Loading...
01/26/1995 MINUTES DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Thursday, January 26, 1995 - 1:00 p.m. Commission Chambers, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, FL Members present: Alex Plisko, Chair Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair Joyce E. Martin John B. Johnson Otto Gans Also present: 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 file an appeal with the City Clerk Department 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. By motion duly seconded, the minutes of the January 12, 1995 meeting were continued in order to verifiy the wording of the motion for item B-5. The following Variance requests were considered: B1. Russell & Barbara J. Dilley, Jr. TRE (Personalities, Inc.) for variances of (1) 8 ft. to allow a minimum structural setback from the centerline of the right-of-way of U.S. 19 of 167 ft. where 175 ft. is required; and (2) 3 additional parking spaces to allow 0 additional parking spaces where 3 additional parking spaces are required at 20866 U.S. 19 N, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 14.11, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). V 95-02 Mr. Richter indicated this item was continued from January 12, 1995 to enable the applicant to submit a site plan to the Traffic Engineer for review and determination as to whether it conforms with the City's parking requirements; no site plan has been submitted by the applicant. Mr. Richter said the applicant has withdrawn the request. B2. City National Bank of Florida, TRE (Mandalay Shores Apartments) for a variance to allow a 3.5 ft. high fence within the rear structural setback area of a waterfront property where it is prohibited at 880 Mandalay Ave., Mandalay, Blk 21, Tracts 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5 and 5A of unplatted Blk 21, and riparian rights, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential). V 95-05 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommen-dations. It was indicated this item was continued from January 12, 1995 because the applicant's representative was not officially recognized by the Board due to the absence of a letter of authorization from the property owner, which has now been received. The applicant is requesting variance approval for a 3.5 ft. high fence within the rear structural setback area of a waterfront property, to be located farther than ten ft. from the edge of the swimming pool. It was noted the fence will not negatively impact any water views of neighboring properties. Speaking for the applicant, Joyce Viehman, Community Manager, 880 Mandalay Avenue, Clearwater said the proposed fence will be white PVC around the decking area inside the property and will not interfere with view of the neighbors. She said the owner's insurance company requested installation of the fence and, responding to a request from the Board, Ms. Viehman agreed to send Mr. Richter a copy of the insurance company's letter. It was noted the PVC will be similar in appearance and more durable than wrought iron or other metals, and is environmentally friendly. There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 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 fence shall be nonopaque and only 42 inches high and constructed as indicated on the site plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B3. Cypress Point Holding Corp. (Buffalo's Cafe) for a variance of 30 ft. to permit a side setback of 20 ft. where 50 ft. is required at 25801 U.S. 19 N., Cypress Point Chopping Center, Lot 1, zoned CC (Commercial Center). V95-08 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommen-dations. It was indicated that a canopy was approved with the original application, and the deck portion of this item was continued from January 12, 1995 to allow staff to further investigate the number of parking spaces originally granted and those presently at the site. He noted when the property was originally developed the variance requested for parking allowed 703 parking spaces to serve the shopping center; 706 spaces were actually provided on site. The applicant proposes to provide an outdoor seating area for his customers who desire outdoor dining. The applicant is requesting the side setback variance in order to construct a deck with a canopy on the west side of the existing restaurant. The proposed deck with a canopy will extend approximately 13 feet from the wall of the existing building, and will utilize 345 sq. ft. of outdoor area. The applicant, Clifford J. Soechtig, President of CJS Investments, Inc., 2417 Huntington Blvd., Safety Harbor described the proposed deck addition which will be constructed to conform with similar existing structures in the shopping center. He indicated the business is scheduled to open Sunday, without the deck. There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. 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 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) appropriate transportation impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B4. (cont. from 9/22/94 & 10/27/94) 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 stucture at 2909 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Brown's Bayview, Wm., Lots 6, 13, 14 and parts of Lots 5 and 15 together with vacated alley between and submerged land, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential). V-94-56 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommen-dations. It was indicated that staff is recommending an indefinite continuance of this item. Mr. Richter said a continuance to a date uncertain would ensure the item was not agendaed again until the City Commission acted on the site plan. Mr. Lance noted if the purpose for a continuance were procedural, i.e. to enable the applicant to appear before the appropriate Boards in proper sequence, there would be no problem with continuing the item. Ms. Whitney made a motion to continue this item to a date uncertain pending City Commission action on the site plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B5. Valentinos Koumouldis for variances of (1) 83 ft. to permit a lot width of 67 ft. at setback line; (2) 28.75 percent to permit 21.25 percent of front yard open space where 50 percent is required; (3) 3.5 ft. to permit 1.5 ft. of perimeter landscape buffer where 5 ft. is required; and (4) 20 percent to permit 0 percent of clear space where 20 percent is required to allow expansion of an accessory dwelling at 606 Bayway Blvd., Bayside Sub No. 5, Blk A, Lot 7, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V95-09 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommen-dations. It was indicated staff had recommended a continuance of this item to enable the applicant to provide a detailed site plan drawn to scale with the dimensions of all the existing structures including the proposed construction. Staff has received the drawing, and requests a continuance to February 23rd to determine all the variances required by the applicant and to incorporate such requests together in one application. Mr. Johnson made a motion to continue this item to February 23, 1995. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B6. Gary A. Sharp for a variance to allow a 25 ft. boat to be parked or stored in a required setback area from a street (Owen Dr.) right-of-way where a 20 ft. length is permitted at 1572 Owen Dr., Orange Blossom, Lot 14, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V95-10 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommen-dations. It was indicated the applicant is requesting the variance to allow his boat to remain in its present location in front of the house within the setback area from a street right-of-way on a residential property. The applicant said the boat has been parked at its present location since 1987 without any adverse impact on adjoining properties. However, City Code does not permit a boat longer than 20 ft. to be parked or stored, in whole or in part, within any required setback area from a street right-of-way on a residentially zoned property. Mr. Richter said the applicant received a notice of violation and the applicant is petitioning for the variance to clear the violation. He noted three alternate boat storage sites on the site plan. The applicant, Gary Sharp, 1572 Owen Drive, Clearwater said he has lived at the premise for ten years and was unaware of the Ordinance. Other neighbors store boats; however, their homes are Pinellas County properties; only his and one other property are in the City. Mr. Sharp asked 1) is the distance of 25 ft. injurious; and questioned 2) whether "in harmony" also applies to the absent sidewalk for which he is taxed. He distributed three pictures of the area surrounding his home verifying the amount of open space. Relocation of the boat to another area would jeopardize his landscaping, established at considerable expense. He said he believed a neighbor filed the complaint in retaliation for being cited for a car left on the street; he offered a list of neighbors in support of his request. The neighbor across the street, Arthur Kidder, 1591 Owen Drive, Clearwater spoke in support of the application. He said he has no complaint about the boat, adding it is always covered. The daughter of the applicant's neighbor to the right, Brenda Jones, 1554 Owen Drive, Clearwater said her parents' home is in the County. She reported that Mr. Sharp's property and boat are immaculate and he is a good neighbor. She added she also has a 25 ft. boat in her driveway. There were no persons or documents in opposition to the application. In the ensuing discussion it was agreed that, while the City welcomes annexations, doubt was expressed that the City intended to handicap those who choose to do so. There was concern whether location of the boat would preclude the applicant from using the garage for storage of his motor vehicle; the garage is presently utilized for storage and a workshop. The Chairman opined that strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause the applicant to be unique in the neighborhood. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 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; 3) this variance is granted to the applicant for the storage of a 25 ft. boat and shall remain in effect only as long as the applicant is the owner of the property and that the boat does not exceed 25 ft. in length; and 4) there being 14 County properties in this immediate vicinity, this variance shall remain in effect only until that time that the majority of the 14 homes in the immediate vicinity remain in the County. Upon the vote being taken, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Gans and Mr. Plisko voted "aye"; Ms. Martin and Ms. Whitney voted "nay". (3-2) Motion carried. B7. Herbert W. & Rhonda K. Leonhardt, Jr. for a variance to permit a wood fence to be oriented with the finished side facing inward toward the property where the finished side is required to be oriented toward adjoining property to allow newly installed fencing to remain at 1538 S. Betty Lane, Brookhill Unit 2, Blk D, Lot 11, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V95-11 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommen-dations. It was indicated this is a request to allow the applicant's newly installed finished side of the fence to face inward toward the property where the support posts and stringers are required. A fence permit was issued to the applicant on April 4, 1994 to erect a wood fence 312 feet long, and six feet high on the property. One side of the fence was corrected after a complaint by the neighbor; the other three adjoining property owners have written to support this request. The applicant, Herbert Leonhardt, 1538 South Betty Lane, Clearwater said at the time he received his permit, he was not aware the Code mandated that the finished side of the fence face outward, but he was told it "should". He said the new fence replaced an old chain link fence and considerable landscaping had been added. Also, his adjoining neighbors had agreed to the aesthetic "disadvantage" of the unfinished sides of the fence facing their properties. There were no persons or docments in opposition to the application. It was noted the fence correction was of a different construction, but is now to the satisfaction of the neighbor who complained. The applicant's concern for his neighbors and efforts to amicably resolve the situation were recognized. The wisdom of forcing the applicant to turn the fence around when the neighbors have no objection was questioned. 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 unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant subject to the following condition: 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B8. Clearwaters Original Oyster Bar, Inc. (Jersey Joe's Home of the Ultimate Sub) for a variance of 15 additional parking spaces to allow 0 additional parking spaces where 15 additional parking spaces are required at 2396 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Sec 18-29-16, M&B 24.07, zoned CG (General Commercial). V95-12 The Chairman indicated the applicant has requested by telephone that this item be withdrawn. It was noted he will forward a letter confirming this request. B9. Gulf-to-Bay Mobile Home Park Partnership for variances of (1) 3 ft. to permit a separation of 7 ft. from adjacent mobile homes and appurtenant structures where 10 ft is required; and (2) 4 ft. to permit a 6 ft. setback from a peripheral side property line at 2381 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Sec 18-29-16, M&B 31.01, zoned RMH (Mobile Home Park). V95-13 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommen-dations. It was indicated the applicant is requesting the two variances to replace two mobile homes destroyed by fire five months ago. These mobile homes measured 12 x 49 ft. and 12 x 58 ft. and each had a seven ft. wide Florida room attached. The applicant, Keith Bailey, General Partner, 2381 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Clearwater described the older, 73-unit mobile home park, and said the residents are primarily senior citizens. He said his considerations were for 1) the least intrusion into setback and 2) safety concerns. The replacement homes, although not yet purchased, would be consistent with those already in the mobile home park. The proposed outside areas will have aluminum awnings covering unenclosed aluminum patios replacing the Florida rooms. He said: 1) denial of the variance would represent a significant financial hardship, 2) the application represents minimal setback and 3) granting the variance would not be a detriment to adjoining properties. In the ensuing discussion, the applicant assured the Board the existing concrete slabs will have no impact on the proposed construction. Mr. Bailey said the boat on the premises will be removed. He indicated the majority of homes are owned by individuals and the partnership leases the land. It was agreed that new homes would contribute to the renovation of this older mobile home park. There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. 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 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; 3) all certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 4) no enclosure of the patios shall be permitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The following Land Development Code Amendments were considered: D1. Ordinance No. 5765-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; rescinding existing Section 36.038, Code of Ordinances, eliminating the North Greenwood Design Committee; creating a new Section 36.038, Code of Ordinances, to establish a Design Review Board, and to establish powers, duties, and jurisdiction for the Board; providing and effective date. Mr. Richter gave the background of the proposed Land Development Code amendment. It was indicated the proposed code amendment replaces an earlier draft amendment involving Clearwater Beach only. The amendment now encompasses nonresidential sections of Clearwater Beach, Downtown Clearwater and the North Greenwood Commercial District, and establishes a seven-member Board to develop and implement design guidelines. It was noted design standards are optional Downtown, but will be mandatory on the Beach and in the North Greenwood area. Mr. Johnson moved to recommend endorsement of the proposed Code amendment to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D2. Ordinance No. 5766-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 36.033, 36.066, 36.083, 37.21, 40,674, 43.03, 43.04, 43.21 through 54.23 and 54.53, Code of Ordinances, to delete the requirement for receipt and referral of annexations, subdivision plats, site plans, zoning atlas amendments and Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendments; to provide for variance approval by the Planning and Zoning Board; to require the posting of the properties which are the subject of proposed site plans and subdivision plats; to authorize the Development Code Administrator to certify site plans and subdivision plats; to authorize the City Manager to determine whether to require the conveyance of land, payment of cash, or a combination thereof to satisfy the Recreation Land Impact Fee and Open Space Impact Fee; providing an effective date. Mr. Richter gave the background of the proposed Land Development Code amendment. It was indicated the amendment was prepared in response to a proposal by the Code Enforcement Review Task Force and endorsed by the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. Staff also recommends that certification of site plans occur at the Central Permitting Department, thereby eliminating a procedural requirement involving the City Clerk Department. It is anticipated that adoption of the proposed amendment will significantly reduce unnecessary delays of development projects due to multiple board review of proposals, provide notification to the public that development is proposed and improve customer service. The proposed ordinance does not include an acreage "cap" for receipt and referral of site plans, pending input from City boards; staff continues to recommend a 25-acre "cap". Ms. Whitney moved to continue the proposed Code amendment to the March 9, 1995 meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The following Chairman's items were considered: The Chairman advised that, because he introduces the variance application by reading its description, it is not necessary for members to repeat the variance description when making a motion. Chairman Plisko asked that all mail be sent to his office, 800 Drew Street, Clearwater 34615, and not his home. Following are Board and Staff comments: Mr. Richter relayed Code Enforcement has been advised of the mural painted on the back of the sub shop on Clearwater Beach and it will be addressed together with sign compliance. The Chairman asked Mr. Richter to inquire about a six ft. chain link fence mounted on a low wall on the setback at a Court Street storage facility, located next to the consignment furniture store. He also said a South Fort Harrison Street produce stand littered with debris and vehicles needed attention. The prohibition of portable signs was discussed, and the auto repair shop at the corner of Turner Street near the car wash was particularly noted. Election of Officers: Mr. Richter advised that election of officers for the Board is scheduled in January of each calendar year. Mr. Lance advised the election did not need to be advertised and the members agreed to hold the election at the close of the meeting today. Chairman Plisko called for nominations for the offices of Chair and Vice Chair. Motion was made by Mr. Johnson to nominate Mr. Plisko to serve the Board as Chair for another term; Mr. Plisko accepted the nomination. Mr. Gans seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Motion was made by Ms. Martin to nominate Ms. Whitney to serve the Board as Vice Chair; Ms. Whitney accepted the nomination. Ms. Whitney seconded and the motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.