06/11/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
June 11, 1992
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Otto Gans
John W. Homer
Members absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman (excused)
Thomas J. Graham (excused)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Mary K. (Sue) 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. He also noted, as per Board policy, rules and procedures, three members must vote in favor of a request for it to be
approved and an applicant has the choice of asking for a postponement to the next meeting or proceeding with the request.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Public Hearings
1. Nicola and Cristina D'Angelo (Motel Ann) for varianc es of (1) 4 ft to allow building 6 ft from rear property line; and (2) 15 ft to allow building 5 ft from another building at
1630 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Lakewood Replat, Lots 10, 11, 12, and part of Lots 2 and 9, zoned CG (general commercial). V 92 28
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to expand and remodel an existing one-story, 3-unit motel building on the northwest corner of
a 28-unit motel complex. The subject property is non-conforming with regard to setbacks, having been built prior to the current Code.
He submitted a copy of a site plan for the proposed expansion.
Nick D'Angelo, owner and applicant, stated he wishes to extend the wall of his one-story building five feet. In response to a question, he indicated the kitchenette would be moved to
the front of the building.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the adjacent two-story structure and the one-story structure should be considered to be one building as they are connected by a walkway, and
if so, whether both variances are necessary.
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 specifical ly because, the particular physical shape or topograph ical condi tions 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 this
hardship subject to the conditions: 1) the proposed expansion shall be constructed as indicated on the site plan; 2) no additional motel units shall be created; 3) all building code
requirements relat ing to fire protection and other issues shall be met and 4) 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.
2. Clwr Beach Community Church, Inc (Chapel by the Sea) for a variance of 112 parking spaces to permit a balcony addition at 54 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Replat Unit 5, Lots 4 thru 10,
zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 92 29
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to add a balcony in the sanctuary, increasing the seating capacity 50 seats for a total of 442
seats. He stated the associated parking is non-conforming due to the church having been in existence prior to the current code and a variance of only 17 parking spaces is needed to
permit the proposed expansion rather than the 112 spaces originally requested.
An adjacent City parking lot and on-street parking are used during the church services. The City Traffic Engineering Department commented these services do not conflict with normal
hours of beach-related tourist activities.
James Martin Jr., attorney representing the applicant, indicated the construction of the balcony increases the parking requirement.
He stated many visitors to the church arrive in tour buses. This is the only church on Clearwater Beach and the additional seating will add comfort for visitors and members.
Herbert Frietag, Minister of Chapel by the Sea, spoke in support of the application, saying occasionally tour buses remain in the area during the service; however, the majority of buses
leave the area until the service is dismissed.
Two adjacent property owners spoke to the application, indicating they were not opposed to granting a variance of 17 spaces; however, felt the condition of the church building, driveways
and landscap ing should be improved and the parking spaces marked. Concern was expressed regarding fumes from the tour buses.
One letter with 16 signatures was submitted in opposition to the application.
Discussion ensued regarding parking, dust and landscaping on the subject property. Mr. Martin stated the church has been working to beautify the grounds, but it is difficult to maintain
plants due to watering bans. It was indicated there is little space within the lot to locate additional landscaping without losing parking spaces. Reverend Frietag said he felt the
church would be agreeable to meeting minimum landscaping require ments if permission is obtained from the City Public Works Depart ment to install trees and shrubs in the street right-of-way.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant a variance of 17 parking spaces to permit a balcony addition because the applicant has substantially met
all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Develop ment Code more specifical ly because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the
property and 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 conditions: 1) within one
year of the date of this public hearing, the applicant shall in stall perimeter landscaping mate rials to meet the intent of Sec tion 136.023 (c) of the Land De velopment Code along
the east side of the property to the ex tent allowed by the City; however, shall not affect the existing parking; 2) the landscaping con dition shall not preclude the obtain ing of a
building permit and 3) the req uisite build ing per mit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this pub lic hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request granted.
Mr. Lance left the meeting at 2:03 p.m.
3. Richard J Jones for a variance of 97 ft to permit a dock 122 ft in length at 1740 Sunset Dr, North Shore Park, Blk 12, Lot 3, zoned RS 8 (single family residen tial) and AL/C (aquatic
lands/coastal). V 92-30
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a new dock and install a cradle lift in character with the surrounding area. Mr.
Shuford stated an ordinance is being drafted to address dock length. He stated the applicant has not obtained a permit from the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority.
The City Harbormaster has determined the proposed dock would not create a navigational hazard or obstruction.
Richard Baden, contractor representing the applicant, stated the county navigation authority requires obtaining variance approval pr ior to submitting a permit application.
A question was raised regarding why the applicant proposes a nine-foot-high steel beam on the cradle lift. Mr. Baden indicated the owner originally wished to have a boat house with
a roof. He stated a boat house is no longer desired and the beam can be lowered to five feet high. He feels a three-foot-high beam is awkward when loading or working on the boat while
in the lift.
Concern was expressed regarding the visual impact of a high cradle lift and it was suggested to limit the height to five feet.
A recommendation was made to address lift heights in the code changes regarding docks to minimize visual obstruction.
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 specifical ly because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner
or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size and the code subject to the conditions: 1) prior to issuance of a certificate
of oc cupancy/use, the applicant shall complete and file the ap propriate dock application with the Pinel las County Water and Navigation Control Authority and the City of Clearwater;
2) the lift height shall be restricted to 5 feet above the decking of the dock and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this pub lic
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
4. Harold S and Hazel M Wallace for a variance to allow a parking lot with a permeable surface at 606 Turner St, Wallace's Add, part of Blk 6 and all of vacated Rogers St between Blks
5 and 6, zoned CG (general commercial). V 92-31
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant is requesting a permeable surface on a three-space business parking lot and drive in lieu of an all-weather
paved surface as required by Code. He stated the applicant operates a small nursery business and is concerned an impervious surface could adversely affect large, old oak trees on the
subject property. Staff feels proper site preparation and design would allow the trees to thrive even with portions of their roots paved over.
The City Traffic Engineering Department feels the parking spaces should be paved and the entrance drive should be 24 feet wide rather than the proposed 12 feet.
A question was raised with regard to parking space calcula tions for a nursery and it was indicated spaces are based on the anticipated number of employees. It was stated the Wallace
business is open to the public; however, has a very limited display area and number of employees.
Miles Lance returned at 2:25 p.m.
William Wallace, owner and applicant, stated the nursery has been in business since 1925. Mr. Wallace indicated most sales are made off-premises as the nursery primarily supplies plants
for the lawn service which he also owns and operates. He feels a mulch parking surface would be safer for the numerous massive trees on the lot. He submitted a copy of a bid from a
paving contractor, noting the large expense involved. He also submitted five letters from adjacent property owners in support of the application. He felt additional landscaping and
plant displays would improve the neighborhood.
In response to questions, Mr. Wallace indicated he will have to brace up or trim tree limbs to provide one of the three required parking spaces. He said it is not feasible to locate
spaces at the rear of the property as a 24-foot-wide paved drive would be required for access.
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 specifical ly because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner
or applicant subject to the conditions: 1) only two perme able parking spaces of a stabi lized sub-base of gravel or other suitable material with a mulch surface that will drain shall
be allowed and maintained to usable standards based upon the layout provided by the applicant; 2) landscaping shall be provided as required by code and 3) the req uisite 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.
5. Lowell W Paxson (Paxson Broadcasting, Inc) for variances (to allow construction of car ports) of (1) 3.54 acres to permit construction on a 0.46 acre lot; (2) 179.5 ft to permit
construction on a lot 120.5 ft in width; (3) 135.6 ft to permit construction on a lot 164.4 ft in depth; (4) 41.5 ft to permit construction 8.5 ft from rear property line; (5) 2.1 ft
to permit construction 47.9 ft from south property line; and (6) 20 ft to permit construction 30 ft from north property line at 18401 U.S. 19 N, Sec 20-29-16, M&B 33.06, zoned CC (commercial
center). V 92 33
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct aluminum carports to cover eight vehicles in a rear parking area. The property
is a former Federal Fortune Bank Building which is now utilized as a broadcasting office. He indicated the lot is substan dard with regard to minimum area and width and the proposed
carports will encroach within the rear, north and south property lines of the subject property.
There is no City record to determine when the property was subdivided. If the lot was not properly subdivided, then the number of variances required would be reduced since it would
be part of a large parcel.
In response to a question, it was indicated the "asphalt drive" in the rear is part of the property.
Mark D. Madison, contractor representing the applicant, gave a brief history of the property, indicating it was deeded and sold without being subdivided.
Questions were raised regarding owner ship of the property if not considered a separate parcel but part of the shopping center and whether or not the Board should be hearing variance
requests for property not legally recognized by the City. Concern was expressed that taking action on this request could set a precedent for other, older shopping centers.
Assistant City Attorney Lance recommended continuing this request to allow sufficient time for information to be obtained regarding the subdividing of the property.
Elizabeth Waters, attorney representing Home Shopping Network Realty, owners of Levitz center, stated it is hoped some of the questions with regard to the subdivision of the property
will be answered when the City Commission hears a sign variance request on June 18th; however, she felt the sign request would be continued.
Mr. Homer moved to continue this request to the meeting of June 25, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimous ly.
II. Approval of Minutes of May 28, 1992
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of May 28, 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
Discussion ensued with regard to cradle lifts creating visual obstructions and it was suggested consideration be given to limiting the height a boat can be lifted.
Concern was expressed that building permits are being issued for construction of more than 50 percent of a property's value in FEMA sensitive areas. Staff is to investi gate creating
a board composed of private citizens to physically inspect construction prior to the issuance of building permits in FEMA sensitive areas.
Discussion ensued regarding the code violation complaint forms. It was indicated Code Enforcement Supervisor John Richter accepts all forms and routes them to the appropriate department.
Staff was requested to consider drafting an ordinance requiring that a house be addressed to the street facing its main entrance.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk