06/23/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
June 23, 1994
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chair
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Also present:
John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department
Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
Patricia Sullivan, Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. Mr. Gans lead the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation. Mr. Plisko outlined procedures
and advised 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.
1. Teresa L. Malke, TRE for variances of (1) 18.5 ft to permit a lot depth of 66.5 ft where 85 ft is required; (2) 15 ft to permit a structural setback from a street right-of-way (Jordan
Hills Ct) of 10 ft where 25 ft is required; and (3) 16 percent to permit 39 percent front yard open space where 55 percent is required at 1472 Jordan Hills Ct, Jordan Hills, Lot 4, zoned
OL (Limited Office) and CG (General Commercial). V 94-29
Senior Planner John Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants wish to construct a 1,706 square foot office building on a 0.48 acre lot that is 66.5 feet deep
where 85 feet is required. Due to the substandard lot depth, it is difficult to meet setback and open space requirements. Staff feels the requested variances are warranted due to the
lot's irregular shape, its substandard depth, and the intrusion of the cul-de-sac, an access road serving a single use to the south with no heavy traffic anticipated. The proposed development
will enhance the neighborhood's appearance. Staff feels conditions are unique to the property and variances are the minimum.
Mr. Richter reported access to the subdivision of eight lots is off Highland Avenue. He noted the proposed building aligns with the front setback of the existing dental hospital building
north of the subject property. The neighboring animal hospital also does not conform with the setback line.
Peter Lenhardt, the applicant, stated he and his wife purchased the lot many years ago and held it in trust for their daughter, Teresa L. Malke. He wishes to construct a building to
accommodate his real estate and investment business and staff of seven. He reported his architect said adherence to requirements would limit the building's size to 1,000 square feet;
700 square feet too small for his needs.
Concerns were expressed regarding the shape and size of the lots. Mr. Lenhardt explained the lot was on a private drive maintained by the subdivision. The buildings, all professional,
cannot be moved back due to the church property to the rear.
Three letters of support were submitted for the record.
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 was not caused by the owner
or applicant, the physical surroundings, irregular shape of the lot, and the existing cul de sac intrudes into the lot imposes a constraint on the applicant, the proposed development
will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood, and the request is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the site configuration, subject to the following conditions:
1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the
applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site
or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six (6) months
from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Gilbert G. Jannelli (Funky J's Smokehouse Bar & Grill) for variances of (1) 2 ft to permit a fence of 6 ft where a 4 ft maximum height is allowed in a structural setback area from
a street right-of-way (Park St) where the property is not addressed from; (2) 3 ft to permit a fence and wall setback of 0 ft from a street right-of-way (Park St) where 3 ft is required;
(3) 3 ft to provide 0 ft of landscape buffer where 3 ft is required; and (4) 5 parking spaces to permit a restaurant expansion of 500 sq ft providing 0 new parking spaces where 5 are
required at 1343 Cleveland St, Overbrook, Blk 3, Lots 7-14, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 94-30
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to redevelop the former Shell's restaurant, vacant for almost three years, into a 3,537 square
foot restaurant with 120 indoor and 30 screened outdoor seats. Parking regulations were discussed.
Regulations limit the fence height to four-feet, require a setback and buffer landscaping where the lot adjoins the street right-of-way at the property's rear. The higher fence is proposed
to shield the restaurant from the soup kitchen shelter and residential properties to the south. The redeveloped site requires conditional use approval and will comply with all other
code requirements.
The application indicates no adjacent land is available for parking. Based on the property's established use, staff feels an 11% reduction in the number of parking spaces is not significant
and a six foot high wood fence will not adversely affect neighboring properties. This request is considered minimal and necessary to permit the reasonable use of the existing facility.
Staff does not support waiving the requirement for a fence setback and placement of buffer landscaping in the right-of-way.
Discussion ensued whether a variance would be required for four or five spaces. In response to a question, Mr. Richter did not feel the business' outdoor seating would be affected by
the proposed cafe ordinance.
Joe Brumett, the applicant, stated the original plans submitted to the City indicated 31 parking spaces. A later drawing with 30 parking spaces allowed 10 feet per space rather than
9 feet. He stated moving the fence line back would permit him to install bumpers and improve the parking lot's traffic circulation.
Mr. Brumett wishes to shield the parking lot from the soup kitchen. He stated indigents sleep and store their belongings in the landscaping. He expressed concerns that without a high
fence, panhandlers will harrass patrons in the parking lot.
In response to a question, Mr. Brumett stated in order to obtain a liquor license he planned to develop a unique, covered, outdoor, screened area with picnic tables on an existing slab.
He indicated the restaurant will not be part of a chain and should not suffer the parking lot congestion Shell's did. He noted his conditional use permit was approved unanimously by
the Planning and Zoning Board.
Mr. Jannelli spoke in support of the application, stating his father purchased the property in the 1950's. He supported development of this commercial zone and expressed concerns regarding
the trend of lowering property values.
Discussion ensued regarding upkeep of the landscaping on the far side of the fence. It was felt the landscaping would not be necessary because of its location on a dead-end
street. They noted the applicant would be unable to view it from the restaurant and check on its condition.
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 was not caused by the owner
or applicant, and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size and the facilities necessary for licensing purposes, 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 variances shall run concurrently with the occupancy of the location by the applicant. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
3. City of Clearwater (Plaza Park South) for a variance of 1.5 ft to permit a fence height of 4 ft where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is permitted in a structural setback area from a
street right-of-way (Pennsylvania Ave) where the property is addressed from at 317 Pennsylvania Ave, Plaza Park, A Dedicated City Park, zoned OS/R (Open Space/Recreation). V 94-31
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant requests approval of a 1.5 foot height variance to enable the City of Clearwater Park & Recreation Department
to erect a 4-foot high, plastic coated, chain link fence within a structural setback area from a street right-of-way. Clearwater is currently renovating the subject property, a dedicated
City Park. The City wants to erect the fence to protect children on the playground from Pennsylvania Avenue traffic. Residents of adjoining residential properties support this improvement.
The proposed construction is for the public welfare. Staff feels the fence is a reasonable solution to ensure the safety of children at play in the park. The variance requested is
minimal. Granting it will not violate the general spirit and intent of the City Development Code.
Art Kader, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation, representing the applicant, described the unique park located in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue. Even though the City normally
does not fence playgrounds, staff feels the need to provide a fence here for safety purposes. He said the subdivision was platted years ago and did not provide a right-of-way for the
park.
In response to a question, Mr. Kader stated the playground is designed for smaller children who will be protected from running into the street by the four foot fence. He said
the brown fence will compliment the earth tones used for the playground. The board noted the difficulty of eliminating the double street.
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 was 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.
4. Joel & Francine E. Briskman for variances of 9.4 ft to permit a setback 15.6 ft from a street right-of-way (Midway Island) where 25 ft is required; (2) 4 percent to permit a minimum
open space for the lot of 31 percent where 35 percent is required; and (3) 10 percent to permit a minimum open space for the front yard of 30 percent where 40 percent is required to
allow a 780 sq ft residential expansion at 66 Midway Island, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 3, Lot 4, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-32
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants wish to build a 780 square foot addition of a bedroom and garage to the front of their 3,504 square
foot, one story house. A 25-foot minimum setback from a right-of-way is required for all development. The proposed addition will not meet the required minimum 35% open space for the
lot, and minimum 40% open space for the front yard. Variances to the minimum open space for the lot and front yard are not minimal.
Staff feels the applicants have not provided evidence of any unique conditions existing to justify granting the variances and the proposed additions will constitute an overdevelopment
of the site. The need for variances is the result of proposed actions created by the applicants. A reasonable use of the land exists, that being the current single family, three bedroom
residence and swimming pool.
Michael Myrick, contractor and representative for the applicant, stated the construction will meet the style of the existing homes and neighborhood. He noted the addition will not interfere
with neighbors' sight view lines. He stated the need for a garage was caused by the previous owner's conversion of the garage.
Joel Briskman, owner, reported he purchased the house eight years ago. He stated the
family needs extra room because his parents are scheduled to move in due to poor health. He indicated it is too expensive to build a second story, and noted his neighborhood consists
entirely of one story homes. He said he already has four cars parked in his driveway and neighbors have requested he build a garage.
Mr. Briskman submitted copies of a front elevation drawing and three letters in support of the application.
The Board indicated the addition would constitute overbuilding on the property. While sympathy was expressed regarding the family's need for additional space, it was felt the size of
the property was insufficient for this project. The urgency of the request for a garage was questioned as it was noted the family has lived without one since 1987.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated they have met all of the standards
for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, because no condition is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, the variances are not the minimum,
and the granting of the variances would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded. Upon
the vote being taken, Ms. Martin and Messrs. Plisko, Gans, and Johnson voted, "Aye." Ms. Whitney voted "Nay." Motion carried.
5. Alan H. Tralins for a variance of 5 ft to permit construction of home 20 ft from a street right-of-way (Eldorado Ave) at 1010 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 69, Lots 8 & 9, land
fronting the gulf and riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-33
Harry Cline, representing the applicant, reported he had to withdraw due to a conflict. He requested this item be continued until the next meeting.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of July 14, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
6. Demetre Loulourgas (American Tool & Mold, Inc) for a variance of 5.5 ft to permit setback of 14.5 ft from a street right-of-way (N Arcturas Ave) where 20 ft is required to allow
a new stairwell at 1351 N Arcturas Ave, Hercules Industrial Park, Part of Tract A, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). V 94-34
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a stairway from the office building's second floor for the employees' safety. The
existing, enclosed stairway provides no exit to the front yard but the proposed stair tower will permit employees to exit to the front yard. The construction will align with the existing
front setback of the adjacent property to the east and will project 10 feet outward, encroaching on the front yard setback area. Even though two spaces will be lost, sufficient parking
is available on site.
According to the application, the improvement will beautify the front area, meet Fire Code requirements, and provide safety to employees in case of an emergency. The applicant maintains
the hardship is based on the physical configuration and orientation of the building that limits the stairway's position to its proposed location. Staff feels the construction of the
stairway is a reasonable solution to the problem of employee safety. There is apparent hardship placed on the applicant to construct the stairway that warrants approval of the requested
variance. The variance requested is minimal to address the problem.
Larry Beard, representative for the applicant, reported approximately 60 employees eat lunch on the second floor in the employee meeting room and lounge and noted the danger associated
with only one stairway exit. He indicated the property is in an industrial area on an obscure side street with no through traffic. He said the tower of stone and glass will improve
the front of the building and improve employee safety.
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 is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by reason of wanting to protect
the employees in case of an emergency to exit the building, 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.
7. Henry M. Patenaude (Five Palms Motel Condo) for variances of (1) 10 ft to permit a setback of 10 ft from a street right-of-way (Bay Esplanade) where 20 ft is required (2) 14.6 ft
to permit 20 ft of continuous clear space where 34.6 ft is required; and (3) 19 percent to allow 31 percent front yard open space where 50 percent is required to allow for the expansion
of three units at 673 Bay Esplanade, Five Palms Motel Condo, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial). V 94-35
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct bedroom enlargements to each of three units of this two story, 19-unit building.
According to the application, the property, developed as a motel, now consists of
condominium units. Each 380 square foot unit includes a living area, bathroom, and bedroom area. The applicant wants to expand the bedroom area to 196.7 square feet. Seasonal residents
will be the principal users.
The proposed expansion will encroach into the setback area from the street right-of-way where the property is addressed. Open space requirements were discussed. Staff feels the applicant
has not provided evidence of a unique condition to justify granting these variances. The need for variances arises from a situation created by the applicant's action. There exists
a reasonable use of the land, that being the current condominium building with 19 units and a swimming pool.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated multiple owners rent out the individual units. Mr. Patenaude owns three. Mr. Cline noted the property was developed years prior
to current code. He reported balconies along the building's south side were added in the 1970's. In comparing the size of the small bedrooms with those at nearby hotel properties,
Mr. Cline stated doubling the room's size would provide minimal space needs for seasonal visitors.
For the record, Mr. Cline submitted photos of the subject property. He stated the building was constructed forward on the property and the addition will not further violate the front
setback. He noted non compliance elsewhere on the property to the clear view setbacks adopted in 1980. Mr. Cline said the second floor balconies have afforded those bedrooms added
space. He indicated there would be no increase to the impervious surface as the addition will be no larger than the existing concrete slab. He stated the owner was not attempting to
increase density. He wished to modernize the units.
Mr. Cline responded to a question regarding the common area, stating the Five Palms Board approved the addition into the common area. For the record, he submitted a copy of the agreement.
Henry Paternaude, owner, stated he does not want to sell his units but wishes to better accommodate his guests, who are mostly elderly. The bedrooms now barely hold a queen size bed
with little room for luggage. He noted the balconies provide no protection on the patios from inclement weather. He wants to offset the disadvantage of his units being closest to the
parking lot and furthest from the water and pool. He stated rents will remain the same as those charged for other units.
In answer to a question, Mr. Paternaude indicated he purchased the units eight years ago. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the units are treated as condominiums. Mr. Paternaude
stated rules forbid permanent residency.
One letter in opposition to adding more bedrooms was read into the record. Mr. Cline pointed out the application was to enlarge existing rooms; not add more rooms.
Discussion ensued regarding the small size of the existing bedrooms and the benefit of upgrading an antiquated development. The Board expressed concerns regarding additional owners
requesting similar variances even though these additions are located on the ends of the buildings away from the scenic waterfront.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the fact that this unit
was built in the 1950's and the bedroom is too small and they want to add on the bedroom, 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. There was no second.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards
for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, because no unnecessary hardship was proven; the request for the variances are based primarily upon the desire of
the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; the granting of the variances would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood;
the granting of the variances would substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property and the granting of the variances would violate the general spirit and intent of
this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded.
It was noted by the Board that the impact on the clear view and open space was minimal and the property contained enough green space to permit similar additions to each unit. Concern
was expressed that patios added to the enlarged bedrooms would create a negative impact.
Upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin and Mr. Johnson voted, "Aye." Ms. Whitney and Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "Nay." Motion failed.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship and enlarge the bedroom area in the
units, 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. Upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney and Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted, "Aye." Ms. Martin and Mr. Johnson voted "Nay." Motion carried.
8. Michael J. & Dolores M. Suhoza for a variance of 2 ft to permit a setback of 5 ft from a rear property line for a screened pool enclosure where 7 ft is required at 3017 N Oak Forest
Dr, Forest Wood Estates, Lot 60, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 94-37
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants wish to construct a screened pool enclosure behind an existing single family residence, five feet from
a rear property line where seven feet is required.
The applicants contend adherence to the seven foot setback will place the screen enclosure directly on the south side of the pool inhibiting egress. The decision to move the pool deck
five feet from the rear property line is due to the applicants' concern for free movement around the pool and the safety of pool users.
The Traffic Engineer has no comments regarding the request. It was indicated the variance requested is minimal. Staff felt granting the variance will not have any adverse impact of
the adjoining properties.
Dolores M. Suhoza, the owner/applicant, stated the two foot variance she requests is based on a safety issue. She noted if the standard setback is followed, the screen would border
her pool's edge. Ms. Suhoza expressed concern regarding the danger children may face if egress is blocked on one side of the pool.
In reply to a question, Ms. Suhoza stated her wish to have the enclosure installed at the edge of the two-foot wide deck on the pool's south side. She reported her small pool is near
completion.
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 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 Amendments were also considered:
ORDINANCE NO. 5631-94 (cont from 06-09-94) of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 35.11, Code of Ordi nances, to revise the definition
of personal services; amend ing Sections 40.284 and 40.304, Code of Ordinances, to provide for personal services as conditional uses in the limited office and general office zoning districts;
amending Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, establishing supplementary standards for such uses; providing an effective date.
Senior Planner Richter reported the Planning Director stated all regulations regarding parking associated with the use would have to be met.
Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5631-94 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of May 26, 1994, as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
Concern was expressed regarding the delay in receiving Minutes.
The need for staff to deliver packages to Board members instead of using the mail was questioned. Mr. Richter stated he would review ways to complete the reports faster.
Mr. Plisko's disclosure of conflict of interest regarding case V94-28 at the June 09, 1994, meeting was read into the record.
Allied Discount Tire's appeal of the Board's decision regarding installation of an awning was reported.
Ms. Whitney and Mr. Johnson reported they will be unable to attend the July 14, 1994, meeting. Mr. Gans reported he will be unable to attend the July 28, 1994, meeting. Mr. Plisko
reported he will be unable to attend the August 11, 1994, meeting.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Chairman