Loading...
07/11/1991 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD July 11, 1991 Members present: Thomas J. Graham, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman John W. Homer Alex Plisko Absent: Emma C. Whitney - Excused Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner 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 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 Don Curtis Pierson six months time extension to 1/13/92 for variances of 1) 1,753 sq ft to allow construction of a triplex on a 8,247 sq ft lot; 2) 5 ft to allow construction of a triplex on a lot 95 ft wide; and 3) 13 ft to permit construction of a triplex on a lot 87 ft deep, at 7 Heilwood st, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, Blk 6, Lot 3 and part of Lot 2, zoned RM-20 per RM-12 (multiple Family residential). V 90-40 Mr. Homer moved to grant a six month time extension to January 13, 1992 in which to obtain a building permit. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the time extension request being requested as a result of the storm on April 25, 1991, and past variance requests on the subject property. Mr. Pierson was not in attendance to present the request. It was noted that Board policy did not require the applicant to be present for the first six month time extension request. However, Attorney George Greer, being present for another case, said he would speak in Mr. Pierson's behalf as he had represented him in the subject request. Mr. Greer said he was not aware of this request and said the subject variance was granted to legitimize the property as a building lot. Two of the members were not on the board when this request was granted and they wished more background on this case. Mr. Greer said the applicant would be coming before the Board sometime in August for another variance to increase the footprint. Upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Homer and Graham voted "aye;" Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "nay." Motion failed due to a tie vote. Mr. Plisko moved to continue the request for a time extension to allow Mr. Pierson to represent the subject variance request when he addresses the Board in August to request another variance. The motion was duly seconded. The Assistant City Attorney pointed out the subject variance cannot be revoked. Concern was expressed regarding whether or not the Board was being consistent regarding requests for time extensions. It was felt this case is unique. Upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Homer, Plisko, Gans and Graham voted "aye." Motion carried. Extension request continued. II. Public Hearings 1. Nigel and Rosanne E Mansell for variance of 32 ft to permit 82 ft wide dock at 802 and 820 West Druid Rd, Harbor Oaks Sub, Lots C, D, E, and part of Lot B, zoned RS 2 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 91-38 Mr. Plisko declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case. Sandy Glatthorn, the Planning Official, explained the application in detail stating Mr. Mansell, the owner of the subject properties, wishes to remove two existing docks and replace them with one large dock to be shared by both parcels. The applicant has submitted an application with the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority. The City's Harbormaster has determined the proposed dock will not create a navigational hazard or obstruction. Robert Moore, agent for Ress Marine representing the owner, requested Staff's narrative be corrected to reflect a 15,000 pound and a 60,000 pound boat hoist to correspond with the diagram contained in the County dock application. He expressed concern if the state negotiated a change for less than the 32 foot variance requested he would have to come back to the Board. It was indicated he would not if they negotiated less. In response to questions, Mr. Moore indicated the new dock will be placed close to the center of the property line between the two properties, the 27 foot height of the boat house is necessary for overhead lift clearance, there is not sufficient water along the applicant's property to use a cradle lift and the dock will be placed in front of the 45 foot bell tower. Mr. Moore presented an aerial photograph of the area and a photograph of the boat. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn indicated the Aquatic Lands Coastal district has no height restrictions. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the dock, the unique nature of the subject property due to the substantial waterfront distance which is unusual in the city, the historical nature of the house and its value to the Harbor Oaks area. The Board expressed concern regarding whether or not the variance request is the minimum required and questioned whether the dock could be placed parallel to the seawall. Mr. Moore indicated the boat is too long to dock perpendicular to the seawall because of sandbars in the area. He said the adjacent property owners have no objection to the proposed dock. Mr. Homer stated for the record that due to existing conditions, this is the minimum necessary. 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 variance arises from conditions which are unique to the property; the shallow water, location of the sand bars and the length of the vessel, and was not caused by the owner or applicant, the particular physical surroundings or topographical conditions of the underwater property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) the dock and a maximum of two slips are to be utilized exclusively for the applicant and the applicant's guests 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 upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Graham, Homer and Gans voted "aye". Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried. Request granted. 2. Anne E Unger and David R Billing for variance of 4 ft 3 in to permit roof height of 29 ft 3 in at 227 Bayside Dr, Bayside Sub #4, Unit A, Blk 2, part of Lots D and E, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-39 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a second floor addition with a pitched roof. She indicated this is a second-story addition to an existing house. David Billing, owner and applicant, stated he wishes to renovate the house for use as his primary residence. Extensive renovations are required to add living space and provide clearance to meet FEMA codes. He indicated the height was minimized as much as possible by using a low roof pitch and will match the newer structures in the area. In response to questions, Mr. Billing indicated he intends to gut the entire first floor, use as a garage and build the second floor on the existing foundation. The new structure will be similar in height to the house across the street. Discussion ensued regarding the height bonus rule in relation to the setbacks. Ms. Glatthorn indicated the applicant is not providing the additional setbacks required to qualify for a height bonus. 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by FEMA requirements in the alteration of an existing house subject to the following condition: 1) 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. 3. Russell J and Jamie J Latimer for variance of 5 ft to permit garage addition 20 ft from a street right-of-way at 1857 Venetian Point Dr, Venetian Point Sub, Blk A, Lot 26, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-40 The Planning Official stated the applicant wishes to construct an enclosed garage to replace a carport which was destroyed by a storm. The proposed garage will be the same type used in surrounding homes. Jamie Latimer, owner and applicant, indicated she wishes to store art work and relocate her washer and dryer into the new garage and feels the variance is the minimum necessary. Ms. Latimer indicated she is experiencing plumbing problems due to the existing location of the washer and dryer and is lacking storage space for lawn equipment. Concern was expressed regarding the garage extending beyond the house making it non-conforming. It was felt the drawings did not accurately depict the appearance of the exterior of the house if the variance was granted. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the variance is the minimum necessary. It was indicated the applicant should be given the opportunity to come back with more information and drawings to support the request. Ms. Latimer requested a continuance to provide architectural drawings of the proposed garage on the subject property. Mr. Homer moved to continue the request to the meeting of July 25, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued. 4. Charles and Ypapanti Alexiou/Anthony Alexiou (Penguin Palace) for variances of (1) 52.14 ft to permit deck seaward of coastal construction control line; (2) 15 ft to permit deck zero ft from a street right-of-way; (3) 7.65 ft to permit deck 7.35 ft from a rear property line; and (4) 7 parking spaces to permit a 1,338 sq ft deck at 7 Rockaway St, Miller's Replat, Lots 2 and 3, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 91-41 The Planning Official explained the application stating the variances are being requested to "legitimize" an illegally constructed deck as well as to permit the expansion of the deck in a southerly direction. The Traffic Engineer indicated in a memo dated June 20, 1991, "Any variance of required parking spaces on Clearwater Beach only adds to the overall beach parking problem." Mr. George Greer, attorney representing the current tenants, gave a brief history of the subject property stating a former owner built the illegal deck. The current owner bought the property in 1988. Mr. Greer presented a copy of a letter dated November 2, 1987 from the City of Clearwater Building Department to Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR) indicating there were no objections to issuing a permit for work beyond the Coastal Control Line. Mr. Greer indicated there is additional parking near the establishment and a large majority of the patrons are walk-ins from the beach. He stated the DNR recommended extending the deck to handle sand piling due to the wind currents causing a swirling action. He said the deck will be sealed off keeping people from going underneath. Discussion ensued regarding an additional four parking spaces being required for the existing structure and three additional for the proposed deck extension. Two citizens spoke in support of the application stating they frequent the establishment and it is an asset to the community. Seventy-eight letters in support were submitted for the record. Harry Cline, Attorney representing the Clearwater Beach Hotel, spoke in opposition to any expansion of the deck, stating he felt the expansion would have an adverse impact on the hotel's older citizenry, would impair the value of the hotel property, was economically driven and was not the minimum. He did not oppose "legitimatizing" the existing structure. Mr. Greer indicated there is broad community support and the Police Department supports extending the deck for security reasons. He stated the side of the hotel facing the deck is a block wall with small windows and would not be adversely affected. In response to a question, Mr. Greer indicated the entire deck would be reconstructed. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variances #1 and #2 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 were not caused by the owner or applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the previous operator or owner subject to the following conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain the requisite alcoholic beverage separation distance variance from the City Commission and 2) the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits within nine (9) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. 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 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 variance is not the minimum and the request for the variance is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant a variance of four parking spaces for an 810 square foot deck 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, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the previous operator or owner subject to the following conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain the requisite alcoholic beverage separation distance variance from the City Commission and 2) the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits within nine (9) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Greer addressed the Board requesting they reconsider their previous motions due to discrepancies in the surveys causing the figures on the application to be incorrect. He expressed concern the variances granted would not be enough to allow the existing deck. Mr. Homer moved to reconsider the motion for variances #1, #2 and #4. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. The motion for denial of variance #3 was not reconsidered. Mr. Gans moved to continue variances #1, #2 and #4 to the meeting of August 8, 1991 to be readvertised. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued. The meeting recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:47 p.m. 5. City of Clearwater (Beach Diner) for variance of 8 parking spaces to permit a 656 sq ft deck addition at 56 Causeway Blvd, City Park Sub, part of Lots 7, 8, and 9, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 91-42 Staff requested this item be continued as the related conditional use application has been continued to July 16, 1991. Mr. Homer moved to continue the request to the meeting of July 25, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued. 6. Bruce W Lee for variances of (1) 15 ft 3 in to permit garage addition 9 ft 9 in from a street right-of-way (Engman St); (2) 10 ft 5 in to permit garage addition 14 ft 7 in from a street right- of-way (Sunset Dr); and (3) 30 ft to permit construction on a lot 50 ft deep at 300 Engman St, Enghurst First Add, Lot 54, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-43 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a two-car garage masonry structure with a flat roof to be attached to the existing house. The request stems from a situation arising from a substandard lot with a steep embankment to the bay. There is an existing carport attached to the building. David E. Albritton, General Contractor representing the applicant, said the location was selected for the garage due to the narrow depth of the lot and the steep hill on the west. The structure will be the minimum depth and width required for two cars and will follow the configuration of the house. In response to questions, Mr. Albritton indicated moving the garage further back on the lot would still require a variance and he did not wish to hinder access into the courtyard. One letter in support of the application was submitted for the record. 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, the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property involved would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if the strict interpretation of the code were to be applied and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the substandard lot size and the slope of the lot to the bay, subject to the following conditions: 1) the garage addition shall be constructed as indicated on the site plan 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. 7. Joseph and Lucy C Caraco, Franco and Maria Iocolano, Anthony and Louise Linares (Wacki Wok) for variance of 2 parking spaces to permit conversion of rental (retail) use to fast food use at 432 Poinsettia Ave, #3, Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk A, Lot 41, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 91-44 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the Wacki Wok is proposing a 580 square foot addition. She said being located in Beach Commercial qualifies for a 50 percent reduction of the parking requirements. The Traffic Engineer stated in a memo dated June 20, 1991, "Any variance of required parking spaces on Clearwater Beach only adds to the overall beach parking problem." Discussion ensued regarding whether or not parking variances should be granted on the basis of close proximity to other parking lots. It was felt this was not consistent with past policy. Gary Kloch, applicant and operator, indicated his restaurant presently offers only carry-out and delivery. He hopes to provide tables and chairs for customer seating and will continue his delivery service. In response to questions, Mr. Kloch indicated he does not sell alcoholic beverages, does not plan to have outdoor seating and the car parked in front of his establishment is used for delivery. A petition with forty-two names in support of the application was submitted for the record. Discussion ensued regarding the 50 percent reduction in parking requirements on Clearwater Beach and this request being the minimum required. 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) there shall be no outdoor seating of any kind on the site; 2) the applicant shall be allowed to request an alcoholic beverage license only if 51% or more of non-alcoholic sales take place; 3) this variance shall only run with this establishment and 4) the requisite occupational license shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. III. Board and Staff Comments Discussion ensued regarding the importance of having accurate site plans. Staff was requested to investigate cones being used to reserve parking spaces in street rights-of-way and a canopy being placed in the setback on the west side of Bill Brown's Chicken at Missouri and Drew. IV. Minutes Approval of 6/13/91 Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of June 13, 1991, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Approved as submitted. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Chairman ATTEST: Assistant City Clerk