04/08/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
April 8, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin (1:20 p.m.)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Ted Clarke, Planner II
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 Develop ment 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 3/25/93) Dan's Island 1600 Condo Assoc, Inc, for a variance to allow a structure, consist ing of a deck and steps, 26 ft seaward of the coastal construc tion
control line at 1650 Gulf Blvd, Dan's Island on Sand Key Condo, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residen tial), OS/R (Open Space/Recreation), and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 93-18
This item is being continued to the meeting of April 22, 1993, in order to allow time to advertise an increase in the variance request.
Ms. Whitney moved to continue this request to the meeting of April 22, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson
voted "aye"; Ms. Martin was not present. Motion carried.
1. Mt. Olive AME Church for variances of (1) 37 parking spaces (including 7 paved spaces) to allow 42 spaces where 79 spaces are required; and (2) 3.5 feet to allow a structure 11.0
ft from a side property line where 14.5 ft is required at 614 Jones St, Jones Sub of Nicholson's Addn to Clearwater Harbor, Blk 4, Lot 2 and S 1/2 vacated alley, Lots 3 through 6 and
vacated alley between, zoned P/SP (pub
lic/semi-public) and CG (general commercial). V 93-14
Senior Planner Sandy Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to expand an existing church by adding a new 5,440 square foot building and 7,200 square
feet of parking spaces. The proposed new building will consist of classrooms, a kitchen and a conference room. Four existing houses on the site are proposed to be removed to provide
grass surface parking area. The Development Review Committee has approved the final site plan and a conditional use to permit non-commercial parking was granted.
Willie Johnson and Todd Mills, representing the applicant, stated permission to park in the subject lot has been obtained from the County and the purchase of additional lots is being
negotiated.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not there is justification to grant the variances and a copy of the building plans was requested. (This item was continued to 1:50 p.m. to allow
the representative time to present a copy of the plans.)
Willie Johnson presented copies of the site plan and building plans for the record, stating the additional space is needed for classrooms and to accommodate the growing congregation.
In response to questions, he stated there are approximately 430 members and he anticipates from 40 to 100 new members every fiscal year, with 75 percent average attendance. He indicated
the original sanctuary will not be changed and the old houses will be torn down when the new addition is built. It was indicated many people live within walking distance of the church
and bus transpor tation is also available.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substan tially 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 particular physical surround ings, shape, or topographical 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 subject to the following condi tions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted
by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted
in support of the request 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) all conditions imposed by the Development Review Committee shall be met prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and 3) the requisite building permit shall
be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. William A Day, Trustee, for variances of (1) 21.5 ft to permit stairs 2.5 ft from side (south) property line where 24.0 ft is required; and (2) 15.6 ft to permit a building addition
9.4 ft from Clearwater Harbor where 25 ft is required at 473 East Shore Dr, Replat of Clearwater Beach Park First Addn, Blk C, Lots 6 and 7, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 93-22
Mr. Plisko declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case.
Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant was previously granted the necessary variances to build a second floor addition to his property (V 92-53,
10/8/92). The applicant now proposes to square off and enclose the northeast corner of the building and add a stairway for second floor access.
William Day, the applicant, explained the variances previously granted are virtually identical to the current request; however, his desire to square off the corner of the building was
considered to be a substan tial change in the building plans. Although the change does not materially affect the variances which were granted, standard condition #1 indicates deviation
from plans submitted with the application will invalidate the variances.
Discussion ensued regarding what was existing and what is now proposed. Concern was expressed with extending a non-conformity and with the height and size of the structure.
In response to questions, Mr. Day stated this is a two-story, single family home and the addition will be used by his family, not for an additional motel room. He said placing a stairway
inside the present footprint would take five feet from the interior living space and he feels having the stairway in the proposed enclosure will be more convenient. In addition, the
wrap-around deck will be smaller than shown at the time of the original approval. Mr. Day indicated this is his home and it will be attractive when it is finished. He agreed the structure
is large; however, as it is located next to a high-rise apartment, did not feel it is exces sive for the area.
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 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the size of the lot subject
to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request 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. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Martin voted "nay" and Mr. Plisko
abstained. Motion carried.
3. Margaret O'Neill for variances of (1) 7 ft to allow a structure 3 ft from a rear property line where 10 ft is required; and (2) 4 ft to allow a structure 1 ft from a side property
line where 5 ft is required at 1035 Osage St, Revised Plat of Navajo Park, Blk G, Lots 36 and 37, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 93-23
Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a detached garage and storage shed on an existing concrete pad where another garage once
stood. Staff indicated the variances do not appear to be justified as there are no physical barriers on the site that would restrict the driveway and concrete pad from being extended
away from the property line.
David Sietsma, owner/applicant, stated this is an older neighbor hood and his house was built around 1937. Numerous nearby properties have detached garages near the property lines.
He purchased the property with the intention of restoring the former garage; however, it was demolished and removed without his knowledge a few days before he closed on the property.
Mr. Sietsma stated several fruit trees would have to be removed or relocated if the proposed structure were shifted away from the property lines. He indicated the proposed garage is
in character with the surround ings, will be aestheti cally pleasing and will not be materially detrimen tal to other proper ties.
Discussion ensued regarding what was existing and the current proposal.
In response to questions, Mr. Sietsma stated the new structure will be smaller than the original and the small shed is to be used for storage of lawn and gardening tools. He said he
owns a furniture refinishing business in St. Petersburg, but does not do the refinishing work himself and no business will operated from the proposed garage.
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 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or
applicant; is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the removal of the original garage subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application
for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation
from any
of the above documents submitted in support of the request 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. The motion was duly seconded
and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Whitney and Martin voted "aye"; Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "nay". Motion failed.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant variance #1 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 are not caused by the owner
or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the removal of the original garage subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is
based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request
for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny #2 for a variance to the west side setback because the applicant has not demonstrat ed 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
variance is not the minimum and the granting of the variance would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05, specifically
in connection with the non-conformity. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
4. Everybody's Tabernacle, Inc. for variances (1) to permit office and storage trailers to remain as permanent struc tures; and (2) of 30 ft to permit structures 5 ft from Fairburn
Ave and Cedar St right-of-way lines where 35 ft is required at 1120 N Betty Lane, Fairburn Addn, Blk F, Lots 1 through 14, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 93-24
This item is to be continued because the applicant is requesting additional variances.
Ms. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 13, 1993, to allow time to readvertise. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs.
Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Martin was not present. Motion carried.
II. Approval of Minutes of March 25, 1993
Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of March 25, 1993, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
Mr. Johnson questioned the construction on Druid Road for Dr. Salisbury and whether parking requirements will be met. Staff will investigate.
Discussion ensued regarding negative Board comments being made to the applicant or representative while the case is being presented. It was the consensus of the Board to hold comments
until Board discussion.
In response to a question as to whether applicants may speak after the Board enters discussion, it was stated they may only respond to a specific question asked by a Board member.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:31 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk