04/14/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
April 14, 1994
Members present:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Members absent:
Alex Plisko, Chairman (excused)
Also present:
Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. She 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. She noted Florida law requires any applicant appealing a
decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
She also noted, as per Board policy, rules and procedures, three members must vote in favor of a request for it to be approved and an applicant has the choice of asking for a postponement
to the next meeting or proceeding with the request.
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 - (continued from 3-24-94) Charles C. & Mary A. Carter for varianc es of (1) 5 ft to permit a side setback of 10 ft where 15 ft is required; (2) 15 ft to permit entrance steps
20 ft from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required; (3) 10 ft to permit a residential structure 25 ft from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required; (4)
15 ft to permit a garage structure 20 ft from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required; and (5) 1 ft to permit 24 ft of vegetative buffer where 25 ft is required at 2671
Third Ave, Chautauqua Unit No 1 -Sec A, Blk 44, Lots 1-6, 21-26, and part of lots 7 & 20, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential). V 93-13
Central Permitting Director Shuford stated this item was continued from the meeting of March 24 to allow time to change the request. As the applicant did not submit the necessary information
before the advertising deadline, it is necessary to continue the item to the meeting of April 28, 1994.
Mr. Johnson moved to continue item V 93-13 to the meeting of April 28, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM B - (cont from 3-24-94) Sun Watch, Inc for a variance of 2.2 ft to permit a structure 92.2 ft in height where 90 ft is allowed at 670 Island Way, Sec 5-29-15, M&B 31.011, zoned
RM 28 (Multi-Family Residential). V 94-14
Central Permitting Director Shuford stated this item was continued from the meeting of March 24, 1994 pending issuance of the final order in the appeal of V 93-55. In a final order
dated March 25, 1994, Hearing Officer Johnston affirmed the Board's decision to deny a five foot height request. The applicant is now requesting a smaller variance. Staff recommends
denial, indicating the proposed style of building creates the need for the variance and the application does not appear to support the standards for approval.
Carlton Ward, attorney representing the applicant, explained the application in detail, indicating the applicant proposes to build a 96-unit, nine-floor apartment building over a ground
floor parking garage. He stated the original building plans were redesigned to allow for an absolute minimum 12-inch clearance between floors needed for heating and air conditioning
duct work. He submitted a list of building heights in the vicinity, pointing out the proposal would be in character with its surroundings. He handed out packets containing floor plans
of the five different apartment styles and overall sketches of the proposal. He stated the long and narrow building was designed to maximize the waterfront view. Mr. Ward indicated
it is not possible to meet the required ceiling height without the variance because there are no long hallways in the dwelling units where the ceiling could be dropped to accommodate
the ducts. Referring to the floor plans, he detailed the ceiling height requirements related to the proposal.
It was noted many of the adjacent buildings were constructed prior to the current code.
Ernie Shreve, mechanical engineer representing the applicant, addressed the Board regarding duct size calculations, materials and air velocity requirements. He indicated seven-inch
circular duct is needed to extend around the perimeters of the rooms in order to avoid dropping the ceilings below the required height. He stated the challenge is carrying adequate
air into the large entertainment areas to provide the level of comfort expected in luxury apartments of this type.
Discussion ensued regarding the locations of the air handlers for the various units.
In response to questions, Mr. Shreve indicated, even in apartments with centrally located air handlers, smaller duct cannot be used due to the large size of some of the rooms. Referring
to the floor plans he stated the different apartment styles have different duct requirements and all but 36 of the 96 proposed units are impacted. Mr. Ward stated the garage ceiling
has been lowered as much as it can be.
Summarizing the request, Mr. Ward stated the applicant did not create this hardship, the request is extremely minimal and is not offensive to the surrounding community. He felt the
developer has worked very hard to come up with a reasonable and attractive use of the land. He stated the proposal will be good the residents of Island Estates and will increase the
City's tax base.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. Concern was expressed the building, having nine floors of dwelling units is designed for maximum density to secure a greater financial return
from the luxury condominiums. It was indicated there were letters submitted at the previous hearing expressing concerns the proposal would adversely impact the view, air and light of
adjacent buildings.
In rebuttal, Mr. Ward stated heating and air conditioning are considered to be necessities, not luxuries. He felt the 2.2-foot variance was extremely minimal and the property owner
should be allowed to fully develop his property. He noted there were no letters from adjacent property owners concerned with the current application. Mr. Ward stated the size of the
property does not allow the owner to reasonably build within the code and the required 7.5 foot ceiling height is a hardship.
Discussion continued regarding the proposal. It was agreed the request is minimal for a nine-story building and the reasoning behind the code height requirement was questioned. However,
it was also felt that dropping one floor and staying within the code was preferable. The existence of other tall buildings nearby was not felt to be pertinent to this case. It was
noted the applicant is already receiving a ten-foot height bonus for having the parking beneath the building. Adding height to the allowed bonus was not felt to be appropriate. It
was felt the hardship was self-imposed and primarily for financial gain. Discussion ensued regarding the rationale of placing parking below the building. One member felt the case be
continued in order to be heard before a full Board.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition that 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(s) 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. Martin and Whitney voted "aye"; Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "nay".
Due to a tie vote, item V 94-14 was continued to the meeting of April 28, 1994.
1. Isabelle R. Keener for variances of (1) 1 ft to permit a fence height of 3.5 ft where 2.5 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback area from a street right-of-way where
the property is addressed from; and (2) 2 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum height is permitted in a struc tural setback from a street right-of-way where the property
is not addressed from at 1976 Drew Plaza, Marymont, Blk 25, Lots 17, 18, 19, and part of Lot 20, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-15
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct two fences in street yards on the corner of Drew Plaza and Hercules
Avenue. He noted a 30-inch fence is allowed on the side to which the property is addressed. Staff recommended approval subject to three conditions.
Isabella Keener, the owner/applicant, stated she has changed her name to Donohoe since her application was filed. She explained her home is on the corner at a busy intersection near
a gas station. She felt the fences will help block some of the noise, fumes and dirt from the traffic. Ms. Dohonoe also wishes to provide a safer place for her granddaughter to play.
In response to a question, Ms. Donohoe stated picket fencing is the only 30-inch-tall wooden fence material on the market and it would not match the nice double-sided wooden shadow box
fence she wishes to build. She proposes, instead, to have a 42-inch-tall shadow box fence with a gate across the front of her property. She said this property has been in her family
for 40 years and she wishes to make it as nice as she can.
Discussion ensued regarding the request with it being felt that a hardship exists due to the growth of this area. It was noted, if the variances are granted, the subject property will
be the only house on Drew Plaza with a fence in front.
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 that is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or
applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the suroundings of the property 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(s) shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing and 3) the fences shall be landscaped on the outside, or right-of-way side of the fences and in accord with the provisions
and specifications contained in Section 42.27. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Martin voted "nay".
Motion carried.
2. Mark S. & Jill M. Araujo for a variance of 1.9 ft to permit a side setback of 3.1 ft where 5 ft is required at 1125 Charles St, Peale Park, Blk D, Lot 7, zoned RS 8 (Single Family
Residential). V 94-16
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicants wish to construct an addition to their single-family home in alignment with the existing
structure in the east side setback. It was indicated the adjoining neighbors support the request. Staff recommended approval, indicating the request supports the conditions of approval
due to the location and setback of the existing structure. The application was felt to be the minimum to provide visual appeal.
Mark and Jill Araujo, the owner/applicants, addressed the Board, stating their house was built in the 1940's. The wish to build the addition in line with the existing house for economic
as well as aesthetic reasons. Mr. Araujo said offsetting the addition would block the only window in a bedroom on that side of the house.
One letter, from the adjacent property owner, was submitted in support of the application.
In response to a question, Mr. Araujo stated the addition will consist of a kitchen, master bedroom and a bathroom.
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 not caused by the owner or
applicant and is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the placement of the present house and 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(s)
shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Aubrey MacLean, TRE/Clearwater Trust for a variance of 52 parking spaces to permit a total of 4043 parking spaces where 4095 parking spaces have been required at 20505 US Hwy 19,
N, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 32.01 & 32.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center) and OL (Limited Office). V 94-17
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant is requesting approval of the variance to enable the City of Clearwater Public Works Department
to construct a stormwater retention area on Clearwater Mall property to treat existing untreated stormwater runoff. Presently, the untreated runoff discharges from the mall property
in a 60-inch reinforced concrete storm sewer which drains approximately 27 acres and discharges directly into the Old Tampa Bay. The location of the proposed construction at the rear
of the mall property would prompt the removal of 52 existing employee parking spaces which are seldom used. Staff enthusiastically endorsed approval of this request due to the potential
for enormous benefit to the City and the surroundings.
Mike Quillen, Water Resource Engineer for the City's Environmental Management Group and Mr. Shuford responded to questions. It was indicated the current request is not related to an
apartment complex being built near the mall. The apartment development will have its own water retention. Even though treating stormwater runoff is mandated by the state, the reduction
in parking below what is required for the mall requires a public hearing. Approval for the loss of parking is also needed from some of the major department stores.
Robert Courtney, representing the applicant, responded to questions, stating a building on the southeast corner of the property was formerly a part of the mall and will be torn down
to make room for the retention. It was not known who will pay for the demolition. Mr. Quillen stated the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) is providing construction
funds. The mall will retain ownership of the retention and, as part of the contract, will be responsible for long-term maintenance.
Mr. Quillen stated funding for the project will be available fiscal year 1994/1995. As construction cannot begin until the end of October, it is hoped to delay the onset until after
the busy Christmas season. He requested one year to obtain the requisite building permits.
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, because the variance is needed to construct a desperately needed retention area 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(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing and 3) the applicant shall revise
the certified site plan with the approved amendment. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
Ordinance No. 5557-94 (continued from 3-24-94) Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 45.24, Code of Ordinances, to revise the standards
for the approval of variances; providing an effective date.
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the proposed revision to the standards for approval was felt to be necessary to simplify and clarify the current standards. Input from
other communities across the country was requested and copies were provided to the Board. Mr. Shuford stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended dropping rule #3 related to economic
or material gain and changing #4 to read "materially injurious". He indicated their rationale for dropping #3 was because there is never a variance that does not benefit someone.
Concern was expressed with deleting the section requiring a variance to be the minimum necessary. Mr. Shuford stated this concept is addressed elsewhere in the Code. Discussion ensued
regarding "financial gain", "minimum" and "reasonable". There was no clear consensus to drop rule #3. It was indicated the absolute minimum would be to have no variances and "reasonable"
is subject to interpretation.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford stated all of the standards for approval would would have to be met in each case. If rules #1, #2 and #4 were met, #3 would become irrelevant.
A request was made to clarify the language in this respect.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of all four proposed standards of approval; inclusion of the word "materially" before the word "injurious" in #4 as recommended by the Planning and
Zoning Board and to change the language in the opening paragraph to read: "A variance shall not be granted unless the application and evidence presented clearly supports all of the
following conclusions:". There was no second.
Mr. Johnson moved to continue discussion of this item to the meeting of April 28, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 5562-94 (cont from 3-24-94) Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 35.11,
Code of Ordinances, to create a definition for utility facilities; amending various sections within Chapter 40, Code of Ordinances, to provide for utility facilities as permitted uses
in the Limited Industrial and Pub lic/Semi-Public districts and as a conditional use in all other zoning districts; amending Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplementary
condi tional use standards for utility facilities; providing an effective date.
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the City's comprehensive plan requires the adoption of an amendment which will allow utility facilities such as electrical utility substations
in all City zoning districts. Staff prepared an ordinance which provided for both neighborhood and community facilities. Florida Power Corporation raised questions about the distinctions
between these two types of facilities and no further action was taken on the ordinance. The current amendment provides for a single type of utility facility and establishes specific
conditional use permit review requirements. Under this ordinance, utility facilities would be allowed as permitted uses in the limited industrial and public/semipublic districts and
as conditional uses in all other zoning districts. Mr. Shuford stated all conditions of approval would have to be met or the conditional use should not be granted. The Planning and
Zoning Board recommended approval of the ordinance.
Discussion ensued regarding the standard format of a draft ordinance.
A question was raised regarding Florida Power's concern. Mr. Shuford responded the proposed ordinance was changed to one type of facility designation because the reference to both neighborhood
and community facilities created some confusion.
Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5562-94 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 5589-94 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 42.21, Code of Ordinanc es, to provide for revised requirements for
nonconformities; providing an effective date.
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained a compromise was needed between the strict existing standards for nonconforming use regulations and a "maintenance" type of nonconforming
use and density regulation which would allow reconstruction without requiring conformance to other code requirements. He indicated, under this proposed ordinance, a nonconforming single
family dwelling can be rebuilt and must conform to setback, parking and landscaping requirements. The proposal does not apply to duplexes or triplexes.
In response to questions, Mr. Shuford explained some of the applications and definitions of the proposal.
Concern was expressed with allowing nonconformities to continue.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5589-94 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Approval of Minutes of March 24, 1994
Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 1994, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
A concern was expressed there is no clear and consistent method of determining if hardships exist nor if hardships are self-imposed. It was indicated one of the reasons for granting
variances is to enable property owners reasonable use of their properties. Each case must be deterimed on its individual merits.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the Sun Watch request is justified. It was felt a 2.2 foot variance is extremely minimal to allow reasonable use of the land. However, concerns
were expressed with the difficulty of fitting a ninth story into a space devised to accommodate only eight stories. Mr. Shuford stated he will discuss the technical merits of the proposal
with the City Building Official and provide additional information relating to design and material alternatives to the Board.
Mr. Shuford suggested and consensus was to continue discussion of the single board issue to the next meeting.
In response to questions, Mr. Shuford explained the work which is being done at the Pelican Walk Shopping Center. He stated Pelican Walk is to come before the City Commission on April
21, 1994.
A question was raised regarding a portion of the March 24 minutes relating to Ronald Pratt (V 93-12) never having installed one of his bike racks on a vehicle. It was not known if the
Planning and Zoning Board established a trial period for this case.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.
Chairman