the pole sign.
It was indicated there was not a sight problem in identifying the business and concern was expessed in regard to the granting of this request setting a precedent.
Mr. Plisko moved to deny the variances as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the
Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant and they would
violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied.
II. Minutes
Ms. Whitney requested the minutes of May 10, 1990 regarding Item A (Dean Young's request for a time extension) be amended as she did not cast the dissenting vote. The minutes should
have reflected Mr. Merriam voting in opposition.
Mr. Plisko moved to approve the minutes of May 24, 1990, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing and the minutes of May 10, 1990 as amended. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Board Comments
Discussion ensued regarding parking requirements when there is a change of use on a property, especially on the beach.
There was discussion concerning the Planning Department's comment sheets reflecting their recommendation for approval or denial. As the Board does not always go along with staff,
they indicated a preference of not having an obvious recommendation in the report. The Planning Manager indicated he would follow up on this request.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Chairman
Attest:
Assistant City Clerk