04/28/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
April 28, 1994
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Otto Gans
Joyce E. Martin
Members absent:
John B. Johnson (excused)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision
of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. He noted Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this
Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Time Extensions
1. Austin W and Emma C Whitney for variances of (1) 9.9 percent to allow 51.9 percent building coverage where 42 percent is permitted; (2) 4.5 percent to allow 30.5 percent open space
for the lot where 35 percent is required; (3) 7.7 percent to allow 32.3 percent open space for the front yard where 40 percent is required; and (4) 10 ft to allow construction 15 ft
from front property line where 25 ft is required at 756 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 4, Lot 2 and riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-15
The applicants are requesting a time extension because of legislation on FEMA bills this year and because they are out of town for most of the summer months.
In accordance with the applicants' request, Ms. Martin moved grant a six-month time extension to October 13, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin,
Messrs. Plisko, and Gans voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney abstained. Motion carried.
II. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (continued from 3-24-94 & 4-14-94) Charles C. & Mary A. Carter for variances of (1) 5 ft to permit a side setback of 10 ft where 15 ft is required; (2) 10 ft to permit entrance
steps 25 ft from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required; (3) 5 ft to permit a residential structure 30 ft from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required;
(4) 10 ft to permit a garage structure 25 ft from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required; and (5) 6 ft to permit 19 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 94-13
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained this item was continued to allow time to amend the application; relocating the proposed structure five feet closer to the water.
Charles Carter, the owner/applicant, stated all three of the surrounding property owners support the request. Discussion ensued regarding the adjustments that were made to the proposal.
In response to a question from Mr. Carter, it was indicated these changes were correctly advertised.
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 arise from a condition which 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 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 3) these variances shall be
contingent upon the acceptance of the petition to annex the property by the City Commission and 4) a unity of title declaration for the associated lots shall be recorded. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM B - (cont from 3-24-94 & 4-14-94) 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 due to a tie vote. He stated he discussed the request with the Victor Chodora, the City's Building Official, who indicated
it is possible to adjust the air flow and the width of the vent material to fit within the space permitted. Mr. Chodora suggested a 12-foot height bonus is more appropriate for structures
with parking underneath because parking garages typically have wide spans and larger supporting beams are needed.
Chairman Plisko questioned if the Code specifies how many stories may be built within certain building heights. Mr. Shuford stated it does not. It was noted the Code does not guarantee
a certain number of living units per acre. Mr. Shuford agreed, stating the numbers in the Code reflect the maximum allowable, not a guaranteed number. He said staff is trying to eliminate
the
practical difficulties caused by the Code and discussion ensued regarding the suggestion to raise the height bonus from 10 to 12 feet.
Carlton Ward, attorney representing the applicant, gave a brief history of the application. He explained two to three more inches are needed between floors to allow for the installation
of adequate air conditioning duct work while maintaining the required 7.5 foot ceiling height. He stated the proposed building is designed to maximize the view from each unit on the
irregularly shaped property. The proposal will blend with the surroundings and will not tower over adjacent structures. He listed the heights of other buildings in the area, stating
the proposal will not be detrimental or injurious nor will it impair adequate light or air from nearby structures. Mr. Ward stated the applicant is not primarily trying to maximize
the financial return of the building. He stated the type of people who will live in these upscale units will not expect an inferior air conditioning system. He submitted copies of
the survey to the Board.
Discussion ensued regarding using soffits to carry duct work and other cases for which height variances were granted. It was noted the other tall buildings in the area were constructed
prior to the current code.
Ernie Shreve, contractor representing the applicant, gave a technical explanation of various types of duct systems, stating he uses mixing boxes for a very quiet system with maximum
air flow. While he agreed soffits could be effectively used with some systems, he felt his design requires dropping the entire ceiling to best serve the rooms with wide expanses.
Discussion ensued with regard to the different types of floor plans and how many air handlers are used for each. There was some discussion of concentrating on one of two floors the
units with taller ceiling requirements; however, the building design will not allow this. Mr. Ward questioned if the Board was more receptive to allowing a taller, narrower building
with more open space on the lot. The Board indicated they were not. Discussion ensued regarding the differences between the current application and a previous one where this had been
allowed. Concern was expressed with granting a variance when the building can be built without it.
In response to questions, Mr. Ward stated the length of the building runs east to west to preserve the most vista between buildings. He said the proposal is for nine floors over a parking
garage, with additional parking on the north side of the building.
Discussion ensued regarding the rationale of the height bonus. Mr. Shuford stated it is to encourage having parking below the building, not to meet flood plain requirements. In response
to questions, Mr. Shuford stated this variance is clearly design related and there is no reason why the applicant cannot design a building that meets Code. He stated the pertinent question
is whether or not the request is reasonable.
While it was agreed there does not appear to be a hardship in this case, it was felt the presentation was very logical and the request extremely small in relation to the building size.
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 the hardship created by the
need for an extra 2.2 feet to make the living conditions more comfortable 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.
2. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc for a variance of 437 sq ft to permit the construction of a detached single family dwelling unit on a lot with an area of 4,563 sq ft
where 5,000 sq ft is required at 700 Nicholson Street, Ira E. Nicholson's Add to Clearwater, Blk 1, Lot 5, and part of Lot 6, zoned RM 8 (Multi-Family Residential). V 94 18
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating a blanket variance was granted in October, 1993, to allow redividing nine substandard lots to make seven
lots which meet the minimum size for that zone. He indicated, after this was done, part of one lot was dedicated as City right-of-way for Nicholson Street and Margo Avenue, causing
a 437 square-foot shortage in the required 5,000 square foot lot size.
Jerry Spilatro, representing Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Service (CNHS), gave an overview of what the program has done in the last two years in the North Greenwood neighborhood.
He displayed a map of the area highlighting the sites where new homes are now occupied, under construction, or proposed. He stated many more families have been approved and are waiting
for suitable lots. Mr. Spilatro displayed a map of the nine lots prior to replatting. He stated the homes are 1,200 square feet have three bedrooms and two baths.
Miriam McCoy, the property owner, stated it took a while to find a lot and a design she could afford and she is ecstatic with the opportunity to buy a new home.
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 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(s)
shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The following Land Development Code Amendment was also considered:
Ordinance No. 5557-94 (cont from 3-24-94 & 4-14-94) 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 varianc es; providing an effective date.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed ordinance. Concern was expressed the proposed standards for approval do not address hardship or minimum. Mr. Shuford said he left out references
to a minimum variance, preferring to address whether or not the application is reasonable.
A question was raised why the standards need to be changed when the Board has a good record of having their decisions affirmed by the state Hearing Officer. Discussion ensued regarding
the rationale of combining, clarifying and simplifying the standards for approval. It was agreed that requests may differ from one site to the next and each should be considered on
its own merits.
Assistant City Attorney Lance stated the proposed standards will make it easier to get a variance, will lead to more variance requests and fewer appeals. In response to a question,
he stated the new standards are more relaxed and not as conducive to preparing a strong appeal case because the terms "special circumstances" and "reasonable use" are subject to interpretation
by the Hearing Officer. Discussion ensued regarding these two terms and the potential for a lenient interpretation.
In response to questions, Mr. Shuford gave a brief history of his background in code work, stating he has spent a lot of time trying to make the City's Land Development Code more closely
fit reasonable cases. The Board supported the philosophy of changing the Code rather than continuing to grant the same variances.
Concern was expressed with making the approval standards so broad that control of the process is lost. Mr. Shuford stated is was not the intent to make the standards less restrictive,
but to better reflect the actual process in granting a variance. He said he did not want the Board to feel their decisions would be more likely to be overturned and he would continue
to work on the standards. He suggested dropping standard #3 relating to financial interest and amending the language in two of the remaining standards. In response to a question, Mr.
Shuford stated the City Commission approved the variance standards amendment on consent as they feel there are internal inconsistencies in the current language.
Consensus of the Board was to continue discussion of this item to the meeting of May 12, 1994. Staff was requested to provide copies of the suggested changes in writing.
III. Approval of Minutes of April 14, 1994
Ms. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of April 14, 1994, 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 concerning the Pelican Walk project, Mr. Shuford stated they have abandoned plans for the controversial driveway and have changed the site plan to accommodate
Eckerd's by moving the drive further to the south.
Discussion ensued regarding the Hearing Officer having upheld the Board's decision regarding the cruise ship case (Clearwater Bay Marine Ways, V 93-86 - 11/17/93). He stated the Hearing
Officer had difficulty deciding what the parking requirements are and encouraged the Board to read the report.
Ms. Whitney moved to change the meeting schedule to one meeting per month during the months of June, July, August, September and October. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued regarding the motion. It was felt the Board could be seeing more activity due to the reduction of the application fee. Concern was expressed a long agenda takes up
an entire afternoon, having a serious impact on the members' business schedules.
Due to confusion with the roll call vote, discussion of this item was continued to the next meeting. Staff is to investigate and report the number and timing of the variance applications
filed over the past couple of years.
Regarding the single board issue, Mr. Shuford stated it has been suggested to let the Planning and Zoning Board handle both requests when applications for a conditional use and a variance
are received at the same time. It was felt that both boards have too much business to justify changing to one board.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Chairman