09/22/1994 MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, September 22, 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. (arrived 1:45 p.m.)
John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Dept.
Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sally Demarest, Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. Mr. Johnson 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.
Ms. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of the September 8, 1994 meeting as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The following are requests for extension, deferred and continued items:
B1. (cont. from 8/25 & 9/8/94) Francis J. & Kristin R. Ferraro (Colonial Mechanical Inc.) for 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 presented the application, indicating this item was continued from the August 25, and September 8, 1994 meetings to allow the applicant an opportunity to attend,
to
negotiate for offsite parking, and to submit a cross parking agreement letter for three parking spaces at the nearby church. Mr. Richter indicated off-property parking had been obtained.
Staff received a letter from the applicant indicating a three-year agreement had been obtained for three parking spaces at 705 Pinellas Street, leased to the applicant by Thompson Executive
Center Partnership. It was indicated this was less desireable parking because it required crossing Myrtle Street, it could be terminated with in 60 days and the term of the contract
was only three years. Staff recommended a fifteen-year contract term. Mr. Richter said continued staff support was indicated for the other two variances covering setback and lot width.
Architect Steven L. Klar, speaking for the applicant, offered a site plan indicating use of an existing carport would provide five parking spaces, rather than four. He said the preferred
church parking was unavailable due to impending bankruptcy proceedings. In his opinion, the three-year agreement would offer enough time for the church to resolve its problems and subsequently
make preferred parking available.
The Applicant, Mr. Francis Ferraro, explained that he is the owner of the subject air-conditioning and engineering company, a family business. They do site work and contract labor which
does not cause people to visit his office. He said that he was unable to contact church officials, but litigators indicate willingness to enter into a cross parking agreement in the
future.
In the ensueing discussion several concerns were expressed as to the consequences if the business were to be sold, and the size and location of the existing drive-through carport. It
was noted that traffic engineering would not count this carport as a parking space.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #1 (setback) and variance #3 (lot width) 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 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 of the date from this public hearing; and 3) arrangements shall be made with the Director of Public Works to satisfy
drainage retention requirements. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny variance #2 (parking) as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards
for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because: 1) there are not special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings,
shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings
in the applicable zoning district; and 2) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and comprehensive plan.
The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
B2. (cont. from 8/25/94) 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
Mr. Richter explained a landscape variance adjacent to the Bayway right-of-way was needed to make this package complete. An application was not filed in time to enable presentation
at the current board meeting. It has been subsequently advertised for the October 13th meeting. Staff recommended continuance.
Replying to a question, Mr. Richter indicated that the present site plan differs from the original due to alteration to achieve a seventh parking space. All approvals except zoning
have been received.
Mr. Johnson moved for a continuance of V 94-52 until the October 13, 1994 meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The following variance requests were considered:
C1. Grande Bay Apartments, Ltd. (Beach Club Apartments) for a variance of 25 ft to permit 0 ft of vegetative buffer to allow placement of an erosion control revetment structure at
2909 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Brown's Bayview, Wm., Lots 6, 13, 14, and parts of Lots 5 and 15 together with vacant alley between and submerged land, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential).
V 94-56
Senior Planner Richter explained the subject variance application required material mandated by Environmental Management. The voluminous information was not received in time for review
and inclusion in the current meeting proceedings. Staff recommended continuance to the October 13, 1994 meeting to afford time for dissemination and review.
Ms. Whitney moved for a continuance until October 27, 1994 meeting to enable staff to review the additional environmental information. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C2. Jane R. Sheehan for a variance of 11 ft to allow a structure 14 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 2807 N. Druid Cir, East Druid Park, Lot 21, zoned RS 8 (Single
Family Residential). V 94-57
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, indicating the applicant wished to construct a pergola set back from the street right-of-way, on the north side of the home
in line with
the building lines. It was indicated the proposed addition would not harm views or appearance of the neighborhood, and staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
A letter of support from the 2074 S. Druid Circle property was offered in support. There were no people to speak or documents offered in opposition to the application. One telephone
call had been received indicating the proposed structure would be in violation of deed restrictions of carports.
Mr. Clarence Thornton, Thornton/Roberts Construction and Management, 3825 Henderson Boulevard, Suite 3001, Tampa spoke for the applicant. He explained the structure would be a cedar
construction, surrounded by plantings and the applicant planned to have cars parked under it. He noted drawings and indicated the applicant would use the existing concrete pad.
There were no other persons to speak or documents received in support or opposition to this application other than those aforesaid.
In the ensueing discussion, it was suggested this was overdevelopment of the property and a self-imposed condition due to enclosure of the former garage. Concerns were expressed the
location was too close to the street.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because: 1) there are not special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land or buildings and the garage facilities were eliminated and converted
to living quarters; and 2) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and comprehensive plan and will be otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford arrived at 1:45 p.m.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
D1. (cont. from 8/25 & 9/8/94) 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.
Mr. Shuford explained the City Commission's Blue Ribbon Task Force has asked that a Tropical Seascape Design Review Board be created for Clearwater Beach to implement tropical seascape
design review guidelines. He indicated possible future coordination with the North Greenwood design committee and Downtown, making one design committee with separate guidelines for
each
area; staff considers this approach expedient. He said the subject ordinance would allow appointment of a design review committee to implement mandatory and incentive tropical seascape
design guidelines which are to be developed on Clearwater Beach.
In the ensueing discussion, concern was expressed the beach area was being singled out for uniformity, and opinions were voiced that some variety would be desireable. Mr. Shuford said
that minor outside variations would need tropical seascape approval, but variances and conditional uses would still require board approval. Minor exterior changes would be exempt.
Mr. Shuford said a considerable number of exterior type improvements would fall under proposed design guidelines, and the committee would meet regularly.
It was the general consensus that other areas of the City would benefit from design committee involvement. There was agreement that a comprehensive entire city-wide design program,
each area with its own criteria, was desireable, but Mr. Shuford indicated he did not have staff to realize such a plan.
The manner in which appointments to the committee would be made, method of staggering four-year terms and qualifications required of members was discussed. Concern was expressed that
the membership always include at least one professional.
A question was raised whether such exacting design review requirements would preclude developers whose style does not conform.
It was suggested although the Tropical Seacape Design Review Board has been recommended, recommendations do not necessarily mandate approval.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance #5667-94. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mr. Gans and Mr. Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko, Ms. Martin,
Ms. Whitney voted "nay". Motion denied (3-2).
D2. (cont. from 8/25 & 9/8/94) 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.
Mr. Shuford reported Planning and Zoning Board asked staff to prepare a simplification of the ordinance, with chart. The project is close to finalization and it is anticipated it will
be ready for presentation to the board at its October 13, 1994 meeting.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
1. Variances and Nonconformities. A memorandum dated September 12, 1994 relative to variances and nonconformities was presented. Citing code 45.02, Mr. Shuford explained two types
of non-conformance, dimensional and use, and cautioned against confusing the two. Considerable discussion ensued. A question was raised as to the meaning of "lawful non-conformity"
in 42.21 Sec. 2. Concern was expressed that contractors with occupational licenses are not required to shoulder some responsibility for adherence to code requirements. Mr. Shuford
offered to have staff look into this.
2. Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance, scheduled for City Commission first reading on October 6, 1994, was distributed and briefly discussed.
ADJOURN: By motion duly seconded, the meeting adjourned at 2:53 p.m.
___________________________________
Chairman