06/13/1991 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
June 13, 1991
Members present:
Thomas J. Graham, Chairman
Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman
John W. Homer
Alex Plisko
Emma C. Whitney
Absent:
None
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 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 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 5/23/91) Francis and Alice Smith for variances of (1) 38 parking spaces to permit 10 parking spaces, and (2) 10 seats to permit 40 seats at 1215 N Greenwood
Ave, Greenwood Park No 2, Blk E, Lots 32-33, zoned CNG (North Greenwood Commercial). V 91-26
Scott Shuford, the Planning Manager, explained the application in detail stating the applicant modified his request thus eliminating the need for a variance of 10 seats. The property
was developed as a dance hall in 1981 and met the parking requirements at that time. The use has been discontinued for a period of more than one year. The Planning Manager stated there
was an unusual amount of community support for this request evident in hearings before the Planning and Zoning Board which approved the request subject to an 18-month trial period.
However, the Traffic Engineer noted there have been many problems with this type of operation in many parts of Clearwater. The Planning Manager indicated the 18-month trial period was
sufficient time for the Board to note any parking problems, the effect of any new public parking lots in the area and reevaluate the situation. He further stated the applicant has indicated
his understanding and acceptance of the trial period.
A question was raised regarding whether or not the existing parking spaces were legal and concern was expressed regarding the absence of handicapped parking.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford stated the "Penny for Pinellas" program was to be enacted within 1 1/2 years and that $300,000 was earmarked for improvements to the commercial
district. Sidewalks and landscaping have been installed by the City and location of property for public parking lots is being expedited by the Planning and Development Department with
the parking lots due to be completed within approximately six to nine months.
Jon Feazell, business operator, stated he has been active in the Greenwood community for over eight years in various capacities. He has been meeting with local business owners who have
agreed to allow parking in their lots in the evenings. The parking spaces are legal size spaces and his business has more parking space than some larger businesses in the area. Most
of his business is from walk-in clientele. The problems in the area are from young people loitering, not from adult car traffic.
Discussion ensued concerning the 18-month trial period condition. Mr. Feazell indicated he did not have a problem with the trial period. Mr. Shuford indicated the Planning and Zoning
Board's concern was with the potential drain on Police resources resulting from having an alcoholic beverage facility in the area, not from parking problems.
In response to a question, Mr. Feazell stated the Blue Fountain has been closed since Super Bowl week.
Regarding potential parking spaces available to him, Mr. Feazell mentioned a letter of confirmation from a nearby beauty shop granting him permission to use this property for parking.
Mr. Feazell is looking to buy this property in the future, pave the parking lot and combine it with his lot, which would provide approximately ten or more parking spaces.
In response to a question, Mr. Feazell indicated he would sell only beer and wine.
A question was raised regarding the gathering of the large number of kids across the street from the establishment. Mr. Feazell indicated the young people were loitering and the local
businesses were experiencing problems as a result.
Mr. Feazell indicated he wishes to establish a positive influence in the area and feels his business will be an asset to the community.
Discussion ensued in regard to this being a unique situation and approving the variance would benefit the City and the community.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #1 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 was 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 following conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain the
required separation distance variance from the City Commission; 2) the applicant shall provide assistance to the staff in identifying available properties for the installation of public
parking facilities; 3) approval of this variance shall be for an 18-month trial period, after which time the request shall be re-examined by the Board to determine if the anticipated
neighborhood orientation of the facility has changed and if parking problems have developed as a result (This condition is agreeable to the applicant.); and
4) the applicant shall obtain an occupational license within six months of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
1. Victor P and Ann R Wozniak for variances of (1) 2 ft 2 in to permit height of 27 ft 2 in; (2) 1 ft 2 in to permit ridge of roof 5 ft 2 in above mid-point at 1623 Windsor Place, Windsor
Woods II, Lot 4, zoned RS 6 (single family residential). V 91-27
The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the style of the house requires a high roof pitch. The proposed home is in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
He indicated an amendment to the code regarding height regulations for single-family residential districts to increase the overall height limit to 30 feet is being considered.
In response to a question, the Planning Manager indicated this amendment would bring the applicant's request into conformity.
Victor Wozniak, owner, stated he was introduced to his property location by the owner of the lot next door. Mr. Wozniak stated it is difficult to build this style of home with the current
height restrictions without affecting the aesthetics of the Country Victorian style. He indicated his neighbor was granted a similar variance and felt confident his request would also
be granted.
In response to a question, Mr. Wozniak indicated he did not buy the lot conditioned upon approval of this variance. He bought the lot because of its location and would like to keep
the Victorian style of house.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko 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 was not caused by the
applicant; and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by trying to place this style of house within the Code of the City of Clearwater subject to the
following condition: 1) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request granted.
2. Nigel and Rosanne Mansell for variances of (1) 13 ft to permit addition 2 ft from a side property line; (2) 23 ft to permit addition 2 ft from a rear property line; (3) 2 ft 10 in
to permit roof height of 27 ft 10 in height; (4) 1 ft to permit ridge 5 ft above mid-point height of pitched roof at 802 West Druid Road, Harbor Oaks Corrected, Lot C and part of Lots
B, D and E, zoned RS 2 (single family residential). V 91-28
Mr. Plisko declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case.
The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the existing residence on this property is historically significant. The proposed additions are compatible with what
is typically found in the neighborhood, located some distance from adjoining structures and not readily visible from the street.
Ed Armstrong, representing the owners, stated Richard Churchill, the architect, would be detailing the exact nature of the request. A handout was provided to the Board.
In response to a question, Mr. Armstrong indicated additional variances may be required.
Mr. Churchill indicated he wants to keep the same character and originality of the house. The property is unique due to the limitations of the site. The house originally had no garage.
The owner wants to store two valuable cars, one over the other, and family cars in the new garage areas. The applicant wants to tie together and provide access to remaining portions
of the house.
In response to questions, Mr. Churchill indicated a wall runs all the way down to the bay, there is no apartment over the garage, the garage is two stories high and the windows are for
aesthetics.
Mr. Churchill indicated the sloped roofs would tie the addition into the main house and need to be built to the same height.
In response to questions, Mr. Churchill indicated he did not know the square footage of the house. He said there is a fence, or block wall, around the property, and the garages to this
property are located next door due to the way the property was sold.
One letter in support was submitted for the record.
Discussion ensued regarding the roof height. Mr. Shuford indicated there is a proposed ordinance that, if adopted, would bring the roof height into conformity with the Code. It was
felt the new roof was in conformity with the rest of the structure.
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 was not caused by the
owner or applicant; the particular physical surroundings, and the shape, and topographical 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 variances are the minimum necessary to overcome these hardships subject to the following condition: 1) the requisite
building permit shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Gans
and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried. Request granted.
3. Dean W. Young for variances (1) to permit construction of house, swimming pool and deck up to 85 ft seaward of coastal construction control line (C.C.C.L.); (2) of 7.2 ft to permit
house 36.7 ft high from grade; (3) of 2.25 ft to permit peak of sloped roof 6.25 ft above mid-point at 1176 Mandalay Point, Mandalay Point Sub, Lots 20, 20A, 21, 21A, 22, and 22A, zoned
RS 4 (single family residential). V 91-29
The Planning Manager distributed minutes on previous variances granted for this property on December 20, 1988 and explained the application in detail. The applicant wants to construct
a less seaward, dwelling on the subject property. The new structure will meet all FEMA requirements but will be elevated. Setback approval has been obtained from Department of Natural
Resources (DNR).
Harry Cline, attorney representing the owner did undertake to begin construction but the structure could not be completed. Two-thirds of the property is bisected by the C.C.C.L. The
proposed dwelling is in conformity with the neighbors', and has impact on vistas or protected vegetation.
Discussion ensued regarding the variances being requested and whether or not the variance regarding roof height was necessary.
In response to questions, Mr. Cline indicated a variance of 85 feet was granted, however, the permit obtained from DNR was for only 80 feet. It was indicated the applicant is required
to build according to the State regulations when more restrictive.
Discussion continued in regard to the variance for roof height and it was indicated roof height was determined by the Code to be from grade. The applicant would receive his height bonuses
but would still require this variance.
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, more specifically because the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property, its location and situation
on Clearwater Beach, and the lot itself; subject to the following conditions: 1) all construction shall be in accordance with the condition contained in Permit Number: PI-475 M1 of
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and where such permit is more restrictive than this variance, the restrictions in the permit shall govern; 2) the City's Building Services Division
shall be notified of all site reviews called for in the permit mentioned above on the same timely basis as required by the permit for notification to DNR; and 3) all permits shall be
obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded by Ms. Whitney and carried unanimously. Request granted.
4. City of Clearwater for variance of 150 ft to permit construction of restroom facility seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (C.C.C.L.) at 412 S Gulfview Blvd, Lloyd White
Skinner, Lots 1 thru 32, zoned OS/R (open space/recreation). V 91-30
Mr. Plisko declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case.
The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating this request to permit the construction of a restroom facility was previously heard and approved on February 20, 1990
but expired after six months when the DNR permit had not been received.
Ream Wilson, Director of Parks and Recreation, indicated he has now received the DNR permit to proceed with construction of the restroom building.
In response to questions, Mr. Wilson indicated the exterior design is the same as the other three buildings on the beach. The interior will have five instead of six units due to one
being expanded in size for handicapped use. He further indicated he would like the roof design is to be architecturally compatible with the new Pier 60.
Fred Kummer III, General Manager of the Adams Mark Caribbean Gulf Resort, requested clarification of the exact location. He indicated support of the variance based on the location.
Discussion ensued regarding the design of the roof line. Terry Jennings, City of Clearwater Chief Engineer, indicated it is designed according to DNR requirements and he expressed concern
the roof design favored by the Board would add additional wind loads to the structure. The Board expressed a strong desire for the roof design to be architecturally compatible with
surrounding structures. Mr. Wilson agreed to make every effort to conform with the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force's recommended roof design.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer 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 was not caused by the
applicant in that it will be providing public facilities for the public; subject to the following conditions: 1) the restroom facility shall be maintained in a fully operational and
sanitary condition; 2) the applicant shall fully comply with conditions established in the applicable DNR permit including notices to the City Building Department as applicable; 3)
the facility shall always be used as a public restroom. Should that use change the building shall be removed from the property; 4) the City staff shall make every effort to conform
with the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force's roof design; and 5) the applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit within six months from the date of this public hearing.
The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Gans and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried. Request granted.
5. City of Clearwater for variances (1) of 90 in to permit a 120 in high wall in setback adjacent to address street; (2) to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjacent to waterfront
at 3141 Gulf to Bay Blvd, East 300 ft of Myron A Smith's Bayview Sub, Tract B and Sec 16-29-16, M&B 31.02, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-31
Mr. Plisko declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case.
The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating this request was previously heard and approved on August 23, 1990 but the wall and fence could not be constructed during
the six month period because of phased construction of the improvements to the East Sewage Treatment Plant and the variance expired.
Terry Jennings, the applicant, discussed the problems he has experienced with the treatment plant contractor in trying to get the wall built and introduced an aerial photograph showing
the congestion of the site, noting various details of the project.
Discussion ensued in regard to making staff aware that the Board does not give preferential treatment to the City.
In response to a question, Mr. Jennings indicated he planned to include trees and dense vegetation along the wall as soon as the treatment plant contractor completed work.
Discussion ensued in regard to the issuance of a conditional permit by the City to allow the work to continue. It was indicated the Board did not agree with this.
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 variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and subject to the following
conditions: 1) a 10-foot (120 inches) high decorative screen wall to be placed 30 feet off the new right-of-way line for Gulf to Bay Boulevard, within the front yard setback area (30-inch
maximum height permitted); 2) a six-foot-high chain link fence (on top of a retaining wall, which will be considered to be the new grade, as per the Public Works Department) to be installed
along the east and west sides of the site, within the waterfront yard area; and 3) a densely landscaped buffer shall be provided between the wall and street. The motion was duly seconded.
Upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Gans and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried. Request granted.
II. Staff Comments and Board Comments
Staff was requested to investigate the possibility of several illegal parking lots in Clearwater, and the facility at 606 1/2--608 Mandalay for expanded use without a permit.
Mr. Shuford indicated the Lucia by the "C" variance gives the City more leverage as his operation is greatly affected if parking spaces are not kept open.
Discussion ensued regarding the Mobile station on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard where the decision by the Board to deny the variance was overruled by a Hearing Officer. The station is now gutted
except for three walls and a roof.
Discussion ensued regarding the FEMA meeting at Memorial Civic Center and concern was expressed regarding the interpretation of the FEMA rules by the City and State.
Concern was expressed the signs in the windows of Hidden Treasures T-Shirts on Mandalay and Papaya may be in violation.
The Board discussed the possibility of changing the number of meetings to one per month and/or changing the meeting time to 3:00 p.m. for four or fewer cases.
Discussion ensued regarding the fees charged for variances. Mr. Plisko recommended checking to see what other municipalities charge. Staff will investigate.
Mention was made of the blanket variance for the wall at Druid and Belcher Roads which was never built.
Mr. Homer moved to change the meeting time of the Development Code Adjustment Board to 3:00 p.m. for four or fewer cases and to have staff review the possibility of monthly meetings.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Minutes of May 9, and May 23, 1991.
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of May 9, and May 23, 1991, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
V. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:34 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk