11/12/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
November 12, 1992
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
John W. Homer
Members absent:
Otto Gans (excused)
John B. Johnson (excused)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Mary K. 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.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Public Hearings - To con sider requests for variances of the Land Development Code:
Item A - (continued from 10/22/92) David J Gangelhoff (Gulf Marine of Clwr, FL) to permit variances of (1) an un paved vehicle (boat) storage area; and (2) 2 ft to permit a fence 6
ft in height at 405 N Ft Harrison Ave, Sec 9-29-15, M&B 44.02; Fort Harrison Sub, Lot 1; Hart's 2nd Add to Clwr, Blk 3, Lots 5 thru 10, part of Lot 3, and part of vacated alley; and
Jones' Sub of Nicholson's Add, Blk 3, Lots 6 thru 10, zoned CG (Gen eral Commer cial). V 92-44
Senior Planner Glatthorn stated this application was continued in order for the applicant to submit a scaled site plan, indicating what is existing and what is proposed, as requested
on September 24, 1992. She explained the applicant is requesting a variance to the paving condition imposed by a state hearing officer at a conditional use permit appeal hearing in
1982. A fine of $25.00 per day has been accruing since May 26, 1992, ordered by the Code Enforcement Board for non-compliance to the paving condition and other conditions not specific
to this request.
Concern was expressed regarding the canopy extending to the property line on Garden Avenue due to a 25-foot setback being required. Staff is to investigate whether or not the proper
approvals were obtained.
Robert W. Bell, representing the applicant, expressed concern regarding staff's recommendation to remove the barbed wire from the top of existing fences. The applicant wishes to retain
a fence height of six feet. It was indicated barbed wire is allowed in certain areas of the City.
The Planning Official noted the requested variance will allow a six-foot fence height around the property except in the front yard where the property is addressed.
In response to a question regarding the age, type and size of the trees located in the boat storage area, Mr. Bell submitted a copy of a letter from City Forester Alan Mayberry to the
City Planning Services Division. Mr. Mayberry stated trees on the subject property range in size from 9 inches to 26 inches in diameter. He deter mined paving would have an adverse
effect on the laurel oak trees due to changing the soil Ph. He indicated the live oaks and sabal palms could survive with limited paving if tree root feeders were provided.
The letter from Mr. Mayberry was read into the record.
Discussion ensued regarding the boat storage area. Mr. Bell stated the area is unsuit able for parking due to the soft sand; however, the applicant cannot afford to pave this area.
He is getting rid of the old boats, cleaning up the area, and will no longer need the area for boat storage. Mr. Bell feels the condition of the property has improved drastically.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to deny variance #1 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 and the hardship
was caused by the owner or applicant. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant #2, a variance of two feet to permit a fence six feet in height along the unaddressed areas and not along
North Fort Harri son Avenue because the applicant has substan tially 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 the neighborhood, which is the substantial crime, and was not caused by the owner or applicant subject
to the req uisite fence permit being ob tained within thirty (30) days from the date of
this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Item B - (continued from 10/22/92) Robert L and Janet M Schueszler for variances of (1) 6.5 ft to permit a lot width of 63.5 ft where 70 ft is required; 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 Family Residential). V 92-52
Senior Planner Glatthorn stated this application was continued to allow the property owners to appear before the board in support of their case. She explained the request in detail,
stating the applicants wish to construct an attached garage in line with their single family residence and in character with the surrounding neighbor hood.
Art Shand, representing the applicants, presented drawings of the proposal. He stated the applicants desire an attached, wheelchair accessible garage of sufficient size to accommodate
two full-sized cars. He stated the existing garage on the property is not large enough for both cars and is being used to house equipment. He felt the loss of storage space due to
the removal of an old shed on the property constitutes a hardship. In response to a question, Mr. Shand stated the depth of the garage has been reduced to 35.5 feet.
Janet Schueszler, owner and applicant, stated the new garage addition will look better, be less expensive to construct, more convenient and will be built in line with the existing garage.
In response to questions, Mrs. Schueszler indicated her husband is not currently confined to a wheelchair; however, has a condition which could cause him to lose the use of his legs.
She stated his car could be equipped with hand controls if this occurred.
A question was raised if the new drawing represents any changes from the original proposal. Mr. Shand stated the garage depth originally requested has been reduced. He said the surrounding
property owners support the proposed addition and removal of the old storage shed and feel this will improve the appearance of the neighborhood.
One letter from an adjacent property owner was submitted in support of the application.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney 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 owner's health subject to the conditions: 1) the vari ance is based on the appli cation for a variance and docu ments submitted by the appli cants, including
maps, plans, surveys and other documents sub mitted in support of the applicant'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) the
9-foot by 10-foot metal shed located in the north east corner of the rear yard shall be removed from the prop erty; 3) the attached garage shall be constructed to line up with the front
and rear of the house and 4) the requisite building per mit 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. Howard R Jimmie (Howard Jim mie's Truck Parts) for variances of (1) 15 ft to permit a zero ft wide landscape buffer between an industrial use and residential zoning district; (2)
43 ft to permit development on a lot with a width of 57 ft at setback line; and (3) 15 ft to permit a building zero ft from a side property line abutting a resi dential zone at 609 Seminole
St, J.H. Rouse's Sub, Blk 3, Lots 19 thru 21, zoned IL (Limited In dustrial). V 92-56
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a concrete block storage building connecting two existing buildings on a property
which currently contains an unsightly accumulation of salvageable automobile parts and abuts the Pinellas Trail. A portion of the Spruce Avenue right-of-way is in the process of being
vacated which will allow the applicant to provide three stormwater retention ponds and a 15-foot landscape buffer.
In response to questions, Ms. Glatthorn indicated water retention and open space requirements will be met with the vacation of Spruce Avenue.
Gordon Killion, representing the applicant, presented drawings of the proposal and stated the addition will tie together two existing buildings on a property which abuts the Pinellas
Trail. He said the variances are needed because the setback requirements changed when the Pinellas Trail came in and was zoned residential. He indicated the narrow lot width on Seminole
Street presents a hardship; however, the lot width will be increased when Spruce Avenue is vacated.
Discussion ensued in regard to the number of parking spaces on the property and concern was expressed this causes the establishment to resemble a garage operation. Mr. Killion indicated
the number of doors dictate the number of parking spaces required. He indicated the addition will have overhead doors for load ing/access and will be leased as dry storage.
It was felt if the request is approved, a condition should be added that the variance be subject to final vacation approval of Spruce Avenue.
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 more specifical ly because, the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of an older neighborhood now
surrounded by the Pinellas Trail subject to the conditions: 1) the ap plicant shall provide a detailed landscape plan in accordance with Section 136.023 of the Land Development Code;
2) the appli cant shall apply new paint to all exterior walls fronting on the Pinellas Trail; 3) the ap plicant shall remove all junk vehicles within 90 days from the date of this public
hearing; 4) this variance shall be subject to final vacation approval of a portion of Spruce Avenue and 5) the requi site building per mit shall be obtained within six (6) months from
the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
Mr. Shuford arrived at 1:50 p.m.
2. David L and Susan M Zabor for a variance of 18 in to per mit a 4 ft wall to be erected in a structural setback from a street right-of-way at 302 Lotus Path, Corrected Map of Harbor
Oaks, Lot 139 and part of Lot 137, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 92-57
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a decorative wall to accent the entrance of their property located in a historic
district.
John Haggitt, attorney representing the applicant, stated the proposed wall will replace an existing hedge at the entrance of the property. The majority of the wall will be below 48
inches in height except at the gate entryway of the house. He indicated the 48-inch height is for aesthetics and in keeping in character with the surrounding neighborhood. He submitted
a photograph of the proposal.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the 48-inch height would be sufficient to allow the desired light fixtures on the gateposts or whether an additional variance is required.
It was suggested the applicant work with staff to determine how light fixtures may best be incorporated into the wall design.
In response to a question, Mr. Haggitt stated there is no intent to extend the wall around the property in the future.
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 is the minimum necessary subject to the conditions: 1) this variance shall be strictly for a 48-inch wall height and does not in clude any light
fixtures 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.
3. Beach Place Motel, Inc for a variance of three parking spaces to permit zero parking spaces where three are required at 301 S Gulfview Blvd, The Beach Place Motel, a Condo, zoned
CR 28 (Re sort Commercial). V 92-58
Senior Planner Glatthorn stated the applicant has reduced the number of parking spaces being requested from three to two. She explained the application in detail stating the applicant
has received conditional use approval to operate a real estate office on the subject property. She stated all existing parking on the site is nonconforming backout parking. Concern
was expressed a parking variance would result in overdevelopment of the site, given the density of the property.
The City's Traffic Engineer ing Department does not support the approval of this variance.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated this is a small, foreign investor oriented, real estate business in a motel with one parking space for each unit. He compared
the property with other hotel/motels in the area where parking is at a premium. The owners are attempting to reuse and improve what is existing rather than convert to another use.
He felt the parking had been grandfathered in. He said the applicant can provide two noncon form ing parallel parking spaces in front of the office, indicating there is adequate public
parking in the neighborhood. He said the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force is encouraging "Mom and Pop" motels.
Sid Bryant, representing the applicant, said he has been associated with the property for ten years and has never seen a shortage of parking as the majority of guests do not drive there.
Mr. Rollewski, owner and applicant, stated it is hoped this office will attract foreign visitors to the area hotels/motels.
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 not caused by the owner
or applicant and what makes
it unique is the property and the surrounding area were developed under different zoning codes and conditions, 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 and 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
Discussion ensued with it being strongly felt too many places on Clearwater Beach have insuffi cient and/or backout parking. It was felt continuing to grant this type of variance does
not improve the situation and is detrimental to the area.
There was no second.
Mr. Cline requested a continuance to the next meeting to allow time to review the request.
Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of December 10, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
4. Lakeside Corp (Lakeside Mo bile Home Park/Robert Trail) for a variance of 8 ft to permit a carport 2 ft from adjacent mo bile home at 2165 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Lot 103, Sec 13-29-15,
M&B 41.01, zoned RMH (Mobile Home Park). V 92-60
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to reconstruct a carport to protect his car. He stated a carport previously existed in the
same location; however, was removed by the owner/applicant to enable him to park his recreational vehicle beside the mobile home.
Mark Madison, representing the applicant, stated the applicant wishes to replace the carport that was removed. The proposed carport will be the same size and of the same configura tion
as the majority of carports in the trailer park.
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 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 and 2) the requisite building per mit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the
date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
II. Public Hearing - To consid er an application for the fol lowing Land Development Code Text Amendment:
1. Ordinance No. 5295-92 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 134.015, Code of Ordinances, relating to non conforming signs, and
the crite ria to be considered in granting variances from the pro visions thereof; providing an effective date. (LDCA 92-20)
Mr. Homer moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Approval of Minutes of October 8, and October 22, 1992
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of October 8, and October 22, 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 sending flowers to Board Member Gans due to his recent illness.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk