05/12/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
May 12, 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
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. David P. Wade & Gail M. Karinja Wade for variances of (1) 7.5 ft to permit a dock width of 25 ft where 17.5 ft is permitted; (2) 94 ft to permit a dock length of 119 ft where 25
ft is permitted; and (3) 4.2 ft to permit a dock position from an extended property line of 12.5 ft where 16.7 ft is required at 1754 Sunset Drive, North Shore Park, Blk 11, Lot 4 and
riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 94-19
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a boat dock and cradle lift for the single family residence in an area
on Clearwater Harbor where extended docks are needed due to the shallow water. He noted the next door neighbor has a dock comparable to what is being requested and the City Harbor master
has no problem with the length. Staff felt the application appears to comply with the standards for approval, will not impact the view of the surroundings and the water depth justifies
the length.
Gail Wade, the owner/applicant, responded to questions, stating a nine by twelve foot head is proposed on the north side of the dock opposite the lift and the length is needed to reach
water deep enough for recreational purposes.
Tracy Butler, contractor representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He stated this proposal is similar to everything else in the area and he also built the dock
next door. He said
the dock poses no detriment to the waterway and will be elevated an extra foot for the environmental health of the seabed.
In response to a question, Mr. Butler stated the length is the minimum necessary to reach water two to three feet deep and the owner will only be able to use the boat as the tide permits.
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, in particular, the depth of the water at low tide and the need to get the boat out further to reach the water 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. Jay M. Dugan & Phyllis J. Lewellyn for variances of (1) 3 ft to permit a fence and wall setback of 0 ft for a wall portion from a street right-of-way (Landmark Drive) where 3 ft
is required; and (2) 3 ft to permit a wall portion to provide 0 ft landscape buffer where 3 ft is required at 2701 Ashwood Court, Wildwood of Countryside, Lot 16, zoned RS 8 (Single
Family Residential). V 94-20
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the property was subject to an FDOT right-of-way taking and the setback is now fifteen feet closer to
the home, at the edge of the swimming pool deck. The permitted wall along the rear of the property runs parallel to State Road 580 and stops without enclosing the pool. The pool, built
before the applicants owned the property, is shielded by a wooden fence which is to be demolished by the FDOT. The applicants wish to extend the existing wall, jogging it around the
southerly edge of the pool deck to enclose the pool because extending the wall in line with what is existing would place it at the water line. The FDOT taking and the pool being built
long ago are felt to be hardships justifying the request. Staff recommended approval subject to two conditions.
Jay Dugan, co-owner/applicant, noted the street right-of-way in question should be State Road 580, not Landmark Drive as advertised.
Discussion ensued regarding the application with it being indicated the request is similar to walls throughout the neighborhood. It was noted a setback variance was denied for another
property in the area because there was room to move the fence back. The subject request is just for the portion near the pool deck, not for the entire length of the wall.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 are caused by the location
of the existing swimming
pool, which requires the three-foot variance for the section abutting the swimming pool only and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the taking
of property by the FDOT for the widening of State Road 580 subject to staff conditions 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. Murray Sorin/Sorin Realty Corp for variances of (1) 39 parking spaces to permit a total of 658 parking spaces where 697 parking spaces are required; and (2) 9.5 ft to permit a fence
height of 15.5 ft where 6 ft is the permitted maximum height behind a structural setback area from a street right-of-way at 2495 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Sec 18-29-16, M&Bs 42.01, 42.02, 42.08
& 42.09, zoned CG (General Commercial) and RM 8 (Multiple Family Residential 8). V 94-21
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a Builder's Square home repair and retail center. The proposal includes
an outdoor garden center and lumber storage facility, to be enclosed by a 15.5 foot chain link fence. The additional fence height is needed to secure and protect the outside storage
and garden area and is common in retail centers of this type. The parking variances are needed for saving trees, particularly on the west side, of this heavily wooded lot. The six
percent reduction in the required number of parking spaces was not felt to be significant. It was noted a retail warehouse type of use does not require the same amount of parking spaces
as the standard retail use due to the large amount of internal storage. Staff recommended approval with three conditions.
In response to questions, Mr. Shuford outlined the preliminary approvals given by the City Commission and Planning and Zoning Board. He said the final site plan is expected from the
developer in the near future. Mr. Shuford explained the zoning code requires the outdoor garden sales and display area to be approved through the conditional use process. He explained
non-commercial parking at the rear of the site and agreed a five-foot landscaping strip may be needed along the east side of the property.
Discussion ensued regarding traffic circulation on the site and staff's concern with eliminating cut-through traffic from Druid Road and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Concerns were expressed with saving trees being used as the basis for the parking variance when it did not appear there was adequate effort to save many trees. There was particular
concern with the plan to remove a forty-inch oak tree in the interior of the site and it was felt more intensive site plan analysis is needed.
Ed Armstrong, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board. He stated an enclosure is needed to help minimize the impact to the view of the lumber storage and garden area
and a fence will have less impact than a building enclosure.
A question was raised regarding having a landscaping buffer between the pavement and the fence
along the garden area. Mr. Shuford stated none is required by code. However, the Board felt landscaping is needed for traffic safety and to soften the impact of the fence.
Mr. Armstrong responded to landscaping questions, stating the Sunny Grove Mobile Home Park has requested buffering along the west side of the subject property. He felt the Florida Power
Corporation would agree to allow a five-foot landscaping easement along the east side. He indicated it would be difficult to fit landscaping along the garden area fence because the
client has very specific interior square footage and driveway width requirements. Discussion ensued regarding various means of providing for landscaping.
Mr. Armstrong stated there was lengthy discussion during the previous two public hearings and the applicant has worked intensely with staff to configure the site plan to save as many
trees as possible. He said there is no practical way to provide the required parking without sacrificing some trees. He felt this plan is the best way to deal with the site and noted
it exceeds the tree requirement. Mr. Shuford agreed the only way to save more trees on site is to require less parking. He noted saving the forty-inch tree would cause the loss of
two rows of parking spaces.
Discussion ensued regarding shifting the parking design to save the forty-inch tree. Questions were raised regarding the health and specimen status of the trees scheduled for removal.
It was suggested to recess the meeting in order for City Environmental staff to be called.
The meeting was recessed from 1:55 to 2:08 p.m.
Mike Quillen, Water Resource Engineer with the City's Environmental Management Group, responded to questions, stating live oaks do well in parking lots. While the three trees in question
are not specimen oaks, they are healthy and he hopes to be able to save all three once the field work starts. He indicated the geometry of the site is very tight; however, he felt certain
at least two of the trees would be saved. Discussion continued regarding the size, location and health of numerous trees and the difficulty in pinpointing their locations due to the
scale of the plans.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the possibility of increasing the variance request to allow fewer parking spaces in order to save more trees. Mr. Armstrong did not feel this was
feasible, stating the project cannot be delayed for the amount of time needed to readvertise. He indicated the applicant is reluctant to cut down trees and is retaining numerous trees
on other portions of the site. He stressed the project is well within the requirements of the tree ordinance in terms of number of trees being saved. Mr. Armstrong explained Builder's
Square has standards of floor area and conformation, parking and drive aisles and visibility that must be maintained. Strong concern was expressed with removing the 40-inch tree to
afford a better view of the building.
Frank Struchen, owner of the adjacent mobile home park, spoke in support of the application, stating the applicant has been very considerate in accommodating the park residents. Copies
of a letter in support were distributed to the Board.
Discussion ensued regarding variance #1. Concern was expressed with saving trees being used as the justification for the parking variance when so many trees are to be removed. However,
it was felt the applicants have made every effort to cooperate and the City should work with them to get toward the success of this large project. It was suggested to eliminate standard
condition #1 from
the motion to facilitate changing the plans to save more trees, if possible.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #1 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 particular physical surroundings, or topographical conditions of the property involved and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) the requisite building
permit(s) shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing; 2) all protected trees by size, species, and location shall be shown by the applicant on the final
site plan. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mses. Whitney and Martin and Mr. Plisko voted "nay". Motion failed.
Discussion ensued regarding how a compromise could be reached to allow this project to go forward.
Dennis Perry, developer representing the applicant, agreed these are sensitive issues. He stated Builder's Square is a large national retailer which rarely selects a site which will
not support their typical building plan. He indicated they have made many compromises to make this site work and this issue could kill the deal. Mr. Perry stated the site survey was
done with laser equipment and is very accurate with respect to the location of the trees. He said he could commit to saving two of the tree large trees.
Discussion continued concerning the possibility of continuing this item for further study. Mr. Armstrong repeated two week delay would be a problem for the developer because there is
earnest money at risk.
In response to questions, Mr. Quillen explained the tree ordinance related to compensating for tree removal. While extreme concern was expressed with unnecessarily removing trees, it
was agreed this is a good project for the area. It was felt the retailer would provide hundreds of jobs and this request should not be turned down to save one tree. In response to
a question, the age of the 40-inch tree was not known. Discussion continued regarding saving trees by allowing fewer parking spaces. Mr. Plisko stated, while he agreed with the motion,
he could not vote to allow the tree to be cut down.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #1 as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the
applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in
support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and
of no effect with the understanding that some field adjustments may be necessary; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing; 3) all protected trees by size, species, and location shall be shown by the applicant on the final site plan and; 4) two out of the three large oak trees designated on the site
plan shall be retained on the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard frontage of the property;
to ensure this, the applicant will retain a professional arborist on the site to ensure viability of the trees in accordance with the tree protection ordinance and to save the third
tree, if possible. If adjustments to the parking lot are neces sary to save any trees consistent with this condition, those adjustments will be made consistent with City code requirements.
The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Martin and Mr. Plisko voted "nay". Motion carried.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variances #2 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 is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of protecting merchandise in this very
limited area as indicated on the plot plan 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) the area on the north side of the garden shop parallel to Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard shall be landscaped along the fence with shrubbery and trees as wide as possible to the extent that such can be provided due to the dimensional limitations of the site; and
4) landscaping shall also be installed adjacent to the east side property line opposite the garden shop and lumber storage area contingent upon a good faith effort to obtain approval
from Florida Power Corporation. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Martin voted "nay". Motion
carried.
The meeting was recessed from 3:25 to 3:36.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
Ordinance No. 5597-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 40.489, Code of Ordinances, to establish new parking requirements
for the Bayfront Core, and Eastern Corridor subdistricts of the Urban Center District; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford explained staff has researched the parking options available across the country for downtown areas. Based on this study, the need for revisions to the current downtown was
recognized. Staff recommended revising the ordinance to allow existing buildings to not be required to provide additional parking beyond what is currently provided, regardless of changes
in use. Further study of other flexible parking options was also recommended, such as using offsite parking, linked to public transportation, to meet the standards.
Discussion ensued regarding various aspects of the shared parking issue.
Clarification was requested concerning grandfathering existing buildings. Mr. Shuford stated they would not be grandfathered for no parking; they would simply not be required to add
parking the meet the new code.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5597-94 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 5613-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 40.433, Code of Ordinances, to add "accessory dwellings" as a permitted
use in the Infill Commercial District; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford stated this is an incentive for residents to continue to live in their homes and operate any of the allowable businesses available under this zoning district.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5613-94 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 5557-94 (Cont. from 4/28/94) 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.
This item was continued from the last meeting to add specific language giving more control over the approval process.
Assistant City Attorney Miles Lance stated this version is more restrictive to wide-open development.
Discussion ensued regarding an applicant having to meet all of the standards for approval to receive a variance. Ms. Shuford stated an argument for denying a variance can be made if
one or more of the standards are not met.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5557-94 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Approval of Minutes of April 28, 1994
A correction was made to page 1 to reflect that Ms. Whitney abstained from voting on her time extension request.
Ms. Martin indicated she did not vote against the motion for a shorter summer meeting schedule and requested a correction to the Board Discussion on page 6.
Ms. Martin moved to approve the minutes of April 28, 1994, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
1. Summer Meeting Schedule
Ms. Martin moved to reduce the number of meetings of the Development Code Adjustment Board
from two per month to one per month during June, July and August, for the same reasons this is done during other months of the year. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued regarding the motion and Mr. Shuford pointed out eliminating one meeting a month could cause a two to three-week delay for an applicant and meetings could become very
lengthy. He suggested to weigh the desire to have one meeting against the needs of the applicants. He stated forty Land Development Code amendments are being processed this year.
Concerns were expressed that shortening the summer schedule would adversely impact members who schedule their vacations for other than the summer months. Also, limiting the number of
meetings would concentrate the work load and place a time burden on members who feel an obligation to personally examine every site. It was felt that Board appointment comes with the
understanding there are two meetings per month and the procedure should not be changed.
It was noted meeting times could be shortened by adhering to the established time limit for presentations. Streamlining the conduct of each case for efficiency was recommended. Mr.
Lance directed attention to Article IV of the rules of procedure dealing with time limits. It was indicated there are numerous boards which recess for the summer despite the demand
for their time.
Upon the vote being taken, Mses. Whitney and Martin voted "aye"; Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "nay". Motion failed.
Mr. Plisko and Ms. Whitney stated they would be unable to attend the meeting of May 26, 1994. It was suggested the members submit their anticipated vacation schedules at the next meeting.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
Chairman