08/08/1991 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
August 8, 1991
Members present:
Thomas J. Graham, Chairman
Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman
John W. Homer
Alex Plisko
Emma C. Whitney
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
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 3:00 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. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 7/11/91) Charles and Ypapanti Alexiou/Anthony Alexiou (Penguin Palace) for variances of (1) 55.5 ft to permit deck seaward of coastal construction control line;
(2) 15 ft to permit deck zero ft from a street right-of-way; and (3) 7 parking spaces to permit a 1,338 sq ft deck at 7 Rockaway St, Miller's Replat, Lot 2 & vacated beach Dr on W and
Lot 3, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial), & OS/R (open space recreation) V 91-41
Planning Manager Scott Shuford explained the application in detail stating the application was continued from July 11, 1991 to allow the applicant an opportunity to correct discrepancies
between the old survey and the application. He indicated the extended walkway on the subject property required Public Works' approval and no alcoholic beverage sales will be allowed
on the walkway. He noted the existing deck was altered in size between 1987 and 1991.
The City's Traffic Engineering Department commented, "Any variance of required parking spaces on Clearwater Beach only adds to the overall beach parking problem."
George Greer, attorney representing the applicant submitted a current survey to the Board stating the deck was built by a former owner. The current owner bought the property in 1988,
received variance approval to allow the deck existing at that time to remain; however, no permits were obtained. In 1989, variances were granted to allow the deck existing at that time
to remain and for a deck expansion; however, the property was sold and the required permits were never obtained. Previous owners and/or tenants have expanded the deck without the necessary
permits. The current owner now wishes to "legitimize" the existing deck. Mr. Greer stated the subject property is adjacent to a large public parking lot which is open until 11:00 p.m.,
three-fourths of the restaurants's business is walk-in trade and granting the variances will have no
negative impact on the adjacent hotel because the deck has existed over five years without problems.
In response to questions, Mr. Greer said the deck already exists and the City's Building Department had indicated in a letter written in 1987 they had no objections to issuing a permit
for work beyond the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) which causes a hardship for the applicant.
Discussion ensued regarding the variances granted on March 23, 1989 and it was determined variances to allow an 852 square foot deck expansion, which included the deck in existence at
that time, were granted.
It was noted seventy-eight letters in support were submitted for the record at the July 11th meeting.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the Clearwater Beach Hotel, spoke in opposition to the application stating the subject property is located near the residential sleeping rooms causing
an adverse impact on the hotel, the request is economically driven and any hardship is self-imposed. He also indicated the site is heavily developed and expressed concern regarding
the traffic flow.
Mr. Greer stated the expanded deck would give the applicant reasonable use of the property, the hotel windows facing the deck are tiny bathroom windows and would not adversely impact
the residents and the parking lot next door would help with the traffic flow.
Discussion ensued regarding the granting of variances to "legitimize" non-conforming structures, the Police Chief's presentation in 1989 indicating extending the deck would discourage
unlawful activity around the deck and the sidewalk leading to the deck being on City property.
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 are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lack of parking
on Clearwater Beach subject to the following conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain the requisite alcoholic beverage separation distance variance from the City Commission and 2) the
requisite building permit shall be obtained within nine (9) months from the date of this public hearing. There was no second.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant variances #1 and #2 as requested and for #3 a variance of five parking spaces to permit a 972 square
foot deck as indicated and located on the survey prepared by Michael Baker Associates dated 7/13/91 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 applicant,
the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the location of the lot 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 upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Plisko, and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted.
1. Barry L Mears for variance of 10 ft 6 in to permit additions 14 ft 6 in from a street right-of-way at 832 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 6, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
V 91-51
Senior Planner Sandy Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant proposes to construct a canopy and a balcony supported by columns. The house is situated on
beachfront property on the Gulf of Mexico. Expansion is limited by the CCCL with regard to the rear setback.
Kathy Wheeler, representing the applicant, stated the applicant wishes to rebuild portions of the home damaged by the storm on April 25, 1991 and to upgrade the home in keeping with
the other homes in the area by the addition of columns to support a balcony and a canopy at the entrance.
Eight letters in support of the application were submitted for the record.
In response to questions she indicated the large outdoor barbecue grill on the subject property is never used and the planter wall will not extend over three feet high.
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 not caused by the applicant,
the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of the existing house situated on this lot subject to the following conditions: 1) the planter wall shall be no higher
than 30 inches; 2) the variance shall be granted for the column supported structures only. No enclosure of these areas shall be permitted and 3) the requisite building permits shall
be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
2. Paul P and Sibylle Clark for variances of (1) 8 ft to permit dock 12 ft from a side (extended) property line; and (2) 17.57 ft to permit dock width of 59 ft at 437 Midway Island,
Island Estates of Clwr Unit 3, Lot 58, zoned RS 8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 91-52
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to add a second boat slip and another cradle lift to an existing 41-foot-wide dock containing
one slip and a cradle lift.
In response to a question, it was indicated the City's Harbormaster has no objection to this application.
Larry Fisk of Dolphin Marine, representing the applicant, stated the applicant wishes to protect his boats from wind and wave action caused by the dock being on open water due to the
orientation of the property on the intercoastal waterway. He said the adjoining property owners expressed no objections to the placement of the dock. In response to a question, he
indicated the property owner to the south was not in favor of extending the dock in that direction.
Concern was expressed regarding the dock being too close to the side property line, obstructing the view from adjacent properties and the effect this would have on future property owners.
It was indicated the second lift would be lower than the existing lift, would not have a roof and the property's placement on a cul-de-sac would offer the neighbors to the north an
expanded view. The dock would be 12 feet from the side property line and tie poles would be provided.
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 was not caused by the applicant, due to the location of the lot on a cul-de-sac, the placement of the dock
allows properties south of the applicant better waterfront views and is less of an obstruction subject to the following conditions: 1) the additional boat slip shall be for the exclusive
use of the tenant occupying the property; 2) docking of any boats, either permanent or temporary, to the north of the new boat slip will be expressly prohibited; 3) the applicant agrees
to provide tie poles north of the proposed boat lift; 4) there shall be no roof over the new dock and 5) the requisite (dock) 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. City of Clearwater for variance to permit a nonpermanent (graded stone) vehicular accessway at 1776 Drew St, Sec 11-29-15, M&B 44.01, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-53
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to build a temporary non-permanent vehicle driveway on City property to allow access to a proposed
recycling collection center.
Robert Brumback, Assistant Public Works Director representing the City of Clearwater, stated the present collection center is being relocated, for traffic safety reasons, to the site
presently being used by the City Players for a Cultural Arts Workshop. He feels the Skycrest area is the best location to serve citizens with a minimum of inconvenience. He indicated
this would be a temporary location due to the subject property being in the middle of the corridor designated by Pinellas County for the extension of Keene Road which is scheduled to
occur within three years. He said the center is being provided to citizens at no charge and will collect six types of recyclable material but no hazardous waste. In response to a question,
he indicated he could not guarantee profits would go to the Clearwater Marine Science Center.
Concern was expressed the vegetation along the right-of-way on the east side would create a visual barrier causing a traffic hazard for vehicles exiting from Weber Avenue onto Drew Street.
Christopher Focsan, engineer for the City, indicated the location of the vegetative barrier on the east side of the property would be reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department.
He said it is to be placed inside the property line and would end a sufficient distance from the street to avoid blocking drivers' views of traffic.
Discussion ensued in regard to the monies collected and it was indicated most had gone to charities in the past; however, in order to keep costs down, more monies will be put back into
the program.
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 subject to the following conditions: 1) the driveway shall be constructed as per site plan with vehicle areas landscaped
on the perimeter to provide buffering from street right-of-way as reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer; 2) sediment traps shall be placed around all drainage facilities and
3) 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, Ms. Whitney,
Messrs. Homer, Gans and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted.
II. Review: "Rules of Procedure and Policies".
Discussion ensued regarding the Board's desire for architectural drawings to accompany applications. It was recommended this requirement be written into the Development Code Adjustment
Board Rules and possibly added to the Land Development Code section regarding applications. Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of August 22, 1991. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Board and Staff Comments
The Development Code Adjustment Board reviewed the Issue/Response Schedule dated August 8, 1991. Staff was requested to investigate three large banners advertising breakfast, lunch
and dinner at the Holiday Inn Gulfside. Status was requested on the Dimmitt's flags violation. It was indicated this is still in the courts and it was not known whether or not the
imposed fine was accruing.
IV. Minutes of July 11, 1991.
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of July 11, 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 adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk