04/22/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
April 22, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
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 1:05 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. Time Extensions
1. (1st request for extension) L M Loken (Imperial Square Shopping Center) for a variance of 58 parking spaces to permit a shopping center with 293 parking spaces at 1440-1494 S Belcher
Rd, Sec 24-29-15, M&B 41.02, 41.03, 41.04, and 41.05, zoned CC (commercial center) and CG (general commercial). V 92-35
In a letter dated April 1, 1993, Mr. Stephen Fowler, architect representing the applicant, requested a one year time extension due to a delay in the Food Lion project.
Granting of a parking variance in this case, heard on June 25, 1992, was conditioned upon the applicant obtaining the requisite building permit within one year of certifi cation of the
amended site plan. Staff is to investi gate the status of the project.
Ms. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 13, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (Continued from 3/25/93 & 4/8/93) Dan's Island 1600 Condo Assoc, Inc for a variance to allow a struc ture, consisting of a deck and steps, 86 ft seaward of the coastal construction
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
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained this application has been withdrawn as a result of Declaratory Ruling 93-9, issued by the Director of Planning and Development and the Development
Code Administrator. It was determined dune crossovers not exceeding four feet in width, for which DNR permits are obtained, shall not be subject to rear yard or Coastal Construction
Control Line (CCCL) setback requirements. She stated permits have already been issued for this construction.
1. City of Clearwater for variances of (1) 14 ft to allow a structure 11 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 20 ft to allow a lot width of 50 ft where 70
ft is required at 900 Plaza St, Plaza Park Sub, Blk G, Lot 1, zoned RM 12 (Multi-Family Residen tial). V 93-25
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, in partnership with the Challenge 2000 Infill Housing Program and the City of Clearwater, construct affordable
housing for low to moderate income families. This proposal is to build a single-family house on a non-conforming, vacant corner lot, similar to the others in this North Greenwood neighborhood.
Jerry Spilatro, of Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, said 14 such houses have been built and this is only the second time variances have been needed. He described other construction
in the area and said he hopes more people will begin to select lots in this neighborhood.
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 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) all requisite building permits shall be obtained within one year from the
date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Sunset Associates (Joel n' Jerry) for a variance of 10 ft to allow 0 ft landscape buffer where 10 ft is required at 23654 U.S. 19, Sec 6-29-16, M&Bs 41.01, 41.02, 41.04, 41.05 and
41.06 together with Blackburn Sub, parts of Lots 1 and 12, and vacated street, zoned CC (Commercial Center). V 93-26
It was indicated this application has been revised and will need to be readvertised.
Ms. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 13, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Marc E. Smith for variances (1) of 3.5 ft and 2.0 ft to allow a fence 6.0 ft in height where 2.5 ft and 4.0 feet is permitted; (2) of 3 ft to allow a fence 0 ft from property line
where 3 ft is required; (3) to allow zero landscaping where a landscape plan is required; and (4) to allow no gate or opening where required; all to allow a wooden privacy fence on the
north property line at 2098 Powderhorn Dr, Walden Woods, Lot 63, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-27
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a six-foot wooden privacy fence along the north property line of his corner lot
to provide a safe place for his children to play and to protect the property from automobile accidents occurring on Union Street. She stated staff met with the applicant at the site
and the fence plan was amended to eliminate the need for variances #1a (of 3.5 ft), #2 and #4.
Marc E. Smith, the owner/applicant, stated he is willing to install the required landscaping along the fence, if necessary. He submitted two photographs of a fence similar to the style
proposed.
Discussion ensued regarding what was originally proposed and the fence location now being requested.
Concern was expressed regarding a six-foot fence in close proximity to Union Street. It was indicated the fence will not create a traffic hazard because it will be set back far enough
that it will not obstruct the view of oncoming traffic on the corner of Powderhorn Drive and Union Street.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to grant #1b, a variance of 2.0 ft to allow a fence 6.0 feet in height 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 and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the property subject to the fol lowing 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 requisite fence 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. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Plisko and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny variance #3 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 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimous ly.
4. Thomas A. and Frances R. Caleca for variances of (1) 3 ft to allow a dock 33 ft in width where 30 ft is permitted; and (2) 3 ft to allow a dock 38.5 ft in length where 35.5 ft is
permitted at 625 Snug Island, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 7A, Lot 9, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential) and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 93-28
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to enlarge an existing dock to accommodate a larger boat by moving the existing catwalk and
extending the roof. Staff feels the request appears to be supported by the standards for approval.
Larry Fisk, marine contractor representing the applicant, presented copies of a survey of the area. The proposal is to widen the boat slip and convert it into a wet slip by moving the
existing catwalk five feet to the north and eliminat ing the existing cradle lift to accommodate a larger boat which the applicant has purchased.
Clarifica tion of the plan was requested and it was indicated the site plan was drawn upside down with the "north" arrow pointing to the south.
In response to a question, Mr. Fisk indicated the new boat is currently docked outside the slip, between the dock and the tie poles to the south. It is desirable to dock the boat out
of the sun. The dock will not extend any further to the east. Variance #2 is to permit the additional length of the boat.
Dr. Thomas Caleca, the owner/applicant, stated he purchased the property two years ago and has not modified the dock. The dock will not extend any further into the navigable waterway
and will not obstruct access or traffic flow. He stated he would be happy to leave the roof as it is; however, it is required by roof construction codes to cover the catwalk. It will
be the same height as what is existing.
Two citizens, representing 361 Harbor Passage, which is directly across the waterway from the subject property, spoke in opposi tion to the applica tion. Concerns were expressed the
proposal will adversely affect the use of the dock at 361 Harbor Passage, increase the congestion, cause a navigation traffic hazard and affect
property values.
Two citizens, representing 351 Harbor Passage, the adjacent property to the north, also objected to the proposal. Extending the dock to the north will increase the congestion in the
narrow northern end of the waterway and further obstruct his view of the water. The owner of 351 Harbor Passage presented material specifications of the applicant's new boat, saying
it is almost 40 feet long and will extend into the waterway an additional eight to ten feet. He presented photographs of the area showing the narrow width and congestion of that area
of the waterway. He felt the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by buying a larger boat.
Three letters were submitted in opposition to the application.
Mr. Fisk presented an aerial view of the site and it was noted the dock at 351 Harbor Passage encroaches across the extended property line onto the applicant's property.
Dr. Caleca responded to the neighbors' concerns. He explained the new boat will only extend 3 feet outside the dock and will not pose any navigational hazard. Removing the cradle lift
and having the low profile of the new boat in the wet slip will improve the view of the neighbor to the north. He said having a boat this nice enhances surround ing property values.
Dr. Caleca felt it is important to have good relations with his neighbors and said the current request received the approval of both adjacent neighbors. He anticipat ed objection from
the neighbor to the south if any attempts were made to extend the dock in that direction.
Discussion ensued with regard to the application.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin 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 unneces sary hardship was shown; the hardship was
caused by the owner or applicant and the variances are not the minimum. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Gans and Johnson
voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko voted "nay". Motion carried.
III. Approval of Minutes of April 8, 1993
Ms. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of April 8, 1993, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
Questions were raised regarding construction on the south side of Druid Road and whether or not it is for Dr. Salisbury (V 93-65,
2/25/93). Concern was expressed that parking requirements be met. Staff will investi gate.
It was noted that several large liveaboard boats pulled out of the area after the denial of the King Cole Motel request (V 92-69, 2/11/93). It was indicated this decision is being appealed.
A question was raised regarding whether or not a Board member, having declared a conflict of interest in a particular case, is required to leave the room during the hearing of the case.
Assistant City Attorney Lance stated there is no rule to this effect; however, it is recommended the Board member leave the room to avoid any appearance of influencing the Board. Concern
was expressed that requiring an applicant's representative to leave the room would place the applicant at a disadvantage if consultation becomes necessary. It was felt a conscientious
effort should be made to have someone other than a Board member represent an applicant whenever possible.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk