09/10/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
September 10, 1992
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Otto Gans
John W. Homer
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Members absent:
Thomas J. Graham (resigned)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Susan Stephenson, Deputy 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.
It was stated Mr. Graham submitted his letter of resignation from the Board due to relocating his residence outside the City of Clearwater. He was commended for his years of service
on the Board.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Time Extensions
1. 440 West Condominium Assoc, Inc, for variances of (1) 24 ft to permit swimming pool seaward of Coastal Construc tion Control Line (CCCL); and (2) 50 ft 6 in to permit swimming pool
construction 6 in seaward of the Gulf of Mexico mean high water line and of 32 ft to permit pool equipment room 18 ft from mean high water line at 450 S Gulf-view Blvd, 440 West Condo,
zoned CR 28 (resort commercial) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coast al). V 91-60
Paul Wade, representing the owner, stated a six-month time extension is needed because the DNR permit has not yet been received.
Ms. Whitney moved to grant a six (6) month time extension to April 10, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unani mously.
II. Public Hear ings
Item A - Valentino Koumoulidis (to reconsider previous request) for vari anc es of (1) 83 ft to permit a 67 ft wide lot; (2) 3 parking spaces to per mit 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 buff ering and (5) 12.8 ft to permit zero ft of clear space at 606 Bay way Blvd, Bayside Sub No 5, Blk
A, Lot 7, zoned CR-28 (resort com mercial). V 91-25
Planning Manager Shuford gave a brief history of the application, stating concern was expressed during a second request for time extension hearing the proposed use of the property was
changed from that originally proposed. It was decided to reconsid er the request as it was originally adver tised, prior to any action that was taken.
Mr. Shuford stated granting the variances would solve the back-out parking problem on the substan dard lot. He stated required parking can be provided without a variance and recommended
the applicant withdraw variance #2.
David Himes, representing the applicant, withdrew variance #2. He stated reverting to the original plan eliminates areas of concern and requested the Board approve the variances which
were originally granted. He indicated the owner/applicant will occupy the proposed upstairs apartment and wishes to have a small retail establishment on the ground floor instead of
the proposed restaurant.
In response to a question, Mr. Himes stated he was not aware of the Beach Task Force's recommendation against conver sion of old motels to more intense uses due to increasing traffic
conges tion. It was felt task force recommendations should not be imposed on applica tions submitted prior to presentation of the recommendations.
Discussion ensued regarding the first floor area being too small for more than one retail enterprise and there was some question regarding a personal service business and its impact
on parking.
In response to questions, Mr. Himes stated the owner wishes to improve the hotel building by converting the three existing second-floor rental units into one apartment, leaving his options
open for use of the first floor for some type of business. He indicated there is no plan to change a previously existing storage shed on the west wide of the building.
It was indicated a hardship exists due to the existing building being on a narrow lot and it was felt the applicant has done the best he could with what he has.
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 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 subject to the conditions: 1) The vari ance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the appli cants, including maps, plans,
surveys and other documents submitted in support of the applicants' re quest for a variance. 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 located 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 dwelling unit which shall comprise the entire second floor and a retail store containing 1616.79 square feet which shall comprise the first floor
as submitted in the plans presented August 11, 1992; 3) the clear space that is provided shall be "obstruct ed" 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 issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to the City Environ mental
Management Group to ensure selected landscaping materials be as dense as possible to maximize front yard landscaping and 5) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within ninety
(90) days from the date of this public hearing. There was no second.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to deny the variances 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 no unnecessary hardship was shown; the request for the variances is based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property and the granting of the variances would substan tially increase the congestion in the public streets. The motion was
duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, and Mr. Homer voted "aye"; Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "nay". Motion failed due to a tie vote.
Assistant attorney Lance determined, according to Board rules, this application should be rescheduled.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this request to the meeting of Octo ber 8, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimous ly.
Item B - (continued from 8/13/92) Robert H Chapman and Marjorie 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 va cated street, zoned RS 8 (sin gle family residential). V 92-40
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct an attached front porch deck and roof addition to improve the front appearance
of the existing two-story home. He stated the application was continued when it appeared a variance to open space requirements would be needed; however, the applicant's architect has
submitted calculations which indicate this require ment will be met.
The applicant was commended for eliminating an unsightly fence and improving the aesthetic quality of the front of the property.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney 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 variances arise 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 size of the lot and surroundings 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 cants, including maps, plans, surveys and other documents sub mitted in support of the applicants' 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) the porch shall be constructed as indicated on the site plan and 3) the requisite building
permit shall be ob tained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
1. Jugal B and Manna J Shah (Sea Star Beach Resort) for a variance of 5 ft to allow zero landscape buffering from street right-of-way at 326 Hamden Dr, Columbia Sub No 3, Lots 3, 3a,
4, 4a, and part of Lots 2 and 2a, zoned CR 28 (resort commer cial). V 92-47
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating parking was provided on the east side of Hamden Drive to meet the parking needs of an addition to the motel. However,
a staff error allowed the required perimeter landscaping to be placed in the street right-of-way of Hamden Drive instead of on the owner's property. The Public Works Department approved
the plan in order to allow necessary water retention to be provided. The City Traffic Engineering Division has recommended altering the landscap ing to improve pedestrian traffic flow.
It was indicated a waterfront fence shown on the plans is not allowed and the applicant has submitted a letter stating the fence will be removed. Staff feels the landscap ing variance
is justified due to the narrow lot.
Gordon Killion, representing the applicant, stated four parking spaces were installed. He indicated the landscaping contractor
installed a double row of dwarf oleanders. The applicant is willing to remove some of the landscaping.
Concern was expressed regarding the use of the additional parking spaces. It was indicated the spaces could not be rented to users of the boat slips adjacent to the subject property
or to the general public.
Public Works Director Bill Baker stated paving the parking lot has created a need for water retention on the site, according to State and City law. The applicant cannot meet landscaping
require ments in the space remaining due to the small size of the lot. He indicated Public Works approved one row of plants to be placed on the property line; however, a double row
of plants was inadvertent ly placed outside the property line. Mr. Baker felt using public land in this manner should never be allowed and recom mended the plants in the right-of-way
be removed and the variance for zero landscape buffering be granted.
Concern was expressed regarding the unscreened City Dumpster in the right-of-way in front of the subject property. Discussion ensued with regard to an alternate location for the dumpster.
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 subject
to the conditions: 1) the vari ance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicants, including maps, plans, surveys and other documents submitted
in support of the applicants' re quest for a variance. 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 located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) there shall be no landscaping permitted in the public right-of-way;
3) the fence adjacent to the seawall shall be eliminated; 4) no public parking (for a fee) shall be permitted; 5) the newly constructed parking area shall not be used to fulfill a re quirement
for additional parking for any purpose other than the motel use and 6) within 60 days of the date of this public hear ing, the dumpster shall be relo cated to the main motel property
on the opposite side of Hamden Drive and the dumpster shall be screened in a man ner that con forms to the City code and in accordance with staff recommen dations. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
II. Approval of Minutes of August 24, 1992
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of August 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
In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Lance stated a member may change a vote prior to the end of a roll call vote. A vote may not be changed after it is recorded without
continuing the hearing for reconsideration.
Staff was requested to send a letter to Mr. Graham, thanking him for his years of loyal service on the board.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk