12/10/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
December 10, 1992
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
John B. Johnson
Members absent:
Otto Gans (excused)
John W. Homer (excused)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:06 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. Time Extensions
1. (1st request for extension) Marinco, a Florida General Part nership, requesting four month time ex tension, for variances of (1) 7.5 ft to permit house 37.5 ft high; (2) 6 ft to
per mit roof to project 10 ft above midpoint; and (3) 0.75 ft to permit house 4.25 ft from side property line at 1070 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 70, Lot 7, zoned RS 8 (single fami ly
residential). V 92-27
Mr. Plisko declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case.
Due to the absence of a quorum, Ms. Whitney moved to continue
this request to the meeting of January 14, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney and Mr. Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 11/12/92) 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 (Resort Commercial). V 92-58
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, requested a continuance to allow the applicants the opportunity to present their case before a full Board.
Ms. Whitney moved to continue this request to the meeting of January 14, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
1. L.O.M., Inc (Surf West Inc) for variances (1) of two parking spaces to permit a total of thirteen spaces in lieu of the 15 spaces required; (2) of 49.83 ft to permit a lot width
of 100.17 ft; (3) of 9.30 ft to permit a lot depth of 91.70 ft; (4) of 8.6 percent building cov erage to permit a maximum cover age of 53.6 per cent; (5) of 5 ft to permit building setback
of 10 ft from N Gulfview Blvd and 12.4 ft to permit a 2.6 ft setback from Papaya St rights-of-way; (6) of 9 ft to permit building 5 ft from a side (north) property line; (7) of 9 ft
to permit building 6 ft from a rear (east) property line; (8) to permit a reduction of 5 percent of the open space required for the front yard to permit 45 percent front yard open space
at 449 N Gulfview Blvd, Clwr Beach Park, Lots 29 thru 32, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 92 59
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to demolish certain existing substan dard residential buildings and redevelop the site into
a commercial retail store. The subject property is a corner lot with an irregular shape and is substandard with regard to width and depth.
The City Traffic Engineering Department does not recommend granting variances to the parking requirements on Clearwater Beach, indicating this contrib utes to the parking shortage in
the area.
Richard Bekesh and David Himes, representing the applicant,
presented photographs of the existing property and explained architects renderings of the proposal. Mr. Himes stated of the four structures on the site, two residential structures and
some asphalt will be removed. The retail area will sell an upgraded clothing line and sports equipment and underground parking is proposed.
Mr. Himes stated reducing the square footage of the building to meet setbacks would reduce the number of parking spaces beneath it.
Discussion ensued with regard to the difficulty in meeting the setback requirements on the substandard lot. Mr. Himes expressed concern an adjacent one-story building set close to the
street will obstruct the view of the proposed establishment from the street. The lot will be heavily land scaped to compensate for the reduced setbacks.
Mr. Bekesh indicated the property will be attractive and a covered entryway for handicapped ingress/egress will be provided. He felt the remaining net floor area is the minimum necessary
to display retail merchan dise. He stated the facility will beautify and enhance the area while eliminating the hazard of back-out parking into the street.
A motel owner to the north of the subject property spoke in support of the application, giving a brief history. He feels the proposed retail use is consistent with the zoning and the
area and will thrive on pedestrian traffic. He said the applicant has shown good faith by upgrading the property and doing everything he can to meet parking and other code requirements.
He requested approval of the application be conditioned upon a 10:00 p.m. closing time due to noise concerns.
One petition containing signatures of eight surrounding property owners was presented in support of the application.
Mr. Bekesh stated the key to making this business successful is having visibility from Mandalay Avenue, there has been no opposi tion to the project and he feels the proposed business
will enhance the neighborhood.
The applicant was commended for his efforts to improve the property; however, concern was expressed the proposal would cause oversatura tion of the lot. It was felt this request is
not the minimum and too many variances are being requested for the size of the lot.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant variances #2 and #3 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 shape and size
of the lot subject to the conditions: 1) the vari ances are based on the application for vari ances and documents submitted by the applicants, including maps, plans, surveys and other
docu ments submitted in support of the applicants' re quest for variances. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the re quest for variances regarding the
work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure locat ed on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; 2) landscaping shall be provided as
shown on the site plan and 3) the requi site 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.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to deny variances #1, #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8 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 Develop ment Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown;
the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant; the variances are not the minimum; the request for the varianc es is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater
financial return from the proper ty and the granting of the variances would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Sun Bank of Tampa Bay for a var iance of 4 parking spa ces to allow 10 spaces where 14 are required at 2201 Belcher Rd, Sec 6-29-16, M&B 32.01, which in cludes a portion of vacated
Pin ellas Groves easement in Sec 1-29-15, zoned OL (Limited Office), subject to rezoning to CPD (Commercial Planned Develop ment). V 92-61
In a letter dated December 2, 1992, the applicant requested a continuance to allow time to readvertise an increase in the requested parking variance. In accordance with a recommen dation
from the City Traffic Engineer ing Department, the increase is being requested to eliminate parking spaces in a traffic aisle.
Ms. Whitney moved to continue this request to the meeting of January 14, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Anthony J and Patricia Furino for a variance of 10 per cent to permit 50 per cent front yard open space where 60 percent is required at 3007 Geiger Ct, Landmark Palms, Lot 2, zoned
RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 92-62
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a circular concrete driveway in the front yard setback of their single-family home
to replace the existing back-out driveway.
Anthony and Patricia Furino, owner/applicants, stated the proposed driveway will allow an elderly relative easier access to the house and will provide additional off-street parking for
the residents. She indicated there will soon be two new drivers in the family who will find it safer to drive cars forward into the street. She said several properties in the area
have circular drives and the driveway will be in keeping with the aesthetics of the neighbor hood.
In response to questions, Mr. Furino stated he has lived in the home for two years and feels the lot was designed to have a circular drive. He said a representative of the City's Forestry
Department indicated there are sufficient trees and landscaping on the property.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson 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;
2) the circular driveway shall be constructed as per the site plan and in compliance with Clearwa ter Building Codes and 3) 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 unani mously. Request granted.
4. George E and Mary Jane Col lins to permit a motor home to be parked within setback area from a street right-of-way at 1944 Ripon Dr, Fair Oaks 1st Add, Lot 23, zoned RS 8 (Single
Family Residential). V 92-63
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail
stating the applicants wish to park their motor home on their property in its present location within a street setback, surround ed by trees and shrubs. The applicants maintain relocating
the motor home to the east would be very costly because it would involve the destruction of fully grown trees, the addition of a large gate, regrading the east side of the lot and relocating
the air conditioning compressor unit and the pool filter system. Another possible location would encroach on the neighbor's property. She stated four letters from surrounding property
owners were submitted in support of the request and are a part of the application.
George and Mary Jane Collins, owner/applicants, explained the need for the variance. Mr. Collins stated he researched the require ments for motor home parking prior to purchasing the
vehicle in 1988 because it is necessary to park the vehicle nearby for security, maintenance and easy access. He was not aware of any parking restric tions.
Mr. Collins stated this and several other violations in the neighborhood were cited by the City Code Enforcement Depart ment as a result of a complaint regarding someone living in a
recre ational vehicle in the driveway of a neighbor. Mr. Collins indicated his case was presented before the Code Enforce ment Board and it was recommended he seek a variance from the
Development Code Adjustment Board.
Mr. Collins his dual front setback requirement is a hardship and said his present parking place would be legal if it were on an inside lot. He stated the neighbors are in support of
the request which will not violate the integrity of the neighbor hood nor impede traffic flow.
In response to a question, it was stated the motor home is 34 feet long. Mrs. Collins stated it is not obtrusive because it is partially concealed by their house and trees. She felt
it would be less aesthetically pleasing parked elsewhere on the lot.
One additional letter was submitted in support of the application.
Concern was expressed the code is intended to protect the communi ty; however, it was also felt a hardship exists with this applica tion.
Discussion ensued with regard to the possibility of installing a four-foot high fence to partially screen the motor home. It was felt the view of the motor home is preferable to the
view of a fence.
Consensus of the Board was to continue this item to the next meeting.
Mr. Johnson moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 14, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
5. Brian G Salisbury for vari ances of (1) 1.37 ft to al low a mini mum lot width of 58.63 ft where 60 ft is required; (2) 2 ft to allow a landscaped buff er 3 ft in width where 5
ft is re quired (east property line); and (3) 5 ft to allow zero land scape buff er where 5 ft is re quired (west property line) at 505 Dru id Rd, Sec 16-29-15, M&B 44.01, 44.011, and
vacated street, zoned OL (Limited Office). V 92-65
In a letter dated December 10, 1992, the applicant's representative requested a continuance to January 28, 1993, to allow time to provide a site plan, in accordance with staff recommendations.
Mr. Johnson moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 28, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
6. Hellenic Orthodox Tra dition alist Church of Ameri ca, Inc for variances of (1) 0.15 acres to allow a minimum lot area of 0.85 acres where 1 acre is required; (2) 31.2 per cent
front yard open space to allow 23.8 percent where 55 per cent is required; and (3) 19 ft to allow a build ing addition 16 ft from street right-of-way where 35 ft is re quired at 1910
Douglas Ave, Sun set Point 2nd Add, Blk G, Lots 23 thru 25 less the east 5 ft and Lots 39 thru 42, zoned P/SP (Public/Semi-Pub lic). V 92-66
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct two new additions to the existing one-story building on an irregular and substandard
lot. She noted the proposed front addition will encroach into the setback to a lesser degree than now.
Louis Bakkalapulo, attorney representing the applicant, indicated the entrance is presently on the east side of the building. This proposal relates to a tradition of the church to have
the altar located on the east side of the building and the entrance on the west.
In response to questions, Mr. Bakkalapulo indicated the area on the east side of the building is paved and confirmed the desire to have the new entrance on the Spring Street side of
the building. He stated an existing courtyard will remain as it is and the addi tion(s) will not extend out as far as an adjacent two story structure.
The church secretary spoke in support of the application.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson 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 following 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) the two additions shall be con structed as shown on the site plan and 3) the requisite build ing permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of
this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
7. Tom M Sehlhorst (Tom Sehlhorst Inc) for variances of (1) 8.09 ft to allow building 1.91 ft from (west) side proper ty line; (2) 14.51 ft to permit building 10.49 ft from a street
right-of-way (Spruce St); (3) 0.01 to permit floor area ratio of 0.31; (4) 1 percent building coverage to permit 31 percent building coverage; and (5) 12 parking spaces to permit 12
spa ces in lieu of the 24 spaces required at 611 Palm Bluff St, Palm Bluff 1st Add, Lots 26, 28, and 30, zoned CN (Neighbor hood Commer cial). V 92-67
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the existing development was built without permits and the applicant has been working with City building inspectors
to correct numerous building code violations. She stated indoor retail sales are permitted in the area; however the existing outdoor retail uses on the property are illegal unless approved
by the Planning and Zoning Board as a part of the Infill Commercial rezoning. It was indicated structures on the subject property do not meet the requirements for setback, floor area
ratio, building coverage or parking. The requested variances, with the exception of the floor area variance, are needed to bring the development into confor mance. It was indicated
floor area is a matter of density/intensity which may not be varied; therefore, this variance request will be withdrawn and a refund will be processed.
Tom Sehlhorst, owner and applicant, stated he owns 12 to 14 lots in this deteriorat ed, high crime area. He indicated it is difficult to stay in business due to zoning changes since
1985. He stated he is being fined $50 per day for renting skates from a
portion of his property which was rezoned to residential when Pinellas Trail was built.
Discussion ensued regarding the various existing buildings on the subject property, their history and current uses. Mr. Sehlhorst indicated one large building has been divided over
the years. Any structural changes disallow grandfathering which might have applied to this property.
Due to numerous questions, it was the consensus of the Board to continue this item to the next meeting in order to have a represen tative of the City Building Division present.
Mr. Johnson moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 28, 1993 to allow time for staff to research the project and address the Board's questions. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
8. Beach Communities II, Inc for a vari ance of 55 ft in height to per mit a building 145 ft in height where 90 ft is al lowed at 1350 Gulf Blvd, Sec 19-29-15, M&B 14.03 and 14.08,
zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential) and OS/R (Open Space/Recreation). V 92-68
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a 26-unit residential condominium on Sand Key. The proposal will be in character
with other residential condomini ums in the area.
George Greer, representing the applicant, gave a brief history of the proposal. He indicated the necessary approvals were obtained from the City Commission and the Development Code
Adjustment Board in August, 1986, to complete this project under the name "L'Hermitage". The action was upheld by a state hearing officer in February, 1987, on appeal by a concerned
neighbor; however, the proposed develop ment was never built.
In response to a question, Mr. Greer stated the current proposal and the requested height variance are the same as what was originally granted for the L'Hermitage development. Being
permitted the additional height will reduce the footprint 28 percent, putting more distance between buildings and increase the vista 30 percent. This will provide more visibility for
the lower 9 floors of Crescent Beach Club than a lower building with a larger footprint.
Ten members of the Crescent Beach Club Association spoke in opposition to the application. Concerns were expressed the proposed location and building configuration are not appropriate
for the area, exceeding the 90-foot-high building requirement would restrict their waterfront view to the south and block light from the pool of their condominium.
Discussion ensued with regard to setback and clear space require ments for the proposed construction.
Mr. Greer stated the taller building will have a better looking roof line and will be aesthetically pleasing. It will not substan tial ly impact any water front views as the windows
on the south side of the adjacent condominium will not directly face the proposed structure.
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 specifical ly because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the
owner or applicant subject to the condition the requisite building permit shall be obtained within two (2) years from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. Request granted.
9. Ramchandra R and Rashmi Jakhotia (King Cole Motel) for a variance of 7 parking spaces to permit an addition al 14 live-aboard ves sels with zero addi tional park ing spaces provided
at 401 East Shore Dr, Barbour Morrow Sub, Blk C, Lot 14 and part of Lot 13, zoned CB (Beach Commercial) and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 92-69
In a letter dated December 10, 1992, the applicant's representative requested a continuance to the meeting of January 14, 1993, to allow the applicants the opportunity to present their
case before a full Board and to allow time to review and analyze new informa tion contained in the staff re port.
Ms. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 14, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Approval of Minutes of November 12, 1992
Ms. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of November 12, 1992, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
Discussion ensued regarding the September 10, 1992 hearing of the
Sea Star Beach Resort application #V 92-47. The Planning Manager stated it will be necessary to schedule this case for reconsidera tion due to the applicant's difficul ty in meeting
the condition concerning reloca tion of the dumpster. The applicant cannot get a certificate of occupancy until the condition is met and the City's Sanitation Department has indicated
the dumpster cannot be moved across the street.
Reconsidera tion was not felt to be necessary; however, it was deter mined readvertising and rehearing are required when consider ing changing a condition imposed upon the granting of
a variance.
It was suggested the applicant submit a written request and apply for a conditional certifi cate of occupancy based on Board recommen dations.
Discussion ensued regarding required parking at the Sea Star. It was suspected the owner may want to have additional units or liveaboard boat slips in the future.
Discussion ensued regarding the November 12, 1992 hearing of the Zabor application #V 92-57. The Planning Manager stated a policy has been established to allow small, decorative light
fixtures to exceed the maximum fence/wall height requirements. It was felt this would not be a problem if the fixture is in keeping with the aesthetic nature of the surroundings and
does not exceed 18 to 24 inches in height.
Discussion continued regarding the Sehlhorst property. It was indicated the zoning is causing a considerable hardship for the applicant, who is attempting a sensible retail use for
the area. Mr. Shuford indicated zoning changes are being pursued.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:18 p.m.