08/26/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
August 26, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Members absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
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. Time Extensions
1. 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) 6 parking spaces to allow 22 spaces (includ ing 7 temporary off site spaces) where 28 spaces are required at 125
S Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.04, zoned CG (General Commer cial). V 93-02
Staff was requested to provide clarification regarding whether or not these variances are still in effect due to variances having been granted for this property on another application
(V 93-40; 7/8/93).
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 9, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearings
1. Palm Pavilion Clearwater, Inc/Howard G. & Jean B. Hamilton for variances (1) of 21 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 21 spaces are required; (2) of 9.5 ft to allow a deck 0.5
ft from street right-of-way where 10.0 ft is required (west property line); (3) of 9.5 ft to allow a deck 0.5 ft from street right-of-way where 10.0 ft is required (south property line);
(4) of 65 ft to allow a deck seaward of the coastal construction control line at 10 Bay Esplanade, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, Blk 8, Lots 1-5, 14 & 15, zoned CB (Beach Commer cial).
V 93-53
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to provide additional seating for patrons. The existing structure is nonconforming with an
existing outdoor seating area. This request is similar to a request granted in 1992 for Rockaway Grill, which was conditioned upon the deck not being enclosed. It was noted a 4-COP-SRX
license request for the subject property was heard by the Planning and Zoning Board on August 17, 1993 and the requested parking variance may be reduced.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the proposal is to expand an existing deck to allow patrons to be seated at tables. He said this property has been a beach attrac tion
since 1926 and has been owned and operated by the Hamilton family since 1964. He felt the request is minimal, will not change the aesthetics or historic character of the Palm Pavilion,
meets Code criteria and is a reasonable use of the property. The proposed 810 square-foot deck will be totally within the property lines and the parking lot is one of the largest of
its kind on the beach, with 31 on-site parking spaces. Mr. Cline listed other available parking in the area, pointing out this request is for less than was granted for the Rockaway.
He indicated there will be no obstruction of beach vista or access and, as the business closes at midnight, will have no negative impact on the surrounding communi ty.
He presented a photograph of a structure similar to what is being proposed and requested 18 months to obtain the building permit due to time being needed to obtain Department of Natural
Resources permits.
Discussion ensued regarding details of the site plan, permitted use and parking calculations. Mr. Cline said the establishment has 75 percent food sales which reduces the intensity
of use and the parking require ments for the deck. Senior Planner Glatthorn indicated, with the 50 percent bonus for retail food sales, only seven parking spaces are needed. This would
reduce the variance request from 21 to seven parking spaces.
Ken Hamilton, representing the owner/applicants, responded to questions. He said the adjacent hotel is grandfathered for zero parking. He indicated work on the Palm Pavilion is currently
underway to make it more structur ally sound and it is proposed to have the external appearance compatible with the recommendations of the Beach Task Force. A question was raised regarding
whether or not an awning will be installed over the deck. Mr. Hamilton said a roof overhang prevents the sun from shining directly into the building and no awning is proposed because
the outdoor customers seem to prefer uncovered seating.
A question was raised regarding if the Palm Pavilion will continue to prohibit beer and liquor on the beach. Mr. Hamilton pointed out that alcohol use on the beach is regulated by the
City and State. However, he said signs will continue to be posted on the subject property informing patrons of this prohibition.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #1 for 7 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 7 are required and variances #3, #3 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; the particular physical 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 and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by
the Coastal Construction Control Line and the lot size, 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 regard ing 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) no enclosure of the deck shall be permit ted; 3) all requisite Department of Natural Resources permits shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit
and 4) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within eighteen (18) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Sun Watch, Inc. for a variance of 5 ft to allow a structure 95 ft in height where 90 ft is allowed at 670 Island Way, Sec 05-29-15, M&B 31.011, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential).
V 93-55
Staff recommended continuing this item because the City Commission has not received the required site plan.
Mr. Johnson moved to continue V 93-55 to the meeting of October 14, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Assistant City Attorney Lance left the meeting from 1:41 to 2:00 p.m.
3. GTE Florida, Inc. for variances (1) of 3,507 sq ft to allow a minimum lot area of 16,493 sq ft where 20,000 sq ft is required; (2) of 20 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 100 ft
where 120 ft is required; (3) of 30 ft to allow a structure 145 ft from centerline of US 19 where 175 ft is required; (4) of 1.21 ft to allow a structure 18.79 ft from side property
line where 20 ft is required at 21051 US 19, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 23.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). V 93-56
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant is proposing to modify a former drive-through restaurant for use as a switching station. Approximately
690 square feet will be added to accommodate the required interior equipment arrangement. She noted the scheduled US 19 Highway improvements will not adversely affect the proposal.
The applicant is proposing to remove more than 50 percent of the existing asphalt and convert to green space.
Mel Schultz, architect representing the applicant, stated the variances are being requested to legalize non-conformi ties that have existed there for many years. He noted there is an
error in variance #3, which should read "20 feet to allow a structure 155 feet from centerline of US 19".
In response to questions, Mr. Schultz said the area between the building and US 19 will be landscaped and, once equipped, the facility will remain unmanned. The proposal is a less intensive
use of the property and is necessary to accommodate GTE's standard equipment arrangement. There will be no future expansions, as the building will be fully equipped at the onset of
operations.
Discussion ensued with it being indicated this use will enhance the property, will have no impact on traffic and is not adjacent to any residential areas.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to grant variances #1, #2, & #4 as requested and variance #3, of 20 feet to allow a structure 155 feet from the
centerline of US 19 where 175 feet is required, because the applicant has substan tially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code,
all 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 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 regard ing
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 asphalt areas being replaced
shall be landscaped with shrubs and trees. These areas shall be maintained to provide the proper aesthetics to the surrounding properties and 3) 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.
4. William F. & Sharon A. Belak, Donald J. & Janis K. Blaisdell, Donald A. Burgess, David A. & Judith K. Dolan, Richard T. & Marilyn J. Donoghue, Richard & Meryl Geller, Burnis L. Grace,
Jr. & Mary B. Grace, Subhi S. & Shadia B. Jaleel, Michael W. & Alana J. Stephenson, David L. & Barbara J. Taylor for a variance of 3 ft to allow 0 ft landscaping abutting street right-of-way
at 2937 - 2991 Mayfair Ct., Mayfair Sub, Lots 12 - 21, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 93-58
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicants are seeking a variance to the landscaping requirement on the right-of-way side of a wall along State
Road 580. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has taken the right-of-way along the road frontage and has plans to tear down the existing wall, for the relocation of underground
utilities, and construct a new wall in the same location. The existing landscap ing between the present wall
and the sidewalk is less than the required amount and is non-conforming. The applicants feel enforcing the landscap ing requirement would mean relocating the wall five feet into their
back yards.
Gerald Figurski, attorney representing the applicant, stated when the FDOT condemned the right-of-way, they did not provide for moving back the wall, nor for any compensation to the
affected property owners. The applicants did not create the situation and many large trees and shrubs would have to be moved to put a planting strip on the other side of the wall.
Engineers doing a noise study indicated the further away the wall is from the homes, the better the noise will be buffered. He did not feel three feet of landscaping would serve any
useful purpose along a six-lane highway.
In response to questions, Mr. Figurski stated the homeowners would be responsible for replacing the wall, probably with concrete block and stucco.
Discussion ensued regarding the request and who should maintain the landscaping buffer. It was indicated there is little hardship as most of the affected yards are oversized and it
was felt the buffer zone should not be eliminated. Mr. Figurski detailed site conditions and presented photographs of the subject lots.
Mike Lloveras, engineer representing the applicant, responded to questions, indicating the State would be responsible for maintain ing the three-foot strip of grass. Under the current
State proposal, he said, the sidewalk will be built right up against the fence. He presented a photographic layout of the proposal.
Concern was expressed it is premature to ask for a variance when it is not known whether or not the wall will be torn down. It was not felt to be aesthetically pleasing to have a sidewalk
against a fence without being softened by landscaping.
It was indicated bidding for the road construction is set to go out in February, 1994.
Mr. Figurski asked for a continuance to allow the property owners to present their individual cases and a representative of FDOT to explain exactly what is proposed.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to deny the variance as requested because the application does not appear to comply with the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because no unneces sary hardship was shown; the variance is not the minimum; the granting of the variance would adversely affect
the public health, safety, order, convenience, or general welfare of the community and would violate the general spirit and intent of this develop ment code as expressed in Sections
35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Lance left the meeting from 2:27 to 3:00 p.m.
5. Whiteco Industries, Inc for a variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft in height where 4 ft is permitted at 24546 US 19, Black burn Sub, Lot 7, part of lots 8 & 9, zoned CH (Highway
Commercial). V 93-59
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a six-foot-high shadow box fence along portions of the north and south property
lines and the entire west property line. She stated the surrounding homeowners are in agreement with the request to mitigate the negative impacts of light and noise from the Celebration
Station parking lot.
Frederick Simmons, architect representing the applicant, detailed the location and answered questions regarding the extent of the proposed fence. He said the fence will deter people
climbing into the center and driving onto the property from Lawson Road. It will extend to the trailer park to the south.
Discussion ensued with it being indicated the application was discussed extensively with staff. The surrounding property owners were notified and appeared to be happy with the proposal.
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, more specifically because, the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topograph ical 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 neighbors, not the applicant, subject to the following conditions:
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 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) landscap ing in compliance with Sec. 42.26(8) and 42.27 of the Land Development
Code shall be installed on the exterior of the fence within six months and continuously maintained and 3) 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.
6. Georgia A. Miller for variances (1) of 5 ft to allow a wooden fence 0 ft from property line where 5 ft is required; (2) of 5 ft to allow 0 landscaping where 5 ft is required; (3)
to the require ment for a gate at intersection of Carlton Street/east of Greenwood Avenue, Fairmont Sub, Blk G, Lot 9, zoned RM 12 (Multiple Family Residential). V 93-60
There was some question regarding whether or not the applicant understood she was to be present.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 9, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
7. Manuel & Dimitra Kotakis TRE and George & Elefteria Mantzaris for a variance of 6.6 ft to allow a structure 3.4 ft from rear property line where 10.0 ft is required at 1141 Court
Street, Sec 15-29-15, M&B 31.06, 31.08 & 31.09, zoned
CG (General Commercial). V 93-61
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a new building to provide indoor storage of automobiles for protection from vandalism.
The construction of a 14-foot-high wall was begun without a permit. This wall now extends the full length of the rear property line and has been cited as unsafe due to lacking the
required structural reinforcement. A Conditional Use for the expansion of the vehicle service business was approved, subject to conditions, by the Planning and Zoning Board on August
17, 1993. Staff did not feel the application meets the standards for approval for variances.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, submitted an aerial photograph of the area, listing surrounding properties which are built near the property lines. The proposed expansion
will follow the existing building lines, incorporating the 14-foot-high concrete block wall as one of the walls of the new building. Moving the proposed structure forward, away from
the rear property line, is restricted by the location of a large oak tree on the site. He stated the application is not motivated by financial gain, but to honor the historical site
conditions, and is consis tent with what exists on the site. Regarding the work being done without permits, he stated Ms. Mantzaris was in error when she began to have the carport enclosed,
and has since hired a builder.
Concerns were expressed regarding location of a dumpster, lack of parking, water retention and green space. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not open space, building coverage
and setback requirements are being met. It was felt environmen tal impact has not been addressed. Mr. Cline submitted a copy of a site plan, stating the site design is intended to
save two trees. It was indicated a courtesy site plan review has been requested to address these concerns.
Elefteria Mantzaris, the owner/applicant, responded to questions. She stated the new building will be used at night, to temporarily store vehicles which have been left for repairs.
This is needed because of a problem with vandalism on the property. She said a house has been removed from the site and that area will be paved after permits are obtained. In addition,
space is needed to store abandoned, wrecked vehicles until they can be legally disposed, which can take six months. She said obtaining permits for work already done is pending approval
of this variance.
Discussion ensued regarding the number & ownership of the parcels involved in the application. It was felt these should be joined by a Unity of Title, which may include more than one
owner. It was questioned whether or not sufficient hardship exists.
A question was raised regarding the courtesy site plan review procedure. It was indicated the Design Review Committee meets to make sure site development meets the Land Development
Code and departmental requirements.
Concerns were expressed with the height of the new building, the history of misunderstanding and illegal construction. However, it was felt the proposal will improve the appearance
of the location and add to the overall betterment of the neighbor hood.
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, more specifically because, the variance arises
from a condition which is unique to the property and was caused by Mother Nature, not the owner or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created
by the restriction of the large oak tree subject to the following conditions: 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 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) prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain courtesy review approval of a site plan by the Development Review Committee and that site plan shall be completely
checked for compliance to the Land Development Code for the portion of the property to be developed; 3) a Unity of Title shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit
and 4) 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 unani mously.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
The revised staff variance transmittal form was reviewed.
Concern was expressed regarding grass being allowed to grow over sidewalks near Eisenhower Elementary School. Staff is to investi gate and report to whom sidewalk complaints should
be submitted.
Concern was expressed regarding a variance being granted to build a roof trellis over a pool on Magnolia Drive (V 93-52; 8/12/93). Discussion ensued and staff was requested to investigate
whether or not the trellis, walls and fences are legal.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Chairman