12/09/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
December 9, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin (1:04 p.m.)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney (1:16 p.m.)
Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director
John Richter, 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 Develop ment 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
ITEM A - (cont from 10-28-93) 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 struc ture
within an aquatic land/coastal vegeta tive 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 Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a pier over Tampa Bay at the Beach Club Apartments. The application was previously
continued to allow the City Environmental Management staff to provide additional details regarding the method of construction. Their findings were submitted to the Board in a memo dated
November 19, 1993. Staff recommended seven conditions of approval.
Andy Nicholson, Karen Hubby and David Logan, appeared to speak on behalf of the owner/applicant. Mr. Nicholson stated the proposed pier will be a recreational amenity for the residents
of the Beach Club apart ments. There are currently about 400 residents and he said the pier will be a strong inducement to more occupants. He felt, to be effective as a fishing and
sightseeing facility, the pier needs to reach deeper water. Mr. Nicholson stated the proposal is entirely within the owner's property and it would be a hardship to have a shorter pier
due to the
unique shallow nature of the bay at this location.
In response to questions, Mr. Nicholson stated the deck surface is to be 10 feet above the water level at mean high tide to discourage boaters from docking there and will have a standard
3.5-foot-high hand rail. Discussion ensued regarding the effect of seasonal tides on the proposal.
Allan Stowell, 2873 Thornton Road, spoke in opposition and submitted a packet containing six letters, various documentation and copies of photographs of the subject property. He stated
the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) permit application for this project was not completed and there is an exclusive listing to sell the property. He expressed concern the
proposal is being used as a sales tool and there is no intent to go forward with construction. Mr. Stowell stated the request does not meet the standards for approval because it is
not the minimum, will secure a greater financial return and will be materially detrimental to this pristine, historic neighborhood. He also called attention to an exposed sewer pipe
on the subject property which suffered storm damage and he said, was not properly repaired.
Robert Resch, architect representing Diane Brown, manager of the neighboring House of Prayer and House of Peace, spoke in opposition to the application. He stated the proposal will
attract recreation that will disturb the peace of the pristine neighborhood which has existed for over 100 years. He expressed concern regarding the use of the aquatic lands, stating
that other similar projects in the area have been required to dedicate all submerged lands and were not allowed to build seaward of the mean high tide line. He submitted one letter
in opposi tion from Ms. Brown.
Breck Parker, 716 Bayview, stated he is a native of the area and has been active in the Clearwater Neighborhood Historical Society. He expressed concerns regarding the excessive length
of the proposed pier, the inappropriateness of the request due to the shallow water depth and the lack of hardship. He stated the proposed location is on a mud flat which is not suitable
for fishing or boating and felt it will only attract people going out to drink and have parties with loud music. He does not want to see a precedent that would allow other docks to
be built in this area.
Andy Nicholson spoke in rebuttal to the opposition, stating he has not had the opportunity to examine the letters or documentation which was submitted. He noted neither Mr. Parker nor
the Houses of Prayer and Peace are immediately adjacent to the subject property. He submitted scaled drawings of the proposed pier superimposed on copies of aerial photographs of the
coastline and demonstrated the minimal visual impact of the pier on the adjacent properties.
Mr. Nicholson explained the shallowness of the water creates a hardship and the request is the minimum needed to reach deeper water. He said the proposal would not set a precedent,
because having a pier is within the riparian rights of the property and a shorter pier could be built without variances. He agreed the exposed sewer line is unattractive; however, he
stated it has been secured as well as it can be and will be covered until full shoreline work is done. He said any disturbing activities at the pier would be most disturbing to the
400 residents of the Beach Club Apartments, which has a resident manager to guard against this.
Karen Hubby, real estate manager for the applicant, responded to questions. She stated they want to leave their options open regarding whether or not to build the pier. If the property
is sold, it will be run the same as it is now, with resident management. She said the applicants own properties in St. Petersburg which have piers, and they wish to have a pier for
this property as well.
Discussion ensued regarding the request. One member felt a waterfront property should have the right to use the waterfront, this proposal is well-designed, does not limit sight lines
and is the minimum to reach deep water. However, the majority did not agree the request is the minimum. Concerns were expressed that sufficient hardship has not been shown, the request
is not reasonable in view of the tide conditions, a greater financial return will be realized, a pier will detract from the beauty of the area and will pose a security problem.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney 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 unnecessary hardship was shown; the variances are
not the minimum; the request for the variances is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the proper ty; the granting of the variances
would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighbor hood; substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property and 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.
Discussion ensued regarding the denial of both variances. Concern was expressed that, without variance #2, the applicant will not be allowed to have any pier. Mr. Nicholson requested
the Board vote on the variances separately; however consensus of the Board was to let the vote stand.
1. Emery & Ann Jahnke for a variance of 2 ft to allow a dock 5 ft in width where 3 ft is permitted at 171 Harborage Ct, Marina Del Ray at Sand Key, Unit B, Lot 38, zoned RM 16 (Multi-Family
Residential) and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 93-88
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a dock on the waterfront of a pie-shaped lot on a cul-de-sac. As the lot widens
at the waterfront, the extra width of the dock is felt to be in scale with the develop ment. Staff indicated the request appears to comply with the standards for approval and recommended
two conditions. It was noted a similar request was granted for the property next door.
Steve Brunner, marine contractor representing the applicant, stated the three-foot docks allowed in the neighborhood are built right on the property line and connected to the adjacent
three-foot dock, essential ly creating a six-foot dock for each two properties. He felt the proposed five-foot width was reasonable.
In response to questions, Mr. Bruner stated there has never been a dock at this property and the proposed location was chosen to be near an existing electrical receptacle.
While it was questioned whether or not a hardship exists, the variance was felt to be very minimal and reasonable.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substan tially 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
is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot configuration 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. Plisko and Gans voted "aye"; Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
2. Caroline Centner-Conlon for a variance of 3 ft to allow a structure 7 ft from rear property line where 10 ft is required at 1931 Beckett Lake Dr, Beckett Lake Estates, Blk 3, Lot
32, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-89
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct an addition to the rear of an existing single-family home on a corner lot. He noted
the rear property line for the subject property is the side property line for the adjoining lot which has a five-foot setback. Granting the variance would allow a relatively comparable
setback for both lots. Staff felt the request appears to comply with the standards for approval.
Caroline Centner-Conlon, the owner/applicant, stated the addition is needed for living space and storage because they have a new baby and wish to have another baby in a year.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substan tially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the need for more space
due to the increased family 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 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. Pinellas Board of Public Institutions (Pinellas County Schools) for variances of (1) 0.217 acres to allow a minimum lot area of 0.783 acres where 1 acre is required; (2) 6% to allow
49% front yard open space where 55% is required; (3) 12 ft to allow a structure 23 ft from street right-of-way where 35 ft is required; (4) 18.5 ft to allow a structure 6.5 ft from rear
property line where 25 ft is required; and (5) 42 in to allow a fence height of 72 in where 30 in is permitted at 1235 Holt Ave, Sec 10-29-15, M&B 13.01, zoned P/SP (Pub lic/Semi-Public).
V 93-90
Mr. Plisko declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case. Ms. Whitney took the chair.
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to expand an existing day care facility by approxi mately 4,000 square feet on the substandard
sized lot. The location of the addition is restricted by the small lot size, the desire to save several large trees and the requirement to preserve a usable play area for the children.
Martha Skelton, executive director of Community Pride Child Day Care, representing the applicant, stated the not-for-profit day care facility owns the building. The land is leased from
the County school system. She explained the subsidized day care facility and the changes in the licensing board regulations within the past few years. She discussed the many different
ways the proposal was designed in an attempt to meet all the City, County and State requirements.
Ms. Skelton said the project has the support of neighbors such as Ervin's All American Youth Club, RCS Emergency Housing and Everybody's Tabernacle Homeless Emergency Project (HEP).
The HEP children have special grants to attend her day care project. She responded to questions regarding details of the proposal. She explained what exists and what is needed to
meet licensing board regulations regarding square footage per child. It was indicated parking requirements will be verified during the site plan review process.
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 arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or
applicant 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 abstained. Motion carried.
Mr. Plisko resumed the chair and the meeting was recessed from 3:00 to 3:08 p.m. Miles Lance and John Richter did not return.
4. Arthur H. & Mary L. Bruno for a variance of 75 ft to allow a structural addition 0 ft from street right-of-way where 75 ft is required at 1645 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Gulf-to-Bay Shopping
Center, Lot 4, zoned CC (Commercial Center). V 93-91
Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director, explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a canopy along the storefronts at the west end of the Gulf
to Bay Shopping Center. He stated a hardship exists because of the building location two feet from the street right-of-way, causing the canopy to also extend two feet from the right-of-way.
Staff indicated the variance is the minimum necessary to shade the walkway and improve the storefronts and appears to comply with the standards for approval.
Ron Heller, representing the owner/applicants, stated the proposed improvement will update and give a uniform appearance to the storefronts. In response to questions, he said the canopy
will match what currently exists; however, will not extend over the front of the IGA store. He stated it is cost prohibitive to extend the canopy over the IGA at this time; this will
done in the future when funds permit. Mr. Heller indicated, although the parcels were purchased separately, the entire shopping center is owned by the same individuals.
Attorney Lance returned at 3:10 p.m.
Discussion ensued regarding the application with disappointment being expressed the canopy will not extend over the IGA.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substan tially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because, the Board anticipates this will be the first phase of modernization of the Gulf to Bay Shopping Center
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.
5. Bonnie Sue Brandvik for variances of (1) 7 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 43 ft where 50 ft is required; and (2) 2 ft to allow a structural addition 3 ft from side property line
where 5 ft is required at 911 Magnolia Dr, Magnolia Heights, Blk 2, Lots 15 & 16, zoned RM 8 (Multi-Family Residential). V 93-92
Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a room addition to an existing single-family home an a substandard width lot. He stated the
addition is proposed to align with the home along the west side and appears to comply with the standards for approval.
Bonnie Sue Brandvik, the owner/applicant, stated she has lived in the home for 13 years. The porch was enclosed for a laundry room; however, water leakage and termites have caused deterioration
of the walls and floors. The proposal is to tear down the old addition and replace it with a recreation room.
In response to a question, Mr. Brandvik stated she has worked with her neighbor to channel runoff rainwater between the two properties.
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, more specifically because, the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the size of the lot 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.
6. Robert E. & Lisa C. Langer for variances of (1) 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft is height where 4 ft is permitted; (2) 3 ft to allow 0 ft setback where 3 ft is required; and (3) 3 ft
to allow 0 ft landscape buffer where 3 ft is required at 2003 Del Betmar Rd, Cedar Heights, Lot 41, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-93
Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to extend an existing six-foot fence around to enclose the side yard of his single family residence. The
applicant is requesting the fence be allowed on the property line and the required landscaping be planted in the right-of-way to allow more room inside the yard. While six-foot fences
are common in the area, staff indicated variances #2 and #3 are contrary to the City Public Works Department policy.
Robert Langer, the owner/applicant, stated he is reluctant to fence his property; however it is needed to protect his two children from the traffic on Montclair Road. He said the neighborhood
tried, unsuccessfully, to get the City to place two stop signs along Montclair Road, which is used as a cut-through for traffic. Mr. Langer felt it is unreasonable for him to lose three
feet of play room along the whole length of his yard to landscaping when there is more than enough room between the property line and the sidewalk for the required landscape buffer.
Police Chief Kline, in a letter to the Board, stated Montclair Road has a chronic problem with speeding traffic. He indicated 85 citations for speeding violations were issued in the
month of October alone. He supported the Langer's request to build a fence to protect their children.
In response to a question, Mr. Langer stated his back yard consists of a small wooden deck, a tropical courtyard and a small sodded area, approximately 15 by 20 feet. He said he wishes
to save the trees in the yard and he hopes to put in a swimming pool in the future. He submitted photographs of the subject property for the record.
Mr. Langer submitted two letters from neighboring property owners in support of the application.
Discussion ensued regarding the request and it was felt making room for a swimming pool is a self-imposed hardship. Concern was expressed with the zero landscaping request as it was
indicated fence variances are seldom granted without the landscape buffer. The landscaping on the property and the surrounding properties was discussed. Mr. Langer pointed out the
small scale of his landscaping and felt a similar scale would be appropriate in the area between his proposed fence and the sidewalk. Discussion continued regarding the location of
existing trees and possible alternatives for fence placement.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #1 as requested because the applicant has substan tially 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
is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the need for the safety of the family 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; 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing and 3) the fence
shall meet the setback and landscape buffer requirements of the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny variances #2 and #3 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 the hardship of a lack of space will be caused by the owner by the building of a swimming pool and the granting of the
variances 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,
Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mses. Whitney and Martin voted "nay". Motion carried.
Public hearings were also held to consider applications for the following Land Development Code Text amendments:
Ordinance No. 5507-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 44.05, 44.51, 44.55, and 44.57 of Chapter 44, Code of Ordinances,
to regulate neon and other forms of exposed signs or lighting; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford explained the ordinance includes tubular and exposed bulb lighting and would prohibit displays such as the palm trees at the Calypso Bay Cafe. He stated neon as an integral
part of a building's architectural design is allowed.
It was strongly felt that displays such as the neon palm trees are an attractive art form and should not be prohibited. Discussion ensued regarding the prohibition of flashing displays
and twinkling accents lights on private property. Concern was expressed with having exposed lighting in the public right-of-way within reach of pedestrians.
Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5507-94 with the condition that neon lighting in the public right-of-way as part of a public streetscape shall not be restricted
by these requirements. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Plisko and Johnson voted "aye"; Mses. Whitney and Martin and Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion
failed.
Discussion continued and concerns were again expressed regarding having neon lighting in the public right-of-way and the prohibition of neon as an art form. It was felt the ordinance
is too restrictive relating to what an individual can do on his own property. A sugges tion was made to allow neon lighting for the purpose of distinguishing buildings without address
numbers. It was felt in a commercial district a property owner should be allowed to have neon lighting compatible with
the building which identifies and refers to the purpose of the business. This lighting should not; however, be placed in the public right-of-way.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5507-94 as submitted. There was no second.
The majority of the Board did not favor approving Ordinance 5507-94.
Ordinance No. 5508-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending various sections within Chapter 45, Code of Ordinances, to establish minor
varianc es, and provide for minor variance approval by the development code administrator; providing an effective date.
Discussion ensued regarding this ordinance giving the development code administrator a lot of power in granting variances. It was felt a written summary of these activities is needed
on a regular basis. Concern was expressed with the difficulty in determining what are minor variances.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of the ordinance with the suggested change in the landscaping abutting streets language and the request to have staff submit a quarterly report regarding
the granted variances to the Development Code Adjustment Board and the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 5511-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 40.261 through 40.264, Code of Ordinances, to provide for a revised
general description and submittal requirements for Planned Development Districts; adding subcategorizes of residential planned development districts; revising permitted and conditional
use requirements for Planned Development Districts; repealing Section 40.265, Code of Ordinances, relating to conditional uses; repealing Section 40.267, Code of Ordinances relating
to dimensional and numerical requirements for Planned Development Districts; amending Sections 43.02, 43.22, and 43.23, Code of Ordinances, to delete references to planned developments;
providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford gave an overview of the proposal referring to a letter from Ed Mazur suggesting additions to the ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding changing zoning and setbacks to create
specialized planned development districts and the City's site plan review process.
Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval with the added language proposed by Mr. Mazur regarding the master development plan, as amended relating to proposed building locations. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 5512-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 42.34, Code of Ordinances, to prohibit parking, displaying, or storing
of motor vehicles on grass or unpaved areas zoned for multiple family or non residential use unless specifically approved as a grass parking lot; providing an effective date.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 5512-94 subject to the motion to amend "multiple family" to "residential". The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Approval of Minutes of August 12 and November 17, 1993
Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of August 12 and November 17, 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
Mr. Shuford stated there was a concern regarding the denial of the parking variance requested by Clearwater Bay Marine Ways (V 93-86; 11/17/93). It was indicated in one newspaper account
the variance was denied based on noise concerns, which are not within the area of the Development Code Adjustment Board. He questioned if the Board wished to reconsider the request.
It was the opinion of the Board the request did not comply with the standards for approval and the variance was denied based on the guidelines set forth in the Land Development Code.
Consensus of the Board was not to reconsider the request.
Discussion ensued regarding the Pelican Walk Shopping Center (V 93-36; 5/13/93).
Concern was expressed a hedge six to seven feet in height is being allowed to grow across the sidewalk at the property next door to 2003 Del Betmar Road. Staff is to investigate.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m.