10/28/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
October 28, 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
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:03 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. (2nd request for extension) - Louis J and Mary R D'Amico for varianc es of (1) 90 ft to permit minimum lot width of 60 ft; (2) 3.30 ft to permit a sec ond story building addition
8.70 ft from side property line; and (3) 5 ft to permit an inground pool 5 ft from side property line at 410 Hamden Dr, Columbia Sub No 4, Lot 10, Zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V
92-49
Louis D'Amico stated financing for the proposed remodeling of his home has been delayed pending the sale of property up north. He wishes to add living space and a pool to his (approximate)
500 square-foot home and he said he will obtain the permits and complete the work within six months.
Discussion ensued and it was explained to the applicant this will be the last time extension. These variances will expire with the time extension and if additional time is needed, the
applicant will have to reapply for the variances.
Mr. Johnson moved to grant a six-month time extension to April 8, 1994, with the explicit understanding there will be no more time extensions for these variances. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (continued from 8/26/93 & 10/14/93) - Sun Watch, Inc. for a vari ance 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
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating this case was continued from the meeting of August 26, 1993 to allow time for the applicant to submit a site plan
application for City Commission review. The site plan was reviewed and referred on October 21, 1993. The applicant wishes to construct a 10-story, 96-unit multiple family condominium
and is requesting the height variance to allow more space between ceilings and floors for the placement of heating and air conditioning ducts through the units. The proposed design
utilizes an eight-inch slab between floors for greater wind loading support.
In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn stated the site plan was a standard receipt and referral item. The City Commission expressed no objection to the proposal and referred it for
Develop ment Code Adjustment Board consideration.
Jeff Mendenhall and Jeff Smith, architects with The Scott Partnership, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Smith stated the proposal is for a nine-story living level
luxury condominium building in Island Estates. The proposed units range from 1,600 to 2,400 square feet. Mr. Mendenhall outlined their efforts to stay within the 90-foot height limitation
for the building. However, he stated, the engineers for the project increased the slab thickness specifications to meet the wind load requirements and the space between floors to meet
upgraded mechanical requirements.
A cross section drawing of the proposal was submitted for the record and the calculations were explained. Mr. Mendenhall stated, for mechanical efficiency and health reasons, larger
duct work is necessary and a few additional inches are needed between floors to accommo date it.
In response to questions, it was indicated the proposed 90-foot height includes a 10-foot bonus for having at least 50 percent of the required parking under the building. Mr. Mendenhall
said the increased specifications are taken from the Uniform Standard Building Code.
One letter in opposition from an adjacent property owner was read into the record. Concern was expressed the increased height of the proposal would increase heating and cooling costs
of the units in the adjacent building.
Concern was expressed the proposal exceeds the requirements of the Uniform Standard Building Code. It was indicated any hardship is self-imposed because the number of floors could be
reduced to stay within the height limit.
Mr. Mendenhall stated the project would not be feasible with fewer floors and/or dwelling units and he felt the five additional feet being requested is a minuscule amount of increase.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to deny the variance 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 no unnecessary hardship was shown; if a hardship exists it was caused by the owner or applicant 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 upon the vote being
taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko voted "nay". Motion carried.
ITEM B - (continued from 10/14/93) - City of Clearwater for variances of (1) 59 ft to allow a dock length of 91.5 ft where 32.5 ft is permitted; (2) 17.25 ft to allow a dock width
of 40 ft where 22.75 ft is permitted; and (3) 7.5 ft to allow a setback of 12.5 ft from extended property lines where 20 ft is required at 201 Magnolia Drive, submerged land west of
Magnolia Dr, zoned AL/C (Aquatic Land/Coastal). V 93-66
Ms. Glatthorn stated staff is requesting this item be continued to allow time for the City Commission to review the issue on November 8, 1993 and decide whether or not they wish to reconsider
the matter. They are being requested to examine the opposition and the concerns that were expressed at the last DCAB meeting and give staff additional direction.
In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn said the Harbor Oaks Homeowners Association has been notified of the continuance.
Two citizens were present to express their support of the proposal.
Ms. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of November 17, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
1. Investors Breakers-on-the-Bay Ltd for variances of (1) 138 ft to allow dock length of 405 ft where 267 ft is permitted; (2) to allow a dock structure within an aquatic land/coastal
vegetative buffer where none is permitted at 2909 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, William Brown's Sub of Bayview, Lots 13 & 14, part of Lots 5, 6 & 15, vacated street and submerged land to the south,
zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential) & AL/C (Aquatic Land/Coastal). V 93-67
Senior Planner Glatthorn stated the City Environmental Management group wanted additional information regarding this request and staff is recommending this item be continued to the next
meeting. Discussion ensued and it was indicated variance #1 was continued from a previous meeting and variance #2 was added to the request.
Concern was expressed there are too many items on the agenda for the November meeting and majority consensus was to hear this item on December 9, 1993.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of December 9, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc for variances of (1) 20 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 50 ft where 70 ft is required; and (2) 11 ft to allow a structure 14 ft from
street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1000 Engman Street, C.E. Jackson's Sub, Blk 3, Lot 1, zoned RM 16 (Multi-Family Resi dential). V 93-72
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a single-family residence on an existing non-conforming lot to provide housing
for the Infill Housing Program. She noted several similar requests have been granted in the area.
Jerry Spilatro, Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (CNHS) explained the proposal, stating three existing cottages on the lot will be torn down to make room for the new house.
In response to a question, he offered to guide the Board on a tour of the site.
Concern was expressed continuing to grant variances for this area will not bring it into conformance. Staff was urged to take the appropriate steps to change the setback requirements
in this unique section of the North Greenwood area.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin 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 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.
3. William Jackson, Jr. & Annie M. Jackson for variances of (1) 10 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 40 ft where 50 ft is required; (2) 1,360 sq ft to allow a minimum lot area of 3,640
sq ft where 5,000 sq ft is required; (3) 6% to allow 48% building coverage where 42% is permitted; and (4) 2 ft to allow a structure 8 ft from rear property line where 10 ft is required
at 1164 Engman Street, Green wood Park #2, Blk D, Lot 65, zoned RM 12 (Multi-Family Residential). V 93-73
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating this is another Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services project the applicant wishes to construct a single-family
house on an existing non-conforming lot. Staff noted the request appears to comply with the standards for approval.
Concerns were expressed regarding the building plan, the small lot size and an adjacent piece of City-owned land. Questions were raised regarding the proposal and it was indicated area
that would have been a garage will be used for a family room and extra storage. It is proposed for the home owner to park in the driveway.
Jerry Spilatro stated the lot was owned by the Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services (CNHS) and was sold to the applicant. He explained the difficulties with the lot size and responded
to questions regarding the building plan. He stated the family room is not to extend beyond the front porch and the lot, being adjacent to the City-owned green space, has the appearance
of being a 70-foot-wide lot.
Concerns were expressed with eliminating the garage, with this not being a buildable lot, and the request not being the minimum. In response to a question, it was stated the garage-type
door on the front of the house, while giving the appearance of a garage, will be the outside access door to the storage area vital for bicycles, lawn mowers, etc.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the building plan could be changed. Mr. Spilatro stated the applicant purchased the property, has the construction loan and the signed contracts,
and was at the point of applying for a building permit when the dimensional problem with the lot was discovered. He did not know of a way to change the building plan at this point.
William Jackson, Jr., the applicant, stated he has no need for a garage. He said he has four children and needs the family room and storage for bicycles and toys. He chose this location
because it is near a playground and a football field and is convenient for him and his family.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin 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 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. Martin, Messrs. Plisko and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney and Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried.
4. James A. & Hazel E. Vogel for a variance to allow a vegetative buffer of 10 ft where 25 ft is required at 3001 Enterprise Road, Landmark At Enterprise Sub, Lot 1, zoned OL (Limited
Office) and AL/I (Aquatic Land/Interior). V 93-74
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct three freestanding office buildings which encroach into environmentally sensitive
lands. The City Environmental Management group did not support the proposal, stating it could significantly impact existing live oak trees and adjacent jurisdictional wetland. Staff
noted the request does not appear to comply with five of the standards for approval.
Edward Walker, architect representing the owner/applicants, stated the proposed infringement is very minor in terms of square footage and will have little impact. He said the existing
live oak trees are very small, are not specimens and will not be harmed by nearby building. Mr. Walker described the proposal, site conditions and setback requirements.
Richard Crossland, a dentist interested in building this proposal, discussed the required buffers, parking requirements, site constraints and fire separation restrictions. He explained
the proposal is to build three single-story doctors' offices, each having its own private entrance for ease of patient access. In response to a question, Dr. Crossland said the building
loan is ready, but cannot go through without the finalized plans, which depend on this variance.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. While it was felt the proposal is minimal and will not environmentally jeopardize the site, concern was expressed there is no hardship.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney 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 and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome any hardship that exists 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. There was no second.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance 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 no unnecessary hardship was shown; the need for the variance was caused by the owner or applicant; the variance
is not the minimum and the granting of the variance would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code, with particular reference to environmentally sensitive wetlands,
and as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney and Mr. Plisko
voted "nay". Motion carried.
The meeting was recessed from 2:55 to 3:12 p.m. Mr. Lance did not return.
5. Selim Vinca for a variance of 8 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 8 spaces are required at 1478 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Boulevard Heights, Blk G, Lots 15 & 16 and part of Lot 17,
zoned CG (General Commercial). V 93-75
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant is requesting the parking variance to allow the conversion of an existing commercial structure to
a table billiard establishment. She gave a history of the site and the area. The previous property owner illegally paved the rear parking lot and was ordered to removed the paving;
however this was not done. The current owner has not indicated additional parking can be provided in the area. It was noted the application does not appear to comply with any of the
standards for approval and staff did not support granting the variance.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not a restaurant previously located on the site ever opened.
Selim Vinca, the owner/applicant, gave a brief history of the site, stating he wishes to open his billiard parlor and work toward improving the site as he acquires the funds. He said
he is willing to redo the parking lot and asked for six to twelve months time to provide legal parking. He stated there is an old City lien on the property from a Code Enforcement Board
fine related to the illegally paved parking lot. Mr. Vinca submitted a drawing of the proposed parking plan on the site and discussion ensued.
Mr. Lance returned at 3:30 p.m.
Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of grandfathering parking spaces for the site and other means of meeting the requirement. Concern was expressed this site has a long history
of non-compliance. While Mr. Vince questioned the City Zoning sections approval of the application, it was indicated the City Traffic Engineering Department controls parking lots.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to deny the variance 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 subject to the information received from staff. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
6. David R. Little for variances of (1) 90 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 60 ft where 150 ft is required; (2) 10.65 ft to allow a structure 2.10 ft from side property line where
12.75 ft is required; (3) 12.65 ft to allow a structure 3.10 ft from rear property line where 15.75 ft is required at 333 S. Gulfview Blvd, Lloyd White Skinner Sub, Lot 67, zoned CR
28 (Resort Commercial). V 93-76
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to replace a deteriorating foundation and wood support walls in the rear garage building of
a real estate office on an existing non-conforming lot. It would be difficult to acquire any more land to make the lot size conforming due to being surrounded on three sides by the
Americana Gulf Motel.
David Little, the owner/applicant, stated the request is to repair the existing foundation, which will not enlarge the garage, or additionally encroach into the setbacks. The only change
will be a slight height increase to meet floodplain elevation requirements.
Concern was expressed with the request because it involves construction on an already non-conforming building. It was felt that, while it is elevated, some attempt should be made to
move the garage back within the setbacks.
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, 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, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko voted "nay". Motion carried.
7. Diocese of St. Petersburg for a variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft in height where 4 ft is permitted at 400 S. Hillcrest Ave, Sec 15-29-15, M&B 14.03, zoned P/SP (Public/Semi-Public).
V 93-77
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a six-foot-high chain link fence along the north property line of the soccer field
of St Cecelia's School. The fence will limit and control access to and from the site for the benefit and safety of the children using the soccer field. It was noted placing the fence
at the 35-foot setback line would limit the soccer field area. Staff reported the application may comply with the standards for approval is recommended conditions are met.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the fence, which has already been built, is needed for security for the children and against vandalism after hours. He outlined
the unique circumstances of the site and explained how the request meets the code criteria for granting the variance. In response to a question, he stated a fence permit application
was filed and it was thought approval was obtained. The need for the variance was discovered after the applicant was told it was okay to build the fence.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney 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 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.
Mr. Lance left the meeting at 4:05 p.m.
To consider an application for the following Code Text amendment:
Ordinance No. 5490-93 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to "adult use establish ments"; creating a new Article V within Chapter 41, Code of Ordinances, to establish regulations
for the operation of certain kinds of business estab lishments; adopting a statement of purpose and legislative findings; defining terms; establishing minimum distances and other locational
requirements; providing for the amortization of nonconform ing adult use establishments; requiring certificates of compliance or provisional certificates of compliance and adult use
licenses for adult use establishments, and establishing require ments for filing, review procedures, and other requirements; providing for hardship relief; establishing operational requirements;
prohibiting certain conduct by operators of adult use establishments, by their employees, and by patrons within adult use establish ments; establishing hours of operation; providing
for enforcement; providing for the suspension or revocation of adult use licenses; providing an effective date.
Assistant City Attorney Rob Surette made a presentation regarding the ordinance. He detailed studies complied from municipalities, medical and law enforcement agencies regarding adult
business and the necessary distance intervals from protected uses. Discussion of the available sites for this type of business in the City at various separation distances. He explained
the difficulties in drafting the ordinance in view of the constitutionality questions, zoning and regulatory provisions. He gave an overview of what has been done by other municipalities
in determining allowable sites for adult businesses.
In response to a question, Mr. Surette indicated the City Commission will be the forum to which variance applications are addressed.
Mr. Surette was commended for his report and discussion ensued.
Ms. Whitney moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 5490-93 as presented by Rob Surette. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Approval of Minutes of October 14, 1993
Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of October 14, 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
In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn stated Georgia Miller did not answer the correspon dence sent to her and she, therefore, forfeited her application fee.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:03 p.m.
Chairman