Loading...
11/14/1991 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD November 14, 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 1:00 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 10/24/91) Betsy K and Rayford Hixon, Jr, for variances of (1) 2.5 ft to permit construction on a 67.5 ft wide corner lot; (2) 3.4 ft to permit two story addition 12 ft from Bay Esplanade Dr right-of-way; and (3) 24 ft to permit two story additions 1 ft and 7 ft from Verbena St right-of-way at 821 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 39, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-70 Senior Planner Glatthorn stated variance #2 should read 3.4 feet to permit a two-story addition 21.6 feet from Bay Esplanade Drive right-of-way. She said there was an error on the application; however, the request did not require readvertising. Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the original application, to permit the owners to expand and convert an existing room into a two-car garage and to change the existing one-car garage into living space, was continued to allow the applicants to submit a revised application and site plan. Ray Hixon, owner and applicant, stated he wishes to construct a two-car garage on the southwest side of the existing house and two bedrooms over the garage. Discussion ensued in regard to a portion of the existing house extending into the right-of-way. Concern was expressed in granting use of the right-of-way for the proposed addition. In response to a question, the applicant indicated he will stay within the existing line of the present structure and what is being proposed would be enclosed. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant variance #1 as requested; variance #2 - a variance of 3.4 feet to permit a two-story addition 21.6 feet from Bay Esplanade Drive right-of-way; and variance #3 -a variance of 23 feet to permit a two story addition 2 feet and 7 feet from Verbena Street right-of-way 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 not caused by the applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the existing house on the lot subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Planning Manager Shuford arrived at 1:19 p.m. 1. Robert A and Hazel L Vachon for variance of 5 ft to permit storage shed zero ft from a side property line at 1750 Long St, Highland Pines 8th Add, Blk 47, Lot 11, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-73 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to retain a storage shed which was built after the April 25th storm. Bob Vachon, owner and applicant, indicated a shed had existed for 15 years at this location prior to its damage by the storm. He said the small shed erected after the storm is similar to sheds in the neighborhood. In response to questions, Mr. Vachon stated he does not operate any business out of the shed, the truck in front of the subject property belongs to him, he formerly performed maintenance work at Trinity College and the shade screen on one side of the subject property protects against bad weather. Mr. Vachon indicated the subject shed extends the length of the property line. Concern was expressed that locating sheds on property lines limits the access around adjoining properties. It was indicated the shed overhangs onto the adjoining property. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance 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; the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood, would detract from the appearance of the community, would substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, would increase the danger of fire and endanger the public safety and would adversely affect the public health, safety, order, convenience, or general welfare of the community and would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. 2. Janusz and Roxana Nowicki (Gulf-to-Bay Pawn Shop) for variance of 20 parking spaces to permit 15 spaces in lieu of the 35 spaces required, to permit conversion of motel to retail use at 2054 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13-29-15, M&B 13.06, zoned CG (general commercial). V 91-74 Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant formerly converted three units of a ten-unit motel into a pawn shop and now wishes to convert the remainder of the motel to pawn shop and other retail uses. Ms. Glatthorn stated a previous variance granted in 1986 limited the motel to 15 units plus living quarters. It was indicated the City's Traffic Engineering Department objects to parking shortages on commercial properties. In response to questions, Ms. Glatthorn indicated current construction on the subject property was properly permitted, the applicants were notified a parking variance was necessary and the applicants chose to proceed with construction at their own risk. It was not known whether or not the sign on the subject property was in conformance. Roxana Nowicki, owner and applicant, stated the property was purchased in 1981. The motel was remodeled with three units being converted into a pawn shop. She said this pawn shop is her family's main source of income. She indicated the pawn shop has outgrown its original area in terms of storage space. Ms. Nowicki said a store attracts a larger variety of customers by being aesthetically pleasing. She explained pawn shop procedures and storage of merchandise, stating the business is service oriented and it is necessary to increase space to maintain the inventory in better order. She felt the conversion would not require extra parking. In response to questions, Ms. Nowicki stated she feels the four units remaining after expanding the pawn shop would be more practical if rented for electronic sales or repair shops which would complement the pawn shop. She indicated the request is not financially based as a greater financial return could be obtained from keeping the motel rentals, but she feels a motel is too much of a bother. She has recently acquired a new sign. John Nowicki, owner and applicant, submitted photographs of the subject property and discussed the proposal with the Board. Concern was expressed the proposed conversion to total retail without adequate parking would be an overuse of the site. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated they have 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; the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to other property in the neighborhood; the granting of the variance would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. 3. Westchester Lakes Development Corp (Westchester Lake Townhomes) for variance of 42 in to permit a 72 in high wall in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is addressed at 2644 through 2658 Sabal Spring Dr, Westchester Lake Townhomes, zoned RPD 10 (residential planned development). V 91-75 Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a six-foot-high block wall/fence within the setback area adjoining a right-of-way. She said a height of 48 inches would be more consistent with other fences in the area. She stated the subject property is a townhouse development under construction. Dick Geiger, representing the applicant, stated the subject property was purchased eight years ago. He indicated the wall is necessary to prevent traffic at the adjacent public park from using this development as a turn-around. The six-foot height is needed for security to deter people from congregating and loitering in the cypress head on the property. Mr. Geiger said it is necessary to situate the wall in the setback area as the cypress head, extending up to the proposed fence line, is environmentally protected and cannot be disturbed. He said the proposed wall will be beautifully landscaped and he feels the police would support the application due to the number of complaints regarding disturbances from young people frequenting the cypress woods. In response to questions, Mr. Geiger stated the cypress head is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), the proposed wall will extend from an adjacent city park fence on one side and dead end and run along the lake on the other side. Concern was expressed that a six-foot-high solid block wall in the area would intensify the security problem by further obstructing visibility of the property. It was suggested a different type of fence might be more appropriate. Mr. Geiger stated he would redesign the fence to address the concern regarding visibility and requested a continuance to the next meeting to modify the request. Mr. Homer moved to continue this request to the meeting of December 12, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued to December 18, 1991. The meeting recessed from 2:12 p.m. to 2:25 p.m. 4. Lois Jean Clymer (Tak A Way/Chix N Ribs) for variance of 3 parking spaces to permit conversion of retail to restaurant use at 401 Coronado Dr, Columbia Sub No 4, Lot 1, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 91-76 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the subject property was grandfathered for indoor retail sales use. The applicant wishes to convert two existing retail uses into a restaurant/retail situation and add 95 square feet of outdoor seating. In response to a question, it was indicated since the existing uses on the property are not being changed more than 50 percent only a parking variance is required for the expanded use. Discussion ensued regarding the history of the property and a previous variance request to allow the conversion of a motel into two fast-food restaurants with accompanying parking modifications being denied in May of 1987. In August of 1987, approval was given for conversion of the motel into two retail businesses; however, did not necessitate a parking variance. A question was raised regarding the difference between a fast-food and a take-out restaurant and it was indicated there is no seating associated with a take-out restaurant or delicatessen. Assistant City Attorney Lance returned to the meeting at 2:30 p.m. Donna Clymer, representing the applicant, stated there are nine physical parking spaces on the property and she does not understand why three additional spaces are needed for this conversion. She indicated adjacent properties have grandfathered back-out parking onto Coronado Drive; however, they do not. She stated the existing nine parking spaces are on the north side off Fifth Street, which is a small quiet side street. Ms. Clymer clarified a drawing of the proposed restaurant/deli and survey of the property that had been submitted with the application. She wishes to have seating for 40-45 patrons. She stated a limousine parked on the property is used for hauling cases of merchandise and supplies. Twelve letters were presented in support of the application. One citizen spoke in regard to the application. She said she did not object to the outdoor seating but expressed concern regarding possible future alcoholic beverage sales. One petition with eleven signatures was submitted expressing opposition to the application if it would lead to future alcoholic beverage sales. Ms. Clymer stated she cannot speak for the future, but has no present plans to request alcoholic beverage sales. She said the business is clean, safe and quiet and creates no overflow parking problems. She said she respects the neighborhood too much to ever allow anything objectionable on her property. Discussion ensued in regard to the applicant being repeatedly denied alcoholic beverage sales. It was indicated adequate parking cannot be provided due to the limited lot size and location of the existing building. It was felt granting the variance would permit an even more intense use of the property and be contrary to the intent of the Code. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated she 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 a minimum; the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental and injurious to other properties in the neighborhood, would detract from the appearance of the community, would substantially increase the congestion in the public street, would adversely affect the general welfare of the community and would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. 5. George and Isabella Aivaliotis for variances of (1) 21 ft to permit addition 4 ft from a street right-of-way; and (2) 10 in to permit a 40 in high wall in setback adjacent to street to which property is addressed at 28 Acacia St, Mandalay Sub, Blk 12, Lot 22, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-77 Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to modify an existing single-family house which is non-conforming. Ms. Glatthorn stated the City's Traffic Engineering Department recommends the proposed planters be placed no closer than two feet from the sidewalk to allow room for repair or replacement. Alex Konstantinidis, architect representing the owner and applicant, stated he wishes to improve the structure by enclosing the balcony in order to control water leakage onto the first floor, construct a straight interior stairway with a mechanical lift device enabling the elderly owner to more easily access the second floor and surround the ramp with planters to minimize the visual impact of having a handicap ramp at the front of the house. In response to questions, Mr. Konstantinidis stated the house will be occupied strictly by the owner and his family. There is a back entrance into house, but no entry on the side of the stairs, a kitchen upstairs with a wet bar downstairs. The proposed interior stairway would facilitate the installation of a lift device. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the proposed planter wall is the minimum. In response to questions, Mr. Konstantinidis stated the applicant has owned the subject property for approximately ten years and suffered a stroke last year. He currently resides in the house with his two sons and their families. In response to a citizen's question, Mr. Konstantinidis stated a medical history of the applicant was not submitted with the application. The owner is not currently confined to a wheelchair, but due to his age and condition of his health, he wishes to plan ahead in anticipation of future needs. Concern was expressed regarding the proposed modifications to the house. It was felt the redesign of the second floor would be overbuilding the house and would allow for conversion into a duplex at a later date. Discussion ensued regarding whether the ramp could be relocated behind the carport and the planter walls minimized. It was pointed out that putting the ramp behind the house would interfere with the driveway and the garage and the increased height of the planter walls was necessary to support the ramp. It was felt a hardship exists with regard to the owner's access to the second floor. 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 not caused by the applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the existing residence on a corner lot and the grade differential from the existing floor to grade providing a handicapped ramp within this area subject to the conditions: 1) the ramps and planters shall be installed as per the site plan submitted with the clarification that no planter shall be located closer than 2 feet to the sidewalk at the entry platform which is the main entrance to the house; 2) the planter wall shall be a maximum of 40 inches high with the wall sloping to a maximum of 30 inches high on either side of the entry platform; 3) landscaping shall be provided as per the site plan submitted; 4) this variance is being granted for a single-family residence and 5) 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. 6. John L and Sophie Lookretis (Kally's Beachside) for variance of 8 parking spaces to permit expansion of restaurant with 2-COP alcoholic beverage license at 608 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Rev, Blk 7, part of Lot 9, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 91-78 Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the proposal involves the expansion of an existing restaurant into adjacent retail space, the construction of which is already completed. The occupational license is on hold pending approval for alcoholic beverage sales. Mike MacKinzie, attorney representing the applicant, stated the subject property has been used as a restaurant since 1958. Mr. MacKinzie stated the expansion is being done to bring the building into compliance with City codes. He distributed a sketch of the parking available in the area and indicated the support of neighbors on Avalon Avenue. John Lookretis, applicant, stated he obtained the necessary permits for remodeling prior to beginning construction but was not aware a parking variance was required for the expansion. Ten letters were presented in support of the application. One citizen spoke in opposition to the application, stating he owns a laundry and dry cleaning business to the south of the subject property. He said a parking problem already exists in the area and he feels alcoholic beverage sales will increase the traffic flow. Mr. MacKinzie stated the metered parking lots in the area are seldom full and he believed the proposed use of the property would be a betterment for the north end of Clearwater Beach. Discussion ensued regarding the application and available parking in the area and a suggestion was made to place a sign on the property directing restaurant traffic to nearby parking lots. There was discussion regarding this establishment being an excellent restaurant and an asset to the area; however, concern was expressed that the intent to have alcoholic beverage sales was not made known at the start. It was felt a policy should be implemented by the City to include on the application whether or not the applicant intends to have alcoholic beverage sales in the future. 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 is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size and land availability for the building and because this property is located in the beach commercial district and there is public parking available within 200 feet subject to the conditions: 1) that a minimum of a 3-square-foot sign shall be posted in the front window notifying the public that metered parking is available on Avalon Street; and 2) this variance shall be limited to its present owners. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Mr. Plisko and Ms. Glatthorn left the meeting at 4:15 p.m. The meeting recessed from 4:15 to 4:25 p.m. 7. Resolution Trust Corp, as Conservator for Hollywood Federal Bank (850 Bayway) for variances (1) of 18 parking spaces to provide 42 parking spaces in lieu of 60 spaces required; (2) of 34.2 ft to permit stair tower 13.8 ft from a side property line; (3) of 34.2 ft to permit stair tower to encroach into required clearspace; and (4) to permit motel rooms to be in excess of 500 sq ft at 850 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub No 6, Unit A, Blk D, Lot 12 and Unit C, Blk D, Lots 13 thru 15, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 91-79 Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail stating the request is to permit the re-establishment of an existing vacant restaurant originally built in the 1970's under different zoning requirements. The applicant is requesting the previous permitted uses be allowed again as the occupational licenses for this building have expired. He stated the applicant hopes to re-establish the existing vacant restaurant, 20 hotel/motel units and one dwelling unit. Also, thirty marina slips are being requested. Discussion ensued with regard to the previous use of the property and it was indicated the ground floor was a restaurant with 13 boat slips and the upper floors were used for four to six motel units, recreation, meetings and exercise rooms. In response to a question, it was stated clearspace provides a corridor for the public's view of the water. It was stated a paved parking lot is not considered to be clearspace. Assistant City Attorney Lance returned at 4:40 p.m. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated variances are being requested to utilize an existing structure which was developed in the early 1970's. The property was originally designed to have extensive motel units, retail and a larger marina than the current request. He indicated the applicant now wishes to expand the existing marina and build a restaurant with an office on the first floor, one dwelling unit and motel units on the remaining floors. Mr. Cline said the property is unique and feels the request is appropriate because there is a hardship under the existing code. Mr. Cline indicated approving a parking variance will not overtax the property as the marina and restaurant have different peak hours and the tourist community expects waterfront facilities. He feels the type of facility proposed will not be detrimental, but will be a plus to the area and will put an existing property into use. Gary Welsh, representing the applicant, discussed the parking situation for the property indicating the proposed use will require less parking than what previously existed. Mr. Welsh stated the parking is being reconfigured and the driveways could be considered as clearspace. Discussion ensued regarding the vacant building having been built to provide services to the Clearwater Point Condominium residents and not built as a stand alone building. Jeff Kierlieber, representing the potential owners, stated he lives in the area and the intent is to have a quiet, upscale, first class establishment. Rental motel units are being proposed above the restaurant area and he feels this to be the only feasible use. It is an extremely difficult site as it is not a drive-by but a destination site. He said in order for the property to survive it must be correctly marketed indicating the marina facilities are important to make this operation viable. He feels all uses will be compatible with each other and will not be a burden for the site or the neighborhood. Five citizens spoke in opposition to the application indicating this is an overuse of the property and expressed concern regarding insufficient parking available in the area and the possibility of charter boats using the marina. It was felt this was a valuable piece of property and a suggestion was made to tear down the existing building and build an underground parking condominium which would increase the City's tax base. Two letters and a petition containing 165 names were presented in opposition to the application. In response to a question, it was indicated a marina expansion would require a conditional use and an environmental review would occur. In rebuttal, Mr. Cline said the uses are complementary to each other and would not double up the parking. He indicated a charter service would not be operated from the marina. Discussion ensued in regard to the proposed location of the stairwell and it was indicated the original footings for the stair tower were in this location; however, it was felt it was possible to relocate the stairs out of the required clearspace. Although there was no objection to making the uses compatible with the neighborhood, concern was expressed to expanding the boat slips and having motel rooms in excess of 500 square feet. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #2 - a variance of 25.5 feet to permit a stair tower 23.5 feet from a side property line; variance #3 - a variance of 25.5 feet to permit a stair tower to encroach into the required clearspace and variance #4 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 not caused by the owner or applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size and the facilities constructed thereon subject to the conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain an occupational license within 12 months from the date of this public hearing; 2) the applicant must submit site plans for the review process with regard to the proposed motel development; 3) the units shall not be sold as time shares or condominium units; 4) these variances apply to the owner/applicant only; 5) all of the conditions upon which this request was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board will likewise apply to the granting of this variance and 6) 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. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny variance #1 as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he or she has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the land development code because no unnecessary hardship was shown; the variance is not the minimum; the request is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood; the granting of the variance would adversely affect the general welfare of the community and would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer and Gans voted "aye"; Mr. Graham voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted. III. Approval of Minutes of October 24, 1991 Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of October 24, 1991 in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Approved as submitted. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Chairman ATTEST: Assistant City Clerk