01/13/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
January 13, 1994
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
Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
Patricia Sullivan, Board Reporter
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. Jason B Kuehn & Brenda Martino for a variance of 1.95 ft to allow a structural addition 3.05 ft from side property line where 5 ft is required at 1108 Charles St, Peale Park, Blk
C, Lot 3, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-01
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicants wish to construct a small addition to the family room of their single family residence
in alignment with the existing structure. The applicants stated the neighbors most directly affected are in support of the request. Staff felt the request seems to support the conditions
of approval.
Jason Kuehn and Brenda Martino, the owner/applicants, responded to questions. Mr. Kuehn stated the addition is proposed to be about 12 by 14 feet. It was indicated a existing ten-foot
addition to the rear of the house, built around 1950, was poorly constructed with low ceilings and no insulation; therefore, they will be improving the home while constructing the addition.
Ms. Martino indicated a dangerous stairwell will be removed and the additional room is needed because they are planning to start a family. She stated building toward the rear of the
property without a variance was considered; however, was too expensive. She responded a new garage door will be installed and their car will be parked in the garage.
Mr. Kuehn stated he collects antiques and old furniture and wants the addition to be built
correctly. He stated his neighbor and brother will be designing and subcontract ing the work and have spent a lot of time working to find the best design. In response to a question,
Mr. Kuehn stated the proposed bathroom will not need a variance.
Discussion ensued regarding the application and it was indicated extending the footprint is mitigated by the hardship of needing to replace the small addition.
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 is the minimum necessary to overcome any hardship that has been created 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 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 struc ture 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.
2. Lotus Land Inv, Inc for a variance of 3.33 ft to allow a structure 21.67 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1055 S. Ft. Harrison Ave, Magnolia Park, Blk 34,
Lots 4-8 and part of vacated railroad right-of-way on East, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 94-02
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a new medical office building which would extend into the setback adjoining
the Lotus Path right-of-way on the south side of the property. The street was vacated in 1989, subject to several easements being granted. These easements were not granted; therefore,
the vacation has not officially occurred. The new property owner is working to complete the vacation. Staff recommended conditioning approval upon the street vacation being completed
prior to any certificate of occupancy being issued.
Mr. Shuford stated once the vacation occurs, there will be no need for a variance. He said staff discussed with the applicant the option of pursuing the vacation instead of the variance;
however, the applicant felt requesting the variance to be more expeditious.
Discussion ensued regarding what is still needed to get the vacation and what would happen if the vacation did not occur. Mr. Shuford stated access easements are needed to other properties.
If the applicant agreed to the condition and the vacation did not occur, he indicated the applicant could ask for a reconsideration of the condition, or, could face the possibility
of having to tear the building down.
As the applicant was not present, this hearing was postponed to the end of the meeting.
Steve Spencer, representing the applicant, stated when the .99 acre site was purchased, it was not known the vacation process had not been completed. He explained the doctors'
lease expires in June and time does not permit following through with the vacation procedures. He said he will obtain the necessary ingress/egress documents for the vacation. Mr. Spencer
felt the three-foot variance is minimal.
Discussion ensued regarding the building dimensions, the doctors' entrance, patient parking, closing one driveway and the easement requirements.
Lois Cormier, citizen, spoke in support of the application. She pointed out the site plan will require DRC review if the parcel goes over one acre in size. Mrs. Cormier stated it is
desirable to have this office close to Morton Plant Hospital and asked the Board to look favorably at the request.
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
applicant; the particular physical surround ings 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 variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship 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 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 struc ture 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) no certificate of occupan cy
shall be issued prior to the completion of the vacation of Lotus Path adjacent to this property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. JES Properties, Inc (Florida Spine Institute) for a variance of 10 ft to allow a structural addition 0 ft from side property line where 10 ft is required at 2230 Drew St, Temple
Terrace 1st Add, Blk D, Lots 26-28, zoned OL (Limited Office). V 94-03
4. JES Properties, Inc (Florida Spine Institute) for a variance of 10 ft to allow a structural addition 0 ft from side property line where 10 ft is required at 2250 Drew St, Temple
Terrace 1st Add, Blk D, Lots 20-23, zoned OL (Limited Office). V 94-04
Central Permitting Director Shuford requested items #3 and #4 be considered together. He explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a covered walkway
in front of the property; however, he cannot meet the side setback requirement due to the center portion of the land being in the County. He felt this is a unique circum stance and
appears to meet the standards for approval.
Ed Walker, architect representing the applicant, stated the Institute occupies three parcels and leases from the owner of the center portion, who does not wish to annex into the City
limits. He stated patients travel between the three buildings and the variance is needed to
cover the walkway. Mr. Walker indicated the county portion has no setback requirement; the City's zoning requires the ten-foot setback.
Lawrence Wieland, CEO for the Florida Spine Institute, responded to questions, stating 17.5 years remain on the lease of the center portion. He explained patients who move between the
buildings are often infirm, using wheelchairs and walkers. He said a smooth, covered walk would be very helpful. It was not known why the owner of the center did not wish to annex.
Ron Nesk, the adjacent property owner to the west, requested clarification of the request. After reviewing the plans with staff, he expressed no opposition to the application.
Discussion ensued regarding other properties in the past building in the county which were later annexed into the City. It was indicated this is the first time a variance affecting
unincorporated property has come before the Board. It was felt to be a hardship taking patients from one building to another and the request was felt to be the minimum.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant the variances for 2230 and 2250 Drew Street as requested because the applicant has substantial ly 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 appli cant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the type of business that is run there and the need for patients
to be able to go from one building to another under cover 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 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 struc ture 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. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "aye"; Ms. Martin and Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
5. Gerald P & Brenda A Crum for a variance of 22.8 ft to allow a structural addition 2.2 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1601 N. Betty Ln, Pine Ridge, Blk B,
Lot 10, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-05
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicants wish to construct a new garage on the south side of an existing garage on their single-family
property. Staff felt there is existing reasonable use of the property and approval of the variance could set an undesirable precedent by being out of alignment with adjacent front yard
setbacks. He stated the request does not appear to comply with the standards for approval of a variance.
Concern was expressed the location of an existing shed is not accurately shown on the plans. Mr. Shuford stated the drawing is from a 1986 survey and he will investigate.
Gerald and Brenda Crum, the owner/applicants, stated the garage is needed to protect their cars, home and family from the increasing crime problem in the neighborhood. Mr. Crum said
his work causes him to be away from home for extended periods of time. He has four cars,
two of which are classics restored to showroom condition. When he leaves these cars outside, he said they attract vandals as well as people who stop to look. A question was raised
if a privacy fence would help alleviate the situation. Mrs. Crum responded someone could hide inside a fence and she is concerned with the safety of her daughter and herself.
In response to questions, Mr. Crum stated the new garage cannot be placed on the north side because of the septic system, which was allowed to remain when the property was annexed into
the City limits. He explained the site constraints and the difficulties he encountered related to the annexation. Mr. Crum said he talked to his neighbors, who indicated no opposition
to this request.
Concern was expressed the request is not a minimum variance. Mr. Crum indicated he is willing to reduce the size of the proposed garage. Discussion ensued regarding the site having
three driveways, possible adjustments to the proposed building plan and location and landscaping requirements. Mrs. Crum stated Woodbine Street and Betty Lane were just recently paved
and landscaped. She felt it would be unnecessary to landscape again relative to this request.
Discussion ensued regarding the City's Traffic Engineering Department questions concerning the location of the garage entrance, if one driveway can be removed and whether or not additional
paving will be required. Mr. Shuford suggested additional landscaping to soften the south property line and moving the existing shed five feet from the property line. Mr. Crum indicated
this would not be a problem.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to grant a variance of 20 feet to allow a structure 5 feet from a street right-of-way where 25 feet is required
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 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 except as modified by the
granting of this 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; 3) the shed on the property shall be relocated to be set back a minimum of 5 feet from all property lines and 4) landscaping meeting the minimum shrubbery
landscaping material requirements for perimeter landscaping shall be installed along the entire south wall of the garage addition within six months of the date of this public hearing;
this landscaping shall be installed entirely on the applicants' property and not in the public right-of-way. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin
and Whitney, Messrs. Plisko, and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried.
A public hearing was also held to reconsider the following requests for variances of the Land Development Code due to a site plan change:
B J E, Inc & Pelican Two, Inc (Pelican Walk Shopping Ctr) for variances of (1) 10 ft to allow a structure 0 ft from street right-of-way where 10 ft is required; and (2) 25% to allow
100% palm tree plantings where 75% is permitted at 483 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 43-48, part of Lot 64 and Lots 65-71, and Clearwater Beach Park 1st Add, Blk A, Lots
2-8 and 1/2 vacated alley, and Blk B, Lots 32-43 and 1/2 vacated alley, zoned CB (Beach Commer cial). V 93-36
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to increase the pedestrian and vehicular access to the project for which two variances
were granted on May 13, 1993. He said the minutes of that meeting indicated the Board favorably viewed the pedestrian nature of the project; therefore, he granted administrative approval
to increase the width of the pedestrian access on the north side. The proposed addition of the vehicular accessway, however, requires the application be reconsidered. He suggested
additional conditions to ensure pedestrian safety and referred to comments from the City's Traffic Engineering Department.
In a memo dated January 12, 1994, Acting Public Works Director Peter Yauch expressed no concern with the proposed northbound, right-turn in only driveway as shown on the plans, as long
as pedestrian safety concerns are addressed.
In response to a question from Mr. Plisko, Mr. Shuford stated the typical minimum drive width is 14 feet. However, he stated the site is unlikely to have fast-moving vehicle traffic
due to the configuration of the buildings, so the drive will be narrower. He suggested this proposal is only a modifica tion of what was granted in the past.
Ms. Whitney expressed serious concerns regarding the proposal being contrary to what was previously granted and having a driveway opening on a busy street near a dangerous intersection.
She stated the Board was assured the only vehicular access would be from Poinsettia Avenue and the Board does not approve of applicants obtaining variances by telling the Board one
thing and doing something different. She expressed concern regarding the parking calculations and whether or not a Unity of Title has been recorded joining this property and the restaurant
across the street. Upon further investigation, staff verified the Unity of Title exists.
Messrs. Johnson and Plisko agreed the variances were previously granted based on the project being presented as a pedestrian mall having one vehicular accessway on Poinsettia Avenue
and no traffic circulation off Mandalay Avenue. Mr. Plisko indicated the matter has been complicated by construction having continued since the variances were granted.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether to hear the applicant's request to substantially change the site plan, or let it stand as originally submitted.
A question was raised if there is any additional hardship to justify rehearing the request. It was not known if any new information would be presented. The site plan submitted in May
was compared to the new proposal.
Assistant City Attorney Lance outlined the options available to the Board: 1) not to rehear; 2) rehear and make no changes and 3) rehear, making changes. In response to a question
from Mr. Plisko, Mr. Lance stated rehearing the application would start the two-week appeal period running again. He stated, if the decision is not to rehear, the original variances
would still be in effect.
Ms. Whitney moved not to rehear the case. The motion was duly seconded.
Mr. Shuford stated the applicant has the option to come back nine months after the original hearing with a new application. He suggested rehearing the case now rather than having to
process an entirely new request. He stated the applicants can ask for reconsideration because they have substantially changed their plans.
Mr. Lance read from the Board rules and procedures, which address reconsidera tion of action immediately after it is taken. He pointed out that standard condition #1 was added to keep
applicants from changing what they proposed after variances were granted.
Discussion continued whether or not to rehear the request. In response to a question from Mr. Shuford, it was indicated there is no point in the application being brought back at a
later date because the Board did not favor the new driveway. Majority consensus was to rehear the case and the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Shuford reviewed discussion held during the May 13 meeting relating to the application. He stated the variances were requested, due to the pedestrian nature of the project, to bring
the City streetscape to the front area of the site design. It was felt the request was justified and would be in line with the Clearwater Blue Ribbon Task Force design recommendations.
He stated the City Commission considered the modified site plan and felt that certain technical and safety concerns could be worked out, subject to approval of the Development Code
Adjustment Board. Discussion continued regarding procedural concerns and what is being requested.
Ms. Whitney moved not to rehear the case. There was no second.
Mr. Gans moved to rehear Case No. V 93-36 to consider adding a drive-through, changing the site from pedestrian only to a combination of vehicular and pedestrian use. The motion was
duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney voted "nay". Motion carried.
The meeting was recessed from 3:00 to 3:10 p.m. Assistant City Attorney Lance did not return.
Stephen Fowler, architect representing the applicant, thanked the Board for allowing the presentation and gave a brief history of the application. He stated approximately two years
ago, the Eckerd drug store approached the applicant regarding expanding their location on Clearwater Beach. Preliminary plans were drawn up and submitted for approval. In December,
Eckerd decided not to proceed with plans. The applicant volunteered to do a face-lift of the facility to have a better impact on Clearwater Beach and Eckerd agreed to look at
plans to redesign the parking lots. The new plans were submitted for approval to the City Commission, which directed staff to work out safety concerns with the Development Code Adjustment
Board.
Mr. Fowler displayed a large-scale drawing of the area, explaining the safety precautions taken to protect the pedestrian areas from faster-moving vehicular traffic. He stated there
was every intention of doing what was originally proposed; however, the tenants felt vehicular access is needed from Mandalay Avenue, which he estimated would represent about five percent
of the traffic on the site.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed parking and loading areas on the site.
In response to a question, Mr. Fowler stated that during the original presentation, he alluded to the negotiations with Eckerd; however, there was no signed deal at that time.
It was indicated the Board was impressed with the pedestrian atmosphere of the front of the site and the fact that traffic would be hidden behind the buildings. Concern was expressed
that this ambience would be negated by traffic driving through. Mr. Fowler stated only an occasional vehicle would be likely to use the proposed nine-foot driveway cut on Mandalay Avenue.
Elias Anastasoupoulos, the owner/applicant, stated they have not done anything other than what was applied for and they are only asking for help. He said they tried to work with Eckerd
for a year; however, the deal did not work out. He felt the driveway is now needed and stated he is not asking to make a complete change, but only for a drive to allow traffic through
to the back of the site. He still plans to proceed with what was originally asked.
Mr. Gans moved to reaffirm variances #1 and #2, granted on May 13, 1993, which are still in effect and are subject to the same conditions as outlined on that date and to deny reconsideration
of standard condition #1 to allow a site plan modifica tion to change a driveway from pedestrian use to pedestrian and vehicular use, more specifically because, no unnecessary hardship
was shown; the request is based on the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; the granting of the variance would substantially increase the congestion
in the public streets, endanger the public safety, adversely affect the general welfare of the community and violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed
in Sections 35.04 and 35.05 of the Code of the City of Clearwater. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
Ordinance No. 5513-93 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 35.11, Code of Ordinanc es, to define "church" and "school"; amending
Sections 41.081 And 41.091, Code of Ordinances, to revise the information required to be provided by applicants for conditional use approval for alcoholic beverage establish ments; prohibiting
alcoholic beverage establishments within 500 feet of a church or a school; providing that no variances from such minimum distance re quire ments shall be permitted; providing an effective
date.
Mr. Shuford explained the ordinance in detail, stating the City Commission has asked that no alcoholic beverage establishments be located within 500 feet of any church or school with
no variances to be granted. He explained details of the proposal relating to conditional use permits and separation distance variances.
Concern was expressed the ordinance would prohibit Sunshine Mall, Searstown and a number of other sites where it would be appropriate to have alcoholic beverage sales in stores and restaurants.
It was noted this would have a serious effect on these businesses and it was felt variance requests should be allowed to come before the Planning and Zoning Board.
A question was raised why churches were included in the distance calculations. Mr. Shuford stated citizens have traditionally complained about finding indigents sleeping on church property
on Sunday mornings. He stated churches also have large parking lots which are vacant most of the time and tend to attract unwanted gatherings.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend eliminating any outright prohibition and continuing with the established variance procedures. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken,
Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "aye"; Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
Ordinance No. 5521-94 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 44.51, Code of Ordinanc es, to provide for increased area for attached
signs in residential areas; provid ing an effective date.
Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 5521-94. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Approval of Minutes of October 28 and December 9, 1993
Due to the members not having received copies in the mail, approval of the minutes was continued to the meeting of February 10, 1994.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
Mr. Shuford stated the City Commission has asked the members of the City advisory boards for their recommendations regarding changes the members would like to see. One member is to
appear before the City Commission on February 14, 1994 to present the Board's recommendations. A suggestion was made for the Development Code Adjustment Board to
discontinue hearing variance requests regarding docks. Discussion of this topic is to be agendaed for the Development Code Adjustment Board meeting of February 10, 1994.
Mr. Plisko questioned a house at 821 Bay Esplanade being torn down except for one small section. Staff is to investigate.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern that insufficient hardship existed in the request for the covered walkway in V 94-93. However, this was not felt to be a problem due to the open space
on either side of the proposed walkway.
Staff was requested to agenda election of officers for the next meeting.
The meeting of January 27, 1994 was canceled due to no new cases being scheduled.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:34 p.m.