Loading...
02/11/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD February 11, 1993 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chairman Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman Otto Gans John B. Johnson Members absent: John W. Homer Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Victor Chodora, Building Division Director 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 1:00 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 Item A - (continued from 12/10/93, 01/14/93 & 1/28/93) George E and Mary Jane Collins 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 George Collins, owner and applicant, stressed his history of cooperation in this case and gave a brief history. He said several recreational vehicles in driveways and front yard setbacks in the area were reported and cited as a result of a neighborhood feud. He stated he parks his motor home in his yard for maintenance and upkeep. When he appeared before the Code Enforcement Board, it was recommended he request a variance. He can legally park the motor home on the east side of his property; however, doing so would seriously impact the neighbor's view and require the removal of a beautiful, large tree and several shrubs. He indicated the current parking location on the west side of the property is shaded, partially concealed by landscaping, aesthetically pleasing and does not impact any views. On an inside lot, no variance would be required. Having two street setbacks on the corner lot causes a hardship. Two letters from property owners within 200 feet were submitted in support of the application. One letter from a property owner within 200 feet was submitted in opposition to the application. Concern was expressed granting this variance would violate the spirit and intent of the Code and set a precedent. Discussion ensued about corner lots having restrictions not placed on interior lots and the dual setback requirement. It was felt parking the motor home in its current location is more aesthetically pleasing than it would be on the east side of the property. While avoiding a precedent was a major concern, it was indicated uniqueness and individual hardship must be proven in each case. 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 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and is not caused by the owner or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by being on a corner lot and the need to park on the west side subject to the conditions: 1) the motor home shall be parked on the west side of the property where it is presently parked; 2) a legal hedge shall be installed to partially screen the motor home and 3) this variance shall be limited to the time the Collins' occupy the home. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "aye"; Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted. Item B - (continued from 12/10/92 & 1/28/93) Brian G Salisbury for variances of (1) 1.37 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 58.63 ft where 60 ft is required; (2) 2 ft to allow a landscaped buffer 3 ft in width where 5 ft is required (east property line); and (3) 5 ft to allow zero landscape buffer where 5 ft is required (west property line) at 505 Druid Rd, Sec 16-29-15, M&B 44.01, 44.011, and vacated street, zoned OL (Limited Office). V 92-65 This application was continued previously in order to obtain a site plan. No site plan has been received. Ms. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of February 25, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item C - (continued from 12/10/92 & 1/28/93) Tom M Sehlhorst (Tom Sehlhorst Inc) for variances of (1) 8.09 ft to allow building 1.91 ft from (west) side property 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 spaces in lieu of the 24 spaces required at 611 Palm Bluff St, Palm Bluff 1st Add, Lots 26, 28, and 30, zoned CN (Neighborhood Commercial). V 92-67 Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the existing development occurred without obtaining the necessary permits and illegal uses exist on the property. It was indicated structures on the subject property do not meet the requirements for setback, floor area ratio, building coverage or parking. Vacating a portion of Spruce Street was not recommended as the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) owns the right-of-way adjacent to Spruce Street and this additional right-of-way may be needed in the future. Ms. Glatthorn explained variance #3 was withdrawn because floor area is a matter of density/intensity which may not be varied; therefore, this variance request will be withdrawn and the fee refunded to the applicant. Victor Chodora, Director of the City Building Division, was present, at the Board's request, to clarify what is proposed and the existing conditions on the site. He supplied a brief history of the case, stating the applicant has worked with staff over the years to bring the property into compliance. The applicant is having difficulty meeting the setback and parking requirements and the necessary building permits cannot be issued until these requirements are met. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed parking plan, the history and current uses of the various existing buildings on the subject property. Tom Sehlhorst, owner and applicant, stated he has owned property in this deteriorated, high crime area for 17 years. He indicated there have been a number of different uses of the subject property. He cannot use any of the other 12 lots he owns for parking because they are either too far away, or zoned incorrectly. Questions were raised regarding parking and permitting requirements and uses of specific buildings on the site. Mr. Chodora said when calculating requirements, the site was considered as a whole in order to avoid requesting variances piecemeal. Ms. Glatthorn indicated a proposed zoning change will make the existing uses more conforming and the applicant may seek conditional uses to legalize the uses. In response to a question, Mr. Chodora stated variances #1 and #2 are for existing construction and proposed expansion. The applicant was commended for improving the property. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to deny variances #1, #2, #4 and #5 as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant; the granting of the variances would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood and would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney and Mr. Plisko voted "nay". Due to a tie vote, consensus of the board was to reconsider the decision. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to deny variances #1 and #5 as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant; the granting of the variances would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood and would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Variances #1 and #5 denied. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant variances #2 and #4 as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and are not caused by the owner or applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko, and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. Variances #2 and #4 granted. Ms. Whitney amended the motion to include the condition 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, Messrs. Plisko and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted. Item D - (continued from 12/10/92 & 1/14/93) Ramchandra R and Rashmi Jakhotia (King Cole Motel) for a variance of 7 parking spaces to permit an additional 14 live-aboard vessels with zero additional parking 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 Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to have 14 additional liveaboard boat slips at an existing marina; however there is insufficient on-site parking. The City Harbormaster does not support granting the variance. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, requested clarification of the parking space requirement and it was indicated one parking space is required for every two marina slips. Mr. Cline gave a history of the property, saying the facility has 22 boat slips and the applicant purchased the property in 1983. In 1985, the facility was grandfathered for the eight liveaboard slips occupied at the time instead of the marina's maximum capacity. A conditional use for 22 liveaboard slips was approved in 1988 subject to the conditions a pump-out station be installed and sufficient parking be provided, or a variance approved. The applicant met the first condition and leased seven remote parking spaces to satisfy the second condition. Discussion ensued regarding the seven remote parking spaces. Mr. Cline said the minutes of the 1988 conditional use hearing stated parking could be provided elsewhere, or a variance obtained. Staff states parking must be adjacent to the subject property, although it was not stated that way in the minutes, and remote parking does not satisfy the condition. Mr. Cline stated the applicant is not proposing to add anything, but is trying to use what exists. He submitted an aerial photograph of the area. He said not all marina users have cars and felt the applicant should be allowed to use metered parking as is done at the City marina. Ramchandra Jakhotia, the owner/applicant, stated he has made many improvements since he bought the property in 1983. Each liveaboard is inspected prior to approval and there are sufficient sanitary facilities to support the entire marina. Bill Held, City Harbormaster, stated every marina is inspected twice a year to ensure there is proper sewage disposal and adequate parking. He stated most liveaboard residents have vehicles, which impact parking more heavily than non-liveaboards. The applicant is not being restricted from renting all 22 of his boat slips. However, without on-site or adjacent parking, only eight slips may be used for liveaboards. Mr. Held responded to questions, stating liveaboards docking in non-liveaboard slips may obtain a temporary permit which includes free pump-out. They are required to have a holding tank with a fixture that can be connected to sanitation facilities. There is no way to monitor whether or not each liveaboard is pumped out regularly and he depends on the manager of each facility to report anyone illegally dumping sewage. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown; the request for the variance is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, adversely affect the public health, safety, order, convenience, or general welfare of the community and violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. The meeting recessed from 3:00 p.m. to 3:10 p.m. Item E - (continued from 1/14/93) Scott M Trefz (Gulf Bay Animal Hospital) for variances of (1) 6.25 ft to permit a building addition 3.75 ft from side property line where a 10 ft setback is required; (2) 7 ft to permit a building separation of 13 ft where 20 ft is required; and (3) 13 parking spaces to allow 15 spaces where 28 spaces are required at 125 S Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.04, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 93-02 The applicant is to provide proper documentation of a leased parking area for the subject property. This documentation has not been received. Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of February 25, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item F - (continued from 1/14/93 & 1/28/93) Searstown Partners Ltd (Food Lion at Searstown) for variances of (1) 206 parking spaces to allow 480 spaces where 686 spaces are required; and (2) 60 ft to permit a structure (loading dock) 15 ft from street right-of-way where 75 ft is required at 1219-1293 S Missouri Ave, F E Hanousek's Sub, part of Lots 11 and 12, zoned CC (Commercial Center). V 93-03 Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to reconfigure a major portion of an existing, non-conforming parking lot in the Searstown shopping center. The proposed changes to the parking lot include landscaping, handicap parking, resurfacing, restriping and removal of non-conforming parking spaces within the Lincoln Avenue right-of-way. The City Traffic Engineering Department supports the proposed parking layout. In response to a question, it was indicated Food Lion could move in without a parking variance; however, the aesthetic improvements are desirable. Charles Rodriguez, realtor representing the applicant, stated the center was built in the early 1960's with different setback and parking requirements. The proposal would improve the traffic circulation pattern; however, a number of parking spaces would be lost to landscaping and increased setbacks. The proposal would not change the exterior of the existing building except for the addition of a loading dock in the rear. The parking lot could be left as it is, but the applicant wants to upgrade. Two citizens spoke in support of the application, stating nearby residents need a grocery store in the area as many of them do not have vehicles. There is a great deal of neighborhood support and the project will be good for everyone. One letter from an adjacent apartment complex owner was submitted in support of the application. While acknowledging the need for the store and praising the proposed circulation pattern and landscaping, concern was expressed about the substantial reduction in parking. It was felt the variance request is excessive and would not improve conditions in the shopping center or the neighborhood. It was recommended some consideration be given to tearing down the old, non-conforming center and rebuilding to current standards. Discussion ensued regarding the remaining businesses and the parking requirements in the center. Ms. Glatthorn stated 238 parking spaces would be lost to landscaping and setbacks. However, approximately 30 percent of those spaces are located in the rear and are never used. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson 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 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property; the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant and the granting of the variances would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko, and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. Request denied. Assistant City Attorney Lance returned at 3:40 p.m. Item G - (continued from 1/28/93) Ginez Holdings, Inc (Ho Jo Inn) for a variance of 5 parking spaces to permit 10 new marina slips with zero additional parking spaces provided at 656 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub No 5, Blk A, Lots 15 thru 20, and riparian rights, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial) and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 93-10 Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to add ten slips to an existing motel/marina facility on Clearwater Beach. She stated a conditional use was approved in February, subject to conditions. The City Traffic Engineering Department does not support granting variances to parking on Clearwater Beach. The City Harbormaster expressed concerns regarding meeting parking and sanitary facility requirements if liveaboards are allowed. Robert Moore, marine contractor representing the applicant, referred to the Pinellas County Water Navigation Code, stating the proposal is for a Category A marina which can only be used by the residents of the motel. He indicated the expanded facility is needed for the convenience of motel guests arriving by boat and additional parking is not necessary. Mr. Moore stated the applicant has no intention of leasing boat slips or having liveaboards. The slips will be strictly for the use of the motel residents. Due to the presence of a yacht broker in the facility, concern was expressed the applicant wishes to sell yachts on the premises. Mr. Moore stated The Moorings, International, is a yacht charter and brokerage association hired only to operate the marina and supervise boat docking. The applicant does not allow yacht sales from the marina. Ms. Glatthorn stated outdoor sales are not permitted. Discussion ensued regarding the parking situation. Mr. Moore felt the proposal is in keeping with what other waterfront motel operations are doing in the area. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the implied hardship was caused by the owner or applicant; the variance is not the minimum; the granting of the variance would substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. 1. City of Clearwater (Infrastructure) for a variance of 14 ft to allow a chain link fence 20 ft in height where 6 ft is permitted at 1650 N Arcturas Ave, Sec 1-29-15, Pinellas Groves SW 1/4, part of Lots 27 and 28 and a portion of vacated road on south; and Sec 12-29-15, Pinellas Groves NW 1/4, part of Lots 5 and 6 and vacated 15 ft on north, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). V 93-11 This request was withdrawn by the applicant. 2. Carlouel Point Corp/Stella F Thayer and Thompson L Rankin for variances of (1) 66 in to allow a gate 96 in in height where 30 in is permitted; and (2) 3 ft to allow a zero ft setback where 3 ft is required at 1098 Mandalay Point Rd, a strip of land known as Palmer Hayward Reserved as described on plats of Mandalay Point Sub and Mandalay Point Sub 1st Add, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 93-12 The applicant's representative requested a continuance to the next meeting. Ms. Whitney moved to continue the item to the meeting of February 25, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Board and Staff Discussion In response to a question, it was indicated an appeal to the State Division of Administrative Hearings was heard on February 3, 1993, regarding the Stinson case (V 92-46, 9/24/92). The final order is to be issued within 30 days from the date of the appeal hearing. Concern was expressed regarding construction in progress at the Beach Place Motel (V 92-58, 1/14/93), for which a parking space variance related to the construction of a real estate office on the property was denied. Ms. Glatthorn stated the owner is converting one of the smaller existing motel units into an office and this conversion does not require additional parking. Direction was requested relating to the format of the new staff reports. Consensus was the table could be eliminated. III. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.