08/25/1994MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, August 25, 1994 - 1:00 p.m.
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chair
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair
Otto Gans
Joyce E. Martin
John B. Johnson
Also present:
Scott Shuford, Director, Central Permitting Dept.
John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Dept.
Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sally Demarest, Board Reporter
Gwen Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. Ms. Whitney led 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.
Item A - (cont. from 6-9-94) John Schultz/McDonald's Restaurant for a variance of 3 parking spaces to permit a total of 0 parking spaces where 3 parking spaces are required at 409 Mandalay
Ave, Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk A, Lot 15 and part of Lot 35, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 94-26
Following a lengthy discussion of background, it was proposed that this item be continued to October 13, 1994, the meeting following the City Commission hearing date, October 6, 1994,
at which time the Commission will act on the pending sidewalk cafe ordinance. Staff recommended a continuance to the October 13, 1994, meeting.
Question arose as to validity of McDonald's lease and whether there were code violations. Motion by Ms. Whitney to deny continuance was duly seconded. Ms. Whitney voted "aye"; Ms.
Martin, Messrs. Plisko, Gans, and Johnson voted "nay". Motion failed.
Ms. Martin moved for a continuance until the legal question brought up by the City can be answered and we have a legal opinion on the matter. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Mr. Lance arrived at the meeting at 1:16 p.m.
Mr. Lance said he needed to see documents and points of contention in order to prepare a legal opinion; Mr. Pressman, speaking for the applicant, said that he will put Mr. Lance in contact
with legal counsel if needed.
1. Daniel B. & Carol E. Lowrey a variance of 6.2 ft to permit a freestanding arbor canopy 0.8 ft from side (south) property line at 892 Harbor Island, Island Estates of Clearwater,
Unit 7C, Lot 53, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential 6). V 94-46
Senior Planner John Richter explained that the applicants are experiencing difficulty in complying with the required setback from the side property line. They contend that any modification
would cause them additional financial burden and it would be difficult to maintain the aesthetic quality and strength of the arbor canopy. Applicants request a minimum variance to overcome
the difficulty that arises from a condition unique to the property in question due to site configurations and existing development. Staff did not see any visual impairment relative
to adjoining properties. The granting of the variance will not violate the intent and general spirit of the Land Development Code.
Mr. Daniel B. Lowrey 892 Harbor Island, Clearwater, explained the arbor structure was built on the south side to house orchids and tender plants. He did not realize that he needed a
permit or variance to build the structure. He submitted photographs of the site, structure and vegetation and said that a survey confirmed that the fence and shrubs were on his property.
He indicated that no other location on his property was appropriate for this use.
Two letters in opposition from neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Fina, 886 Harbor Island, Clearwater, were distributed and noted for the record.
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 that 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 months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and passed unanimously.
2. Francis J. & Kristin R. Ferraro (Colonial Mechanical Inc.) for a variances of 3.3 ft to permit a 6.7 ft setback from a side (east) property line where 10 ft is required; two additional
parking spaces to permit zero additional parking spaces where two are required; and 4.5 ft to permit a lot width of 55.5 ft where 60 ft is required for a 400 sq ft office addition at
804 Pinellas St, Milton Park, Blk 10, Lot 11, zoned OL (Limited Office). V 94-47
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, indicating that applicant is requesting two variances that apply to a proposed new addition, and a third variance that considers
two parking spaces required due to this addition. Variance #1 requests 3.3 ft. for sideyard setback; variance #2 requests the additional two parking spaces required by current parking
regulations be waived due to lack of available land; variance #3 requests a variance of 4.5 ft. to permit a lot width of 55.5 ft. where 60 ft. is required.
Staff report indicates the proposed addition to the existing building involves expansion of the manager's office. There will be no increase in the number of employees. Relative to
variance #2, staff contends the 29 percent reduction in parking overrall amount of parking is significant and may be problematic for the neighborhood, and a variance of this magnitude
should consider future sale and/or reuse of this property. Mr. Richter noted that, unless the parking variance is approved, the applicant would be unable to proceed with construction
of the addition. Also, the applicant is presently non-conforming due to shortage of one parking space.
Mr. Steven L. Klar, A.I.A., 28465 US 19 North, Clearwater, speaking for the applicant, described a family business housed in a three-room older home. There are presently four parking
spaces, one handicapped. Various parking possibilities were discussed. Responding to a question, Mr. Klar said that the owner might utilize additional parking space during business
hours in the adjoining church parking lot, if the church agreed.
Motion was made by Ms. Martin to grant the parking variance with following additional condition. Prior to any construction, a document will be obtained from the adjacent church granting
to the owner permission to use three parking spaces of the proposed property during business by the owner. There was no second.
Mr. Johnson then moved to continue all three variances considered for V94-47 until the September 8, 1994 meeting to allow the applicant to secure the required parking spaces. The motion
was duly seconded and unanimously approved.
3. Robert E. & Linda D. Swain for a variance of 4 ft to permit a dock addition 16 ft. from an extended (north) property line where 20 ft is required at 1055 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel
Sub, Blk 271, Lot 4 and Mandalay Replat, part of Lots 4 & 5, Blk 171, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential 8). V 94-48
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating that the existing dock, centrally located on the waterfront at 1055 Bay Esplanade, was built prior to current code.
Properties along this waterfront must have extended docks due to shallow water. The applicants contend that use of the existing 2 ft. catwalk around the dock is risky. The harbormaster
has indicated there is no hazard to navigation and staff felt that adjacent properties should not be adversely affected.
Speaking for the applicant, Mr. Don Turek, Gulfside Docks Corp, 1123 So. Florida Avenue, Tarpon Springs, explained the variance is for the filler section to be constructed inside footprint
of the dock. Adjoining property owners have indicated no objection.
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 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 months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
4. City of Clearwater (Pump station #23) for a variance of 15 ft to permit structure 10 ft from a (north) side property where 25 ft is required to allow a new pump station at 1301 North
Betty Ln, Pinebrook Sub Unit 2, Dedicated City Park, zoned OS-R (Open Space-Recreation). V 94-49
The application was explained in detail by Senior Planner Richter, who noted the unique physical constraints at the site that impose hardship on the applicant. The pump station must
be relocated out of the right-of-way so the County may construct the new bridge. The City desires to place the electrical control panel within 10 ft. of the north boundary to avoid
conflict with the seawall appurtenances and to provide for more reasonable use of the property for other purposes. This request also requires a conditional use approval.
In the opinion of staff, the proposed construction is for the public welfare. Relocation of the existing sanitary pump is necessary to allow for the construction of a new bridge across
Stevenson's Creek, and the granting of the variance will not violate the general spirit and intent of the City Development Code.
Mr. Claude Howell, Civil Engineer II, Public Works Engineering, 10 So. Missouri Avenue, representing the City of Clearwater, indicated he is the designer of the relocation portion of
the project and spoke at length regarding site, construction and safety considerations. In his opinion, this project would aesthetically improve the present park gathering area. Mr.
Howell indicated this is a joint effort with the county, and the county has this project in a "rush" mode.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has clearly 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 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; 2) The requisite building permit(s)
shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the requisite occupational license shall be obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board within six months
of public hearing. Duly seconded the motion was carried unanimously.
5. Calvary Baptist Church for a variance of 10 percent to permit 30 percent of view corridor where 40 percent is required at 301 Pierce St, Sec 16-29-15, M&B 13.05, 13.06, and 13.08,
zoned UC-B (Urban Center-Bayfront). V 94-50
Senior Planner Richter explained there are three concrete structures in this area which already obstruct the view. The applicant recently demolished a deteriorated storage shed which
had been on its property for 13 years. Applicant maintains the proposed location is the only feasible place to put the shed. Staff did not see any visual impairment relative to the
surrounding properties or the beach due to the proposed shed, and recommends approval of the requested minimal variance.
Mr. Charles Bondreau, Administrator for Calvary Baptist Church, 331 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, representing the applicant, said mechanical improvements were made to the building,
and the previous storage shed was eliminated, adding that the proposed location was the only workable one. Answering a question, Mr. Bondreau said the existing concrete pad is not for
the proposed storage shed.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and 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; 2) The requisite building permit(s)
shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) perimeter landscaping shall be provided on the south side of the shed to shield it from view of the residential
property on the south. The motion was duly seconded and unanimously approved.
6. Valentinos Koumoulidis for variances of 83 ft to permit a lot width of 67 ft at setback line; 28.75 percent to permit 21.25 percent of front yard open space where 50 percent is required;
3.5 ft to permit 1.5 ft of perimeter landscape buffer where 5 ft is required; 20 percent to permit zero percent of clear space where 20 percent is required to allow the expansion and
conversion of retail space and one dwelling unit at 606 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub No. 5, Blk A, Lot 7, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial 28). V 94-52
Staff recommends this request be continued to the September 22, 1994, meeting to enable the applicant to incorporate all variances together.
Mr. Robert Gregg, 2963 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Suite 220, Clearwater, speaking for the applicant, gave a history of this application. He cited instances where technical discrepancies
required resubmission for permits and approvals, proving costly to the applicant. He said fourteen copies of site plans were submitted with the application, and he questioned the tardiness
of this latest objection. In answer to his question, Mr. Gregg was advised that the board could not waive fees.
Senior Planner Richter pointed out that the required additional landscape strip between the parking and street was not indicated on plans and staff was unaware of the required additional
landscape strip until shortly before the meeting. Mr. Gregg replied that the approved plans had only perimeter dimensions at the edges.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the September 22, 1994, meeting. The motion was duly seconded and unanimously approved.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
8. Ordinance No. 5666-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 42.23, Code of Ordinances, to increase the allowable height bonus
for structures providing parking beneath the building in certain zoning districts; providing an effective date.
9. Ordinance No. 5667-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; creating Section 36.039, Code of Ordinances, to establish a tropical seascape design
review committee, and to establish powers, duties and jurisdiction for the committee; providing an effective date.
10. Ordinance No. 5668-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending various sections within Chapters 35, 36, 40, 41, and
42, Code of Ordinances, to revise the alcoholic beverages sales regulations, establish new definitions, create a new appeals process, establish a new "nightclubs, taverns, and bars"
use and establish conditional use standards; providing an effective date.
Ms. Whitney moved to continue items 8, 9 and 10 to the September 8, 1994 meeting was duly seconded and unanimously approved.
I. Public Hearings
II. Approval of Minutes - Minutes of the July 14, 1994, and
July 28, 1994, meetings were approved.
III. Board & Staff Discussion
Mr. Shuford distributed Comparison of Variance Standards of Approval and explained differences between current and previous standards of approval. Answering a question, he said
although the board does not need to specify all four standards when approving, the applicant must meet all four criteria. Conversely, a motion to deny must state specific reasons for
denial. He emphasized that in the future there can be no reference to "hardship" or "minimum" in compliance with City Commission directive.
Concern was expressed that each applicant and parcel requesting variance be considered on its individual merit and not impacted by its neighbors.
A discussion ensued regarding clarification of the issue of non-conformity, i.e. phylosophical differernce vs. strict interpretation of standards. Mr. Shuford offered to discuss this
further at a future meeting.
Time constraints prevented Mr. Shuford from further participation. Consensus of the board dictated that further discussion of Variance Standards of Approval be continued at the September
22, 1994 meeting.
Senior Planner Richter introduced Mr. Etim Udoh, Associate Planner, Central Permitting. Mr. Udoh is writing staff reports for variance applications.
Mr. Richter noted that he will be keeping records of members' attendance. He indicated that five absences, excused or non-excused, are allowed in a twelve month period. Discussion
ensued relative to members' proposed vacation plans.
Mr. Richter requested members' blue books after the meeting, further adding that future agenda items will match the item numbers on staff reports.
At 3:15 p.m. Mr. Lance left.
As a point of clarification, Ms. Whitney moved to correct the language of any motions made to comply with the new wording contained in Ordinance 5557-94. Duly seconded, the motion passed
unanimously.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Chairman