07/09/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 9, 1992
Members present:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Thomas J. Graham
Otto Gans
John W. Homer
Absent:
Alex Plisko, Chairman (excused)
Also present:
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. She outlined the proce dures 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. She 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
A. Valentino Koumoulidis (2nd request for extension - contin ued from June 25, 1992) for vari ances of (1) 83 ft to permit a 67 ft wide lot; (2) 1 parking space to permit 6 spaces;
(3) 24.85% front yard open space to allow 25.15%; (4) 3.5 ft to per mit 1.5 ft of per imeter land scape buffering; and (5) 12.8 ft to permit 0 ft of clear space at 606 Bayway Blvd, Bayside
Sub No 5, Blk A, Lot 7, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 91-25
David Himes, engineer representing the applicant, indicated a revised site plan has been submitted to the Building Department. He presented a copy of the revised plan for the record.
There was some concern that the new plan showed a different use for the property than what was originally intended.
Discussion ensued regarding the intended use of the second floor apartment and the 301 square-foot storage area on the first floor. In response to a question, Mr. Himes said he was
not sure if the second floor apartment is proposed to be the owner's unit.
Mr. Graham moved to grant a time extension subject to the requisite building permit being obtained on or before August 26, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being
taken, Ms. Whitney and Mr. Graham voted "aye"; Messrs. Homer and Gans voted "nay". Motion failed due to a tie vote.
The meeting adjourned from 1:30 p.m. to 1:35 p.m. to verify that a tie vote on extension requests resulted in a denial of the request.
Concerns were expressed regarding the proposed change in use of the first floor from professional services and retail to restaurant and not having the plans approved within specified
time limits. Discussion ensued in regard to parking requirements for both uses.
Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of July 23, 1992, for further discussion and requested verification that the second floor unit will be an owner's unit and for what
purpose the 301 square feet of area on the ground floor will be used. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
B. Robert E. Malke (Rose Garden Restaurant) (3rd request for extension - continued from June 25, 1992) for a variance of 14 seats to permit 2-COP licensed estab lish ment with 36 indoor
seats at 348 and 348-1/2 Coronado Dr., Lloyd-White-Skin ner Sub, Lots 118-119, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 91-17
Planning Manager Shuford stated the applicant has submitted plans for building permit review.
George Greer, attorney representing the applicant, indicated the plans were submitted for review on April 23, 1992, and will require minor amendments. He said the permit is expected
to be issued next week.
Mr. Graham moved to grant a time extension subject to the building permit being obtained on or before August 24, 1992 and the requisite occupational license being obtained on or before
December 8, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimous ly. Request granted.
Mr. Greer was requested to inform the applicant that commercial parking on the subject property is illegal.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 6/25/92) Mary L Lea, as Trustee, for variances of (1) 12.25 ft to permit a dock 38.5 ft in width; (2) 9.25 ft to permit dock placement 10.75 ft from extended
property line; and (3) 22.08 ft to permit dock length of 59.5 ft at 1039 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub, Blk 271, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal).
V 92-34
Planning Manager Shuford stated this item was continued from June 25, 1992, in order to add a variance for dock length. He explained the application in detail stating the applicant
wishes to expand an existing private dock, replacing one set of boat davits on the north side with a boat house containing a lift, in character with neighboring waterfront properties.
Clark Lea, representing his parents, the owners/applicants, stated only the north side of the dock has sufficient water depth to locate the boat due to sand filtering in from Dunedin
Pass at low tide, extending halfway under the dock. He indicated signatures of the adjacent property owners have been obtained in support of the application. He said the request has
been approved by the City Harbormaster.
In response to questions, Mr. Lea indicated only the boathouse will be added and the sling is necessary as the existing davits are not strong enough to lift the 23-foot boat.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the request is the minimum and it was felt this was not an overintensive use of the dock.
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 subject to the conditions: 1) the applicant shall be restricted to not more than two berthing slips at the proposed dock
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.
1. William D and E Helen Lee/Paul S and Noreen H Hodges for a variance of 6.45 ft lot width to permit a 63.55 ft wide corner lot at 301 and 303 Vine Ave, Plaza Park, Blk C, Lots 11
and 12, zoned RM 12 (multiple family residen tial). V 92-37
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to establish a new lot line for a corner property consisting of two residences on two previously
platted non-conforming lots. He stated the new lot line is proposed for 301 Vine Avenue; however, housing code violations exist at 303 Vine Avenue. Staff recommended a condition allowing
no division of property until all code violations have been corrected.
Concern was expressed the proposed division creates an additional non-conformi ty; however, it was indicated this variance is required to draw the new lot line.
Concern was expressed to imposing conditions involving code violations on the granting of variances. It was felt the City should require code violations to be corrected before requests
for variances are processed and this Board should not be used as a tool to accomplish this.
Paul Hodges, owner and applicant, indicated the rent payments of 303 Vine Avenue are in arrears and the tenant is the prospective buyer of the property. The tenant has agreed to rectify
the existing housing code violations, the cost of which has been negotiated in the selling price. It was indicated the financing package from the lender addresses the code violations.
There was discussion regarding the difficulty in enforcing housing code violations because of ownership changes.
Discussion ensued regarding bringing the property into compli ance prior to granting the variance. Mr. Hodges felt this would be difficult due to the cost of repairs amounting to approximately
$5,000. He stated renegotia tions would be necessary to correct violations prior to selling the property. It was not known if the prospective buyer was aware of the possibility the
sale could be delayed pending correction of the housing violations. A recommen dation was made for the buyer and lender to discuss the code violations allowing the lending institution
to be the enforcer.
Mr. Hodges requested a continuance to the next meeting to allow time to resolve the code violation concerns. It was recommended the prospective buyer also attend the hearing.
Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of July 23, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Gans and Graham voted "aye";
Mr. Homer voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted.
Mr. Homer indicated he cast the dissenting vote because he felt this board was being used as an enforcement board.
2. Diocese of St. Petersburg (St Cecelia Catholic Church) for a variance of 7 ft to permit construction of a carport within side yard setback at 905 S Prospect Ave, Mount Orange Revised,
Blk C, Lots 18 thru 20, part of Lots 12 thru 17, and part of Lots 21 thru 23, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 92-38
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a four-space carport as an accessory structure. He noted on April 13, 1989, a
variance for 5 parking spaces was denied and referred to the possibility that an existing fence on the property was not permit ted.
Barry Ullman, architect representing the applicant, stated the existing building and lot were permitted in 1990 and the parking area has been landscaped to meet code. He indicated the
carport structure is intended to provide covered parking for the pastor and his staff. He presented photographs of similar cantilevered parking structures and indicated the style will
tie in with the design of the building.
In response to a question, Mr. Ullman stated the proposed structure has only two support columns.
Tom Morrison, construction manager for the diocese, stated the fence in question was on the original site plan and was in existence in 1990 when the certificate of occupancy was issued.
He said it replaced a cedar and chain link fence. In response to a question, he stated the carport would protect older staff members from the heat of the sun and inclement weather.
One letter was submitted in support of the application.
Concerns were expressed regarding the stability of the design and the closeness of the carport roof to a neighbor's rear porch. Mr. Ullman indicated the cantilevered design is stable,
the carport is being placed as near the church building as possible and will not block any light or view.
Discussion ensued regarding the previous variance applications for the site. In response to a question, Mr. Morrison stated it will be many years before existing trees on the property
will shade the parking area. Concern was expressed the application was not a minimum, there was no demonstration of hardship, the carport was too massive and the proposed location was
not appropriate. It was indicated the adjacent property owner did not object, the design of the carport was dictated by the Building Department and the use of the structure was a public
non-profit one.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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; the particular physical shape, and 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 variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the size of the particular parcel, the location of the oak trees and the use
of this property as a parking lot meeting the City of Clearwater current code requirements and the use of the property is more for a public non-profit use as opposed to a private use
subject to the conditions: 1) the car port shall be a cantilevered design as indicated on the site plan; 2) the fence in question shall be reviewed and permit ted and/or accepted by
the City Build ing Department and 3) the requi site building permit shall be obtained within ninety (90) days from the date of this pub lic hearing. The motion was duly seconded and
upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted.
The meeting recessed from 2:53 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
3. Joseph E and Elizabeth J Mannion for a variance of 5 ft to permit a structure 35 ft in height at 887 Gulfview Blvd S, Bayside Shores, Blk A, part of Lot 2, zoned RM 28 (multiple
family residential). V 92-39
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to remodel an existing two-story, single-family home to include a new roof, loft area, widow's
walk and expansion of the porch and balconies on the rear, side and front of the house. He indicated adjacent condominium heights are in excess of 35 feet and the applicant feels the
granting of this variance would allow this structure to be more consistent with the surrounding structures. Mr. Shuford stated the rear porch addition extends within 3.5 feet of the
seawall and a variance to allow construction in the 18-foot setback was approved on June 17, 1992, by the Building and Flood Adjustment Board.
Patty Stough, architect representing the applicant, stated this residence was in existence prior to the surrounding buildings and will remain a single-family residence. She indicated
the multiple-family dwellings in the area are allowed to be up to 80 feet in height. She presented photographs of the subject property and explained drawings of the proposed remodeling,
stating a victorian appearance is desired for the facade.
In response to questions, Ms. Stough indicated there is no intent to install a spa on the widow's walk, which will be accessed through the attic. She said the style is similar to the
Key West style of architecture
Two letters from adjacent property owners were submitted in support of the application.
One citizen, representing Clearwater Point Condominiums, spoke in opposition to the application, stating he feels the view from his unit will be obstructed. He presented photographs
of the Mannion residence taken from his balcony and requested this hearing be postponed until condominium residents return from vacation and are able to review the application.
Mr. Mannion, owner and applicant, stated he feels his request is reasonable and will enhance his property.
In response to questions, Mr. Mannion indicated the roof access area will not be used for a spa, but only for observation and sunbathing. He stated a concrete slab in front of the house
will be eliminated and the porch addition is proposed to extend completely around to the east side of the house to tie in with the architectural design.
Ms. Stough affirmed approval has been received from the Flood Board to extend the porch to within 3.5 feet of the seawall, stating the grass in this narrow strip will be replaced by
sandbed paving stones.
The applicants were complimented for their efforts in improving their property.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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; the particular physical surroundings, shape and 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 variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the location of this house on the water front surrounded by
high-rise and mid-rise condominiums that are much taller subject to the conditions: 1) the deck on the roof surrounded by the widow's walk railing shall be used only as an observation
deck and no permanent structure shall be placed there other than the wooden deck used to walk upon 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.
III. Public Hearings - To con sider requests for vari anc es of the Land Development Code:
An Ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Chapter 134, Code of Ordinances, relating to signs and sign regulations; amending Section
137.005, Code of Ordinances, relating to definitions; providing an effective date.
Planning Manager Shuford explained the proposed sign code amend ments, stating some issues remain to be resolved.
John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the purpose of the ordinance is to simplify and clarify the City sign code and bring it into conformance with the County code.
In response to a question regarding conforming strictly to the countywide sign code, it was indicated the City's is sometimes more restrictive.
There was discussion regarding possible problems with attached signs such as "Publix" and "Eckerd".
Concern was expressed regarding impact on older shopping centers.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter indicated the changes regarding free-standing signs are negligible except in the commercial center zoning district.
Discussion ensued regarding attached and free-standing sign designations in place of property and business identification distinctions.
Discussion ensued in regard to a need for "ease of reference" for identifying areas eligible for sign bonuses.
There was discussion regarding projecting signs being more visible and better able to get the message out. It was felt a visibility problem exists for the businesses on Cleveland Street
and staff was requested to look into larger projecting signs in urban centers.
A suggestion was made to include a comparison between free-standing and attached signs as part of the Code.
Discussion ensued with regard to changes in allowed sign sizes and various other sections of this lengthy ordinance. Staff was commended for their efforts in drafting the new sign code.
Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval of the proposed sign ordinance providing: 1) staff relook at sign allowances for shopping cen ters to ensure there will be no major im pact on
the older centers; 2) the ur ban center dis trict have con sistent attached sign area re quirements through out; 3) consider ation be
given to allowing larg er than eight square feet pro jecting signs in the urban cen ter dis trict and 4) a summary table of sign allowances in each zon ing district with bo nus provisions
for ease of ref erence be included. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Approval of Minutes of June 25, 1992
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of June 25, 1992, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
V. Board and Staff Discussion
Discussion returned to imposing conditions relating to code violations on variance requests. It was felt this enforcement is not within the Board's jurisdiction.
Mr. Shuford indicated there have been problems in the past when certain property owners, being found in violation of building codes, transferred ownership to another individual, causing
adminis tra tion to undergo another lengthy violation notification process. He felt housing code violations should run with the property owner instead of the property. He stated future
appli cants will be informed administrative lot divisions will not be processed until any code violations are corrected.
A suggestion was made to charge an administrative fee and record the notice of a code violation so it would appear on the title search.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk