07/23/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 23, 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
Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk
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
Planning Manager Shuford stated this request was continued because there were concerns the revised site plan submitted to the Building Department for review showed a substan tially different
use than what was originally intended. The proposed retail use was changed to retail/restaurant. There were also questions regarding for what purpose the second floor apartment and
the 301 square-foot storage area on the first floor would be used.
Mr. Koumoulidis, the owner, addressed these concerns in a letter dated July 14, 1992. He stated the second floor apartment is to be used as his permanent residence and the 301 square
foot storage area will be used only for personal storage.
There was discussion regarding the July 15, 1992 memo from Assistant City Attorney Lance in regard to placing additional conditions on time extension requests which stated the Board
is without jurisdiction to do anything other than grant the time extension.
David Himes, engineer representing the applicant, stated revised plans have been submitted and he hopes to pull the permit by August 26, 1992. He submitted copies of the revised plan
to the Board.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed use. It was felt the 1500 square-foot, two bedroom apartment contains sufficient area for storage upstairs. Concern was expressed regarding
the possibility the downstairs storage area could be converted to additional retail or restaurant area by future owners. It was indicated any new additions to the retail/restaurant
area would require additional parking.
Discussion ensued with regard to the parking variance which was originally granted and it was indicated a variance of ONLY ONE parking space was granted.
A question was raised whether or not the owners's letter of July 14, 1992 regarding the use of the second floor apartment and the downstairs storage space could be used as an enforceable
document if the use of this area changed. Attorney Lance indicated the letter is part of the record.
Assistant City Attorney Lance stated when variances are granted at a public hearing, the application and supporting documents are a part of the record and if the original plans submitted
are changed, the application changes. He referenced the Board's rules regarding reconsiderations, stating when original plans are changed and submitted, a new public hearing is appropriate
with area property owners being informed. He stated, if reconsidered, the public hearing for reconsideration of the applica tion would be readvertised at the applicant's expense.
Mr. Himes requested reconsideration of the application due to the submittal of new plans.
Mr. Homer moved to reconsider this application at the meeting of September 10, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - 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 was continued to allow time to resolve code violation concerns. He stated the City's Standard Housing Supervisor has stated in a memo
dated July 16, 1992, the major code violations have been corrected and approval of the variance is recommended.
Paul Hodges, owner and applicant, referred to a letter from the lender indicating the loan, when approved, will include funds to make necessary repairs to bring the home into compliance.
A copy of this letter was submitted for the record.
Nina Selsavage, attorney representing Helen Lee, co-owner, stated the new lot line is being requested in order to bisect the parcel and allow the homes to be sold separately. She indicated
the existing lot line runs through the homes instead of between them. She said there is a potential buyer for 301 Vine Avenue and the only housing violation remaining on this lot is
for painting. She requested notification be sent to Ms. Lee of any other violations.
Discussion ensued in regard to approval of this request minimizing an existing non-conformity.
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 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 the existing houses on the platted lot line within a neighborhood where
many lots are smaller than the current code requires and the granting of this variance would minimize the nonconformity subject to the condition that the applicant shall file for an
administrative lot division or subdivision plat, whichever applies, with the City of Clearwater Planning and Development Department with in six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unani mously. Request granted.
1. Robert H Chapman and Marjo rie E Madigan, Trust ees, for a variance of 16.5 ft to permit a building addition 8.5 ft from street right-of-way at 712 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk
2, Lot 4 and portion of vacated street, zoned RS 8 (sin gle fami ly residential). V 92-40--To be continued.
In a letter dated July 21, 1992, Robert Chapman requested a continuance, stating he would be out of town and could not attend the hearing.
Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of August 13, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued.
2. Mark C Ploch for vari ances of (1) 7 ft to permit a dock width of 28 ft; (2) 6 ft to per mit a dock length of 36 ft; (3) 3.5 ft to permit dock place ment 15.5 ft from extended east
prop erty line; and (4) 4.5 ft to permit dock placement 16.5 ft from extended west property line at 222 Bayside Dr, Bayside Sub No 4 Unit A, Blk 1, Lot F, zoned RS 8 (single family residential)
and AL/C - (aquatic lands, coast al). V 92-41
Planning Manager Shuford explained the applica tion in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a roof above an existing private dock, installing a boat lift in a location having
suffi cient water depth for his boat. He stated it is recommended the roof not exceed 12 feet above mean high water.
Al Schmoyer, representing the applicant, stated the roof is proposed to be ten feet above the dock, which is two feet above mean high water. In response to questions, he stated the
proposed gabled roof has a low pitch and will comply with the twelve-foot-mean high water requirement. He indicated two tie poles exist, the boat is a 30-foot fishing boat and the additional
dock length is needed to extend to water deep enough to accommodate his boat.
Mr. Schmoyer said adjacent property owners were not available locally to sign off on the County dock permit application. He said one adjacent property is for sale and the dock permit
application is being sent to the other owner for signature. He indicated both adjacent owners were in support of the application.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the request is the minimum as it was felt sufficient water depth exists near the sea wall and gabled roofs are not common in the area. Mr.
Schmoyer indicated the attractive, low profile design of the roof will protect the boat from birds and sun and is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area, the lift is an
overhead lift and the water is too shallow next to the sea wall.
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 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 subject to the conditions: 1) the roof shall not project more than 12 feet
above mean high water 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 upon the vote
being taken, Ms. Whitney and Messrs. Gans and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Homer voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted.
It was indicated the dissenting vote was cast to maintain consis tency regarding requests for covered docks.
3. Michael B and Amada G Steeves for variances of (1) 24.5 ft to permit a dock length of 62 ft; and (2) 0.75 ft to permit a dock width of 27 ft at 173 Devon Dr, Bayside Sub, part of
Lots 36 and 37, zoned RS 8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 92-42
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating clarification is needed because the application requests a dock length of 62 feet but the drawing submitted with
the applica tion shows a length of 60.5 feet.
It was indicated the City Harbormaster found no navigational hazards pertaining to the application.
Michael Steeves, the applicant, stated staff had suggested the additional dock length for extra leeway in construc tion and indicated he had no objection to a dock length of 60.5 feet
as shown on the drawing. He withdrew variance #2, stating the calculations used were in error and a variance for dock width will not be required.
In response to questions, Mr. Steeves indicated a sailboat with a six-foot draft will be anchored at the subject dock, the existing tie poles will be cut off and used for the dock structure
and two new tie poles will be placed approximately 16 feet south to the end of the "L". He stated the sailboat has a 12-foot beam and will approach the dock from the south.
It was stated for the record a telephone call was received from one adjacent property owner, indicating her wish to rescind her signa ture of approval on a county navigational control
permit;
however, failed to appear at the hearing or follow up with a letter.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #1 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 subject to the requisite building permit being ob tained within six (6) months
from the date of this public hear ing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
III. Approval of Minutes of July 9, 1992
It was requested to correct page one to reflect that David Himes is an engineer, not an architect. The minutes will be corrected to reflect this.
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of July 9, 1992, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
Discussion ensued with regard to changes in plans after variances have been granted.
The Assistant City Attorney suggested the Board consider adding a standard condition to motions to grant variances that the requested variance is subject to the applicant completing
the proposed structure in accordance with the plans and specifications that have been submitted in support of the applica tion. Consensus of the Board was for Mr. Lance to draft this
condition for addition to motions.
Concern was expressed regarding larger boat lifts obstruc ting waterfront views. The Planning Manager stated Code amendments regarding docks will be forthcoming.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk