05/27/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
May 27, 1993
Members present:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Otto Gans
Joyce E. Martin
Members absent:
Alex Plisko, Chairman (excused)
John B. Johnson (excused)
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 Vice-Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. She outlined the proce dures 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. She 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
1. Paul B. Lokey for a variance of 9.5 ft to allow construction of stairway 15.5 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 831 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 39, Lot
3 and riparian rights, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 93-38
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the applica tion in detail, stating the applicant wishes to demolish an existing house and construct a new single family residence on the subject property.
The rise needed to meet the required flood elevation of the first floor causes the proposed stairway to the front entrance to encroach into the street right-of-way setback.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the FEMA requirement causes a hardship and feels this is a minimum and reasonable request.
A question was raised regarding whether or not the location of the proposed in-ground pool had been approved, because moving the building forward could create the need for a greater
variance. Mr. Cline stated approval has not yet been obtained for the pool.
Three letters from adjacent property owners were submitted in support of the application.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin 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 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 building permit shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unani mously.
2. Anthony K. Ellsworth for a variance of 36 ft to allow a dock 70 ft in length where 34 ft is permitted at 819 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 33, Lot 5, zoned RS-8 (single family
residen tial). V 93-39
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a dock extending to reach water of sufficient depth for boat access. The request
is consistent with surrounding land uses as the docks on both sides of the subject property and along this channel are approximately 70 feet long. Because the boat slip is parallel
to the seawall and tie poles are spaced 50 feet apart, there was concern regarding the potential impact of the dock width on the adjoining property owners. The applicant was asked to
address the necessity for the large boat slip.
Anthony Ellsworth, the owner/applicant, stated the tie poles could be spaced closer, if necessary to alleviate concerns; however, he wishes to have a large boat and the slip needs to
be able to accommodate it.
Gene Jerichow, marine contractor representing the appli cant, responded to a concern the left side property owner had not signed off on the variance application. He stated that property
is owned by the City of Clearwater and the City Harbormaster has reviewed the aerial photographs and signed the permit applica tion as not
being a naviga tion hazard.
One adjacent property owner spoke in support of the application, stating the subject property was an eyesore and he approves of the improvements being made by the applicant.
Discussion ensued concerning whether or not the application is the minimum. It was felt this is a reasonable request due to the trend toward larger boats.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 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 building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Scot M. Trefz for variances (1) of 3 ft to allow perimeter landscape buffer of 4 ft where 7 ft is required (eastern p/l) and of 5 ft to allow perimeter landscape buffer of zero ft
where 5 ft is required (southern p/l); (2) of 3 ft to allow circulation aisle zero ft from perimeter landscape where 3 ft is required and 2 ft to allow parking space 1 ft from perimeter
landscape where 3 ft is required; and (3) to allow turf block or perme able concrete on circulation aisle at rear of property at 125 S Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.04, zoned CG (general
commercial). V 93-40
In a letter dated May 27, 1993, the applicant requested a continu ance to allow time to meet with staff, clarify the construction and site plans and to obtain the signature of the adjacent
property owner to the east.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of June 10, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
4. David J. Gangelhoff for a variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft in height here 4 ft is required at 405 N Ft Harrison Ave, Sec 09-29-15, M&B 44.02; Ft Harrison Sub, Lot 1; Jones'
Sub of Nicholson, Blk 3,
Lots 6-10; Hart's 2nd Addn, Blk 3, Lots 5-10, part of Lot 3, and part of vacated alley, zoned CG (general commercial). V 93-41
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a six-foot fence in the Garden Avenue right-of-way setback to provide security
for Gulf Marine of Clearwater. On November 12, 1992, this variance was granted subject to the condition the requisite building permit being obtained within 30 days. The permit was
not obtained and the variance expired. She indicated the hardships are the need to screen the outdoor storage areas, the non-conforming building on the site and the need for security.
Robert W. Bell, representing the owner/applicant, stated
thefts and vandalism have not stopped despite the installation of motion detectors; therefore, the new fence is needed for securi ty. He stated the existing fence is made of lightweight
materials because it was intended for beautification, not security.
Assistant Attorney Lance left the meeting at 1:34 p.m.
A question was raised regarding whether or not the applicant was going to be able to meet the May 31 deadline for cleaning up the property per an agreement with the City. Mr. Bell stated
69 boats have been crushed and hauled away from the vacated alley and 20 more boats will be hauled off before the end of the month.
Concern was expressed that having dumpsters in the fire lane could obstruct emergency vehicle access. Mr. Bell stated the dumpsters are being used in the cleanup and the large loading/hauling
vehicles are not having problems with ingress/egress.
Discussion ensued regarding the present landscaping plan differing from the original, hand drawn plot plan. It was indicated the original plan was not accurate and was not accepted
by the Board.
Concern was expressed with the appearance, due to weeds and litter, on the southwest corner of the site and it was questioned what is planned for this area. Mr. Bell said landscap ing
was installed, but was stolen or destroyed by vandals and the grass has been ruined by unautho rized public parking. He did not know what the ultimate use of this corner will be, but
felt it could be put to good use as an employee parking area. Ms. Glatthorn indicated certain requirements would have to be met in order to use this area for parking.
Mr. Bell stated the project is undergoing the permit ting proce dures to complete the work; however, cannot be completed without this variance. He said he is trying to bring the property
up to
code before beginning the beautification process. Completion of the landscaping was delayed because he mistakenly thought permits were needed for installing landscaping.
Ms. Whitney noted, as per Board policy, rules and procedures, three members must vote in favor of a request for it to be approved; therefore, the applicant would need the approval of
all three members present to obtain the variance. She offered Mr. Bell the choice of asking for a postpone ment to the next meeting or proceeding with the request. Mr. Bell preferred
to proceed with the hearing, stating he wishes to complete the project as soon as possible.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant a variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 feet in height along the unaddressed areas and not along North Fort
Harrison Avenue subject to the following 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; 2) the undeveloped corner at the
southwest part of the property shall be planted with grass from the right-of-ways to the "new" high wood fence on the east, the one story wood frame building on the east and to the "new"
6-ft high wooden fence to the south of the one-story wood frame building and that appropriate deterrents be installed, (i.e. a chain barrier) to prevent parking in this developed area
and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within 30 days from the date of this public hear ing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Approval of Minutes of May 13, 1993
A request was made to change the wording in the motion on page 12 from "requirements of the Beach Task Force" to "recommenda tion of the Beach Task Force."
Approval of the minutes was deferred due to concerns relating to whether or not parking requirements have been met at the Pelican Restaurant (V 93-36 - 5/13/93).
III. Board and Staff Discussion
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether or not a physical inspection was done to determine if the parking requirements have been met on the Pelican properties. It was indicated
the City
Traffic Engineering Department is to perform the inspection next week and Ms. Whitney asked to be present for the inspection. Mr. Lance recommended that she not discuss any aspect of
the case with the applicant. He stated, according to the conditions of approval, if the parking requirements are not met, the variance is not legal.
Discussion ensued regarding the Gulf Marine/Gangelhoff property being overburdened with debt due to the accumulation of fines imposed by the Code Enforcement Board.
Discussion ensued regarding a memorandum of law from Mr. Lance to State Hearing Officer Ayers regarding recent appeals by King Cole Motel and L.O.M. Surf West, Inc. on May 11, 1993.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:56 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk