07/22/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 22, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Members absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman (excused)
Also present:
Ted Clarke, Planner II
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
1. Eugene R. Smith III for variances (1) of 25.12 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 124.88 ft where 150 ft is required; (2) of 13.24 ft to allow a structure 12.00 ft from side property
line where 25.24 ft is required at 301-307 Island Way, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 2, Lot 10 and part of Lot 11, zoned RM 20 (Multi ple-Family Residen tial). V 93-45
Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct ten new elevated townhouse dwelling units on a previously platted, non-conforming lot.
He felt there is a hardship due to the narrow width of the lot.
David Ramsey, representing the applicant, stated the variances are needed to provide room to build on the property and to meet the zoning code.
In response to questions, Mr. Ramsey said a typical sized unit is 14 feet by 60 feet with two living floors above a parking area.
Concerns were expressed the proposal is excessive and maximizes the density for the property. Mr. Ramsey felt a smaller project would not be feasible.
In response to a question, it was indicated the building height limit is 30 feet with a ten foot height bonus if more than 50 percent of parking is under the structure. In addition,
it was stated there are other multiple-storied structures in the area.
William Molaxos, adjacent property owner to the north, spoke in opposition to the application. He felt the request would in crease density, decrease surrounding property values and
change the appearance of the area. In response to a question, he indicated he intends to obtain a building permit for his condo mini um association to construct its own driveway. When
it was noted variance #2 is only for the south side of the subject property, Mr. Molaxos withdrew his objection.
Discussion ensued regarding the site plan and the required setbacks. It was indicated variance #1 is needed to bring the previously platted lot width into conformance. However, concerns
were expressed with variance #2 and alternatives to the parking and building plans were discussed.
Mr. Johnson moved to deny variance #2. There was no second.
Mr. Ramsey felt the variances are necessary to make the property developable in accordance with the City zoning regulations. However, it was indicated the proposal is not the minimum
and financial hardship is not grounds for granting variances. In response to a question regarding how long the applicant has owned the property, Mr. Ramsey indicated his client only
has an option to buy at present.
Concerns were expressed regarding encroaching into the required open space.
Mr. Ramsey was asked if he desired to continue the request to explore other options. While he felt this to be the best project for the property, he requested a continuance of variance
#2 to allow time for the developer to examine other building alterna tives for the property.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 not caused by the owner or
applicant subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six (6) months
from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "aye"; Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
Mr. Gans moved to continue variance #2 to the meeting of September 9, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Brian D. Murphy for a variance of 8 ft to allow a structure 17 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 959 Mandalay Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 59, Lot 5, zoned RS 8 (Single
Family Residential). V 93-46
Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to extend an existing deck, creating an elevated porch at front entrance height to provide a better
and safer access to the house.
Discussion ensued regarding the grade level of the existing deck and whether or not it is legal.
Brian Murphy, owner/applicant, stated the existing structure is within the setbacks. The proposal is to improve the front of the house. The existing white concrete steps leading to
the entrance make it difficult to get into the house because the front door swings outward. He stated he will not enclose the deck and his variance will allow him to finish the home
improvements already in progress.
In response to questions, Mr. Murphy stated he purchased the home on April 15, 1993 and did obtain the necessary permits to begin the improve ments. He is only asking to cover the two
white steps with a porch the same height as the front door.
Discussion ensued regarding what is proposed and what previously existed. Concern was expressed the porch will extend farther out than others in the neighborhood. There was discussion
regarding whether a hardship exists due to the awkward entryway and it was felt an empty, open porch will not impact the view and will improve the character of the house. Photographs
of the site and artists drawings of the proposal were discussed.
A question was raised regarding a petition in support of the proposal submitted with the application. It was noted most of the signers are not within 200 feet of the subject property.
Mr. Murphy stated he obtained the signatures of those who would see his house while driving to and from work during the day.
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 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 appli cant and it looks feasible from a safety standpoint to protect people from falling while entering the dwelling subject to the following
conditions: 1) This variance is based on the applica tion 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. Martin and Mr. Plisko voted "aye"; Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "nay".
Due to a tie vote, this item will be continued to the next meeting.
Mr. Gans moved to continue the request to the meeting of September 9, 1993 as Ms. Whitney will also not be in attendance at the next meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
3. Thomas & Pamela Gleason for a variance of 5 ft to allow a struc ture 15 ft from rear property line where 20 ft is required at 1481 Country Oaks Ln, Country Oaks Sub, Lot 5, zoned
RS 4 (Single Family Residen tial). V 93-47
Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a new single family residence. He noted a correction regarding the surrounding property
use, stating the property to the east is a church, not a single family resi dence, and is not within the City limits.
Frank Krafsig, builder representing the applicant, stated he has been doing construction work for Mrs. Gleason's family since 1955. He said a previous contractor designed a house which
will not fit on the lot without a variance. Mr. Krafsig stated he was asked to come to work on the project and indicated financing has already been arranged. He said the home will
be similar to others in the area and will comply with the front and side setbacks. He proposes heavy landscaping across the rear of the property.
In response to a question, Mr. Krafsig stated the pool will be enclosed without any encroachment into the setbacks.
One letter was submitted in opposition to the application,
expressing concern the applicant proposes a house too large for the lot and lot clearing was done without permits. Mr. Clarke stated staff review determined the applicant did obtain
the necessary lot clearing permit.
Discussion ensued regarding the application with it being indi cated five feet is minimal and there is nothing abutting the rear of the property except a ravine.
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, more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or
applicant subject to the following condi tions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the appli cant, including maps, plans, surveys,
and other documents submit ted 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) 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.
The following Land Development Code Amendment was also consid ered:
Ordinance No. 5413-93 of the City of Clearwater, Flori da relating to allowable signage for existing commer cial and industrial planned developments; providing for signage consistent
with the provisions of section 44.51(4)(i) of the City Code for existing commercial and industrial planned developments; specifically waiving codification; providing an effective date.
Planner Ted Clarke stated this proposed ordinance went before the Planning and Zoning Board on July 14 and they recommended the total area of signs along US 19 be increased from 112
to 150 square feet.
Denise McCabe, representing Clearwater 19 Commerce Center, said the center property is set back a consider able distance from US 19 and can accommo date over 100 tenants who have no
attached signage. She said the tenants rely on one freestanding sign along US 19, and she contrasted this with commercial shopping centers which are allowed to have attached signage
on their storefronts.
A question was raised regarding the location of the center. Ms.
McCabe stated it is on the east side of US 19, north of Drew Street near a Toyota dealership.
Concern was expressed with the lack of address numbers on proper ty identification signs, making it difficult to locate addresses in Clearwater. Consensus of the Board was to recommend
requiring address numbers on signs and for this to be strictly enforced.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment subject to the total area of signs along US 19 be increased to 150 square feet as recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Board and further recommended that property address numbers be included on all signs and that the addresses for property owners be enforced in the City of Clearwa ter. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Approval of Minutes of July 8, 1993
Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of July 8, 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
Discussion ensued regarding the request to begin the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and an invocation. It was felt while this would lend an air of formality to the meeting, this
proce dure was not necessary to the proceedings and would extend the length of the meet ing. Staff was requested to research how many City Boards open with the Pledge and an invocation.
Mr. Johnson moved, effective September 9, 1993, to adopt an opening procedure whereby the Pledge of Allegiance will be led by the Chairman, said by the entire assembly and a standard
invoca tion be given by alternating members. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko noted "nay". Motion
carried.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:41 p.m.
Chairman