10/08/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
October 8, 1992
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Otto Gans
John W. Homer (arrived 1:30 p.m.)
John B. Johnson
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney (arrived 1:09 p.m.)
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk
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 9/10/92) Valentino Koumoulidis to reconsider previous request for variances of (1) 83 ft to permit a 67 ft wide lot; (2) 3 parking spaces to permit 6 spac es;
(3) 24.85% front yard open space to allow 25.15%; (4) 3.5 ft to permit 1.5 ft of per imeter landscape buffer ing; and (5) 12.8 ft to permit zero ft of clear space at 606 Bayway Blvd,
Bayside Sub No 5, Blk A, Lot 7, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 91-25
This item was continued from the September 10, 1992 meeting due to a tie vote. The request is for reconsideration of five variances to permit the conversion of a six-unit apartment
building to, under the initial request, a first floor restaurant and a two-unit apartment building on the second floor.
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant has revised the request and wishes to convert an existing six-unit apartment building into one living
unit on the second floor and approximately 1,617 square feet of
retail space on the first floor.
David Himes, representing the applicant, stated variance #2 had been withdrawn at the September 10 meeting. He gave a brief history of the application, stating after the original variances
were granted, changes were made which delayed the proposal. During a request for time extension, concerns were expressed regarding these changes.
In response to questions, Mr. Himes stated the parking variance is no longer needed and there will be only one apart ment on the second floor.
Discussion ensued regarding the City Traffic Engineering Department comment that elimination of any required parking increases the traffic congestion on Clearwater Beach. This was not
considered to be a problem due to the proposed use.
Discussion ensued with regard to the applicant also owning the restaurant next door to the subject property. Concern was expressed the two properties would be used as one common area
with customers driving from one to the other.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant variances #1, #3, #4 and #5 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 fol lowing conditions: 1) The vari ance is based on the application for a variance and docu ments submitted
by the ap pli cant, including maps, site plan dated August 11, 1992, surveys and other docu ments sub mitted in support of the applicant's request for a vari ance. Deviation from any
of the above documents submitted in support of the re quest for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure locat ed on the site, will
result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) There shall be only two uses provided on this site, one dwel ling unit which shall comprise the entire second floor and a retail
store containing 1616.79 sq. ft. which shall comprise the first floor; 3) The clear space that is provided shall be "ob structed" by only parking and sidewalk access on the east side
and only parking on the west side; no other structures shall be erected in these areas; 4) Prior to issu ance of a building permit, the applicant shall sub mit a landscap ing plan to
the Environmental Management Group to insure that selected land s cap ing materials be as dense as possible to maximize front yard landscaping; 5) The requisite building permit shall
be obtained within 6 months from the date of this public hearing and 6) That concrete car stops shall be in stalled in all parking spaces. The motion was duly seconded and upon the
vote being taken, Messrs. Homer, Plisko, Gans and Johnson
voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted.
Variance #2 was withdrawn.
Item B - (continued from 9/24/92) Louis J and Mary R D'Amico for variances of (1) 90 ft to permit minimum lot width of 60 ft; (2) 3.30 ft to permit a sec ond story building addition
8.70 ft from side property line; and (3) 5 ft to permit an inground pool 5 ft from side property line at 410 Hamden Dr, Columbia Sub No 4, Lot 10, Zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V
92-49
Planning Manager Shuford stated this application was continued from the meeting of September 10, 1992, at the request of the applicant. He explained the application in detail stating
the applicant wishes to construct a swimming pool and a second story addition to an existing duplex on a substandard lot.
Discussion ensued regarding courtesy review approval by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and it was felt these reviews should be done by the Zoning Section and the Building Division
of the Planning and Development Department.
Gregory Fox, representing the applicant, stated the owner wishes to increase the size of his apartment and add a pool in the courtyard of the 60-foot-wide lot. He stated there is no
intent to increase the number of units from the four that currently exist. Mr. Fox indicated the addition will be placed directly over the first floor and will have an inside staircase.
He said the applicant agrees with staff's conditions.
In response to questions, Mr. Fox stated the proposed addition will add 1,000 square feet of space to the existing 500-square-foot apartment and the building has seven parking spaces
with one space being used for a dumpster location.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. It was questioned whether or not the addition exceeds the FEMA 50 percent rule. Mr. Fox indicated the construction costs have not been calculated;
however, the size of the addition could be scaled down if neces sary.
A suggestion was made to change the proposed dumpster location and provide an enclosure for aesthetics.
One letter was submitted in support of the application.
Concern was expressed enlarging owners' units is becoming a trend,
creating the possibility the additions could be converted to rental units in the future.
It was felt the presence of the owner on the premises is desirable and a swimming pool is essential to the operation of a motel.
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 not caused by the owner
or applicant; the particular physical surroundings and shape 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 the hardship created by the lot size subject to the conditions: 1) The variance is based on the appli cation
for a variance and docu ments submitted by the ap pli cant, including maps, plans, surveys and other doc u ments submitted in support of the applic ant's re quest for a vari ance. Deviation
from any of the above documents submitted in support of the re quest for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure locat ed on the site,
will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) This site is limited to four motel-apartment units. There shall be no additional motel or apartment units con structed; 3)
Plant material shall meet the minimum require ments of Sec. 136.023 of the Land Development Code; 4) To ensure the second floor is not converted into additional units the applicant shall
apply to the Zoning Section and Building Division of the Planning & Devel opment Department for courtesy review approval prior to the formal application for a build ing permit; 5) Access
to the second floor shall be exclusive ly through an interior staircase from the owner's lower unit. No exterior access to the second floor shall be permitted. Buil ding plans showing
the access shall be required for courtesy review by the Zoning Section and Building Division of the Plan ning & De velopment Department; 6) The applicant shall reconfig ure the plan
to include a dumpster enclosure; 7) The variance will be void if the subject apartment is ever subdi vided; 8) The addi tion shall conform to all FEMA rules and regulations; and 9) A
build ing permit shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko, Gans
and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Homer was not present at this time. Motion carried. Request granted.
1. Robert L and Janet M Schues zler for variances of (1) 6.5 ft to permit a lot width of 63.5 ft where 70 ft is re quired; and (2) 15 ft to allow a garage addition
10 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is re quired at 1440 Rogers St, Breeze Hill, Blk A, Lot 11, zoned RS 8 (Single Fami ly Resi dential). V 92-52
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct an attached garage. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing metal shed
located in the northeast corner of the rear yard. The property was platted in 1925 and qualifies as a legitimate nonconforming lot.
Art Shand, representing the applicant, said there has been no opposition from the neighbors, the owner is preparing for retire ment and would like to use part of the proposed garage
for a workshop.
Concern was expressed regarding a 42-foot deep garage as 24 feet was considered to be standard.
Questions were raised regarding the proposed use of the existing garage. Mr. Shand thought it would be used as auxiliary space, possibly a family or living room.
Concern was expressed there was no hardship shown.
Mr. Homer moved to continue this case to the meeting of Octo ber 22, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unani mously.
2. William A Day, Trustee (East Shore Motel/Apts) for variances of (1) 6.5 ft to permit a build ing 3.5 ft from street right-of-way where 10 ft is required; (2) 21.5 ft to permit stairs
2.5 ft and a building and a second floor addition 6 ft from side (south) property line where 24 ft is required; and (3) 15.6 ft to permit a building addition 9.4 ft from Clearwater Harbor
at 473 E Shore Dr, Clwr Beach Park First Add, Blk C, Lots 6 and 7, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 92-53
Mr. Plisko declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case.
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a one-story utility building and a second floor addition to an existing building
on a non-conforming property. The utility building will have a handicapped restroom, laundry facility and will house the mainte nance and pool equipment. It was recommended to enclose
or screen an existing dumpster located in front of the property.
William Day, owner and applicant, stated the subject property is his retirement home. He said the roof structure of the existing building has termite damage and will be replaced with
the second floor addition and a new roof added to match those in the area. He feels the proposed improvements will make the area more attractive. Mr. Day indicated the facility has
no other storage, the utility building will not impact the waterfront view and the application has been approved by the flood board.
In response to questions, Mr. Day stated an existing kitchen area downstairs is very small. He said the submitted drawing does not accurately depict the parking layout and at least
11 parking spaces will be provided.
Discussion ensued regarding parking requirements and dumpster location. Mr. Day indicated he is working with the City Sanitation Department and may provide landscap ing in lieu of a
dumpster enclosure he is proposing to relandscape the grounds. It was noted the submitted plans have the adjacent neighbors' approval.
Discussion ensued regarding the style and materials for the proposed additions. It was felt they should have a similar appearance to others in the area. Mr. Day indicated he wishes
to use glass to create an open effect.
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 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 needed improvements such as screening the pool, subject to the conditions:
1) The vari ance is based on the appli cation for a variance and docu ments submitted by the ap pli cant, including maps, plans, surveys and other doc u me nts sub mitted in support
of the applic ant's request for a vari ance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the re quest for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard
to the site or any physical structure locat ed on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) The applicant shall recon figure the plan to include a dumpster
enclosure; 3) The req uisite building per mit shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and (4) The exterior of the utility building shall conform to
the architectural theme of the mo tel. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion
carried.
Request granted.
3. Ann K Burchenal for a vari ance to permit construction of a deck and walkover seaward of the coastal construc tion control line (CCCL) at 1058 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 70,
Lot 4 and part of Lot 3, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) and OS/R (Open Space/Recreation). V 92-54
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a walk-over deck seaward of the CCCL. He stated the applicant previously obtained
a permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for a walk-over structure; however, the permit expired in June, 1992.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated beach accretion over the last 30 years has created a significant dune system on the subject property which creates a hardship
for the applicant. He indicated construction of the original walk-over was complicated by the turtle nesting season and the permit expired. He requested standard condition #1 be modified
to allow for the possibility of the DNR dictating relocation of the proposed walk-over.
In response to questions, Mr. Cline indicated structures of this type are becoming common in other parts of the state and he hopes the City may consider administrative approval in the
future. He said the proposed location can be moved back slightly, if neces sary. He was not sure if Flood Board approval would be necessary.
Discussion ensued regarding the location of the proposed structure and the property boundaries. It was indicated the seawall essentially marks the rear property line.
Discussion ensued in regard to riparian rights. Mr. Cline indicated there are no title rights to accreted land; they accrete naturally to the owner.
Discussion ensued in regard to locating structures seaward of the seawall and not the CCCL so to avoid setting a precedent.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant a variance to permit the construction of a structure seaward of the retaining wall/seawall 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 owner or applicant; the particular topographical conditions of the property
and preserva tion of the environment makes the variance a necessity and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship subject to the following conditions: 1) The vari ance
is based on the appli cation for a vari ance and docu ments submitted by the ap pli cant, in cluding maps, plans, surveys and other doc u me nts sub mitted in support of the applic ant's
re quest for a vari ance. Deviation, except those required by the Department of Natural Resources, from any of the above docu ments submitted in support of the re quest for a variance
re garding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physi cal structure locat ed on the site, will result in this vari ance being null and of no ef fect; 2) The requisite
build ing permit shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of this public hearing; 3) The ap plicant shall obtain all the necessary permits from other applicable state and city
review agencies and boards prior to the construction of the structure and 4) the structure shall not ex ceed 4 feet 3 inches in width. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request granted.
4. Adriano Battaglini (Andy's Sports Car Center) for a vari ance to permit concrete washout parking lot surface rather than a graded paving surface for par king lot at 500 N Ft Harrison
Ave, O. Harringto n's Sub, Lots 1 and 2, zoned CG (General Commer cial) and RM 28 (Multiple Family Residen tial). V 92-55
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes his parking lot surface to remain as it currently exists, as "concrete wash", or scrap from
a concrete load. Meeting conditional use conditions for approval was determined to be necessary in order for the estab lishment to be in harmony with surrounding properties and to avoid
creating a nuisance situation for the City in general.
The City Transportation and Engineering Divisions recommend a parking lot for this type of usage be paved in accordance with City stan dards. Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) standards for run-off water quality must be met due to the nature of the business and the proximity to the Gulf of Mexico.
Grace Mandicott, representing the applicant, stated much time, money and effort have been devoted to aesthetically improving the lot and bringing it into conformance with the Code.
She indicated there have been many problems associated with trying to start the business and sufficient resources have not been available to pave the lot.
While the applicants were commended for their efforts to improve
the property, concern was expressed suffi cient hardship has not been demon strated to justify granting the variance.
Discussion ensued with regard to the application. It was ques tioned whether or not payment in lieu of on-site water retention would be accept able and if paving only the driveways
would satisfy the requirement. Planning Manager Shuford related information from the various boards and agencies involved, indicating paving the entire lot is recommended.
A citizen spoke in opposition to the application indicating the subject property is in violation of a number of code requirements and is being used to store inoperable vehicles with
derelicts sleeping in them. She feels the subject property is an eyesore.
Discussion ensued regarding the subject property. It was indicated one of the requirements for approval at a 1990 Planning and Zoning Board hearing for the property was that paving
the lot or obtaining a variance was necessary.
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 unneces sary hardship was shown; the variance
is not the minimum; the request for the variance is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to prevent a greater financial investment in the property; the granting of the variance
would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood and 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.
II. Approval of Minutes of September 10 and September 24, 1992
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of September 10 and September 24, 1992, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
Mr. Shuford invited the Board to attend an appointed official conference to be held at the St. Petersburg Airport on October 23, 1992. He stated the program includes a review of legal
proce dures, presentations regarding environmental and land management, the state compre hensive planning act and zoning and site plan review ground rules. He stated the deadline for
registration is October 15, 1992 and asked members to inform him of their interest as soon as possible.
Discussion ensued regarding the nighttime installation of telephone booths in residen tial neighbor hoods. It was noted these are not GTE installations. It was felt this could be a
scam to over charge callers and staff was requested to investi gate.
Concern was expressed regarding an inappropriate towel display at the Surfin' USA retail store on Mandalay Avenue. Mr. Shuford stated the display of products in store windows is not
regulated. Staff will investigate.
A question was raised regarding the display of cards, gifts and shirts in a street right-of-way on Clearwater Beach. It was
indicated this is not allowed by Code.
Concern was expressed regarding the patio at Fritz's Market having tables and chairs and being covered by a canopy. Staff will investigate whether or not approval has been obtained
for the outdoor seating.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk