Loading...
02/23/1995 MINUTES DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Thursday, February 23, 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 Otto Gans John B. Johnson Also present: John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Dept Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Sally Demarest, Board Reporter, City Clerk Department The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:02 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 through 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 February 9, 1995 meeting were approved as submitted. The following requests for variances were considered: B1. (cont. from 01/26/95) Valentinos Koumoulidis 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; (4) 20 percent to permit 0 percent of clear space where 20 percent is required; and (5) 1.5 ft. to permit a 3.5 ft. average of landscaping between the street right-of-way and nonresidential development where 5 ft. 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). V 95-09 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He described the premise and indicated this item was continued from the January 26, 1995 meeting to enable the applicant to provide a detailed site plan drawn to scale and to incorporate the proposed requests under one application. Mr. Richter said staff did not see any special circumstances inherent with the second floor expansion, and, therefore, could not recommend approval of the request. He added that reasonable use of the property was proposed and approved by an application on October 8, 1992; however, staff favors approval of the side and front landscape buffers to allow a seventh parking space. The absence of staff comments specific to the seventh parking space was noted; Mr. Richter clarified prior approvals and current remarks of staff in this regard. Speaking for the applicant, Robert E. Gregg, 2963 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Suite 220, Clearwater, explained how differences in the average width of the front landscape buffer affects the additional parking space, adding interior landscaping has been increased. He said the applicant has modified the present plan from that which was originally permitted. He said the original building was not constructed in accordance with approved drawings, and this application would correct that condition. Mr. Gregg pointed out that the variance would apply to the second floor residence, balcony and stairs only and the applicant would realize no material gain. He added the current drawings have been stamped and approved by all City departments and the first floor bathrooms were relocated on the present plans to meet ADA standards. In the ensuing discussion, Mr. Gregg acknowledged the lack of need or hardship. The Chairman noted differences in the original footprint of the building and absence of the dumpster on the current plan. Mr. Gregg said, with the approval of the Solid Waste Department, the applicant and Mr. Uro, his neighbor, plan joint use of a dumpster. Mr. Richter said the language in the agreement for dumpster use would have to consider future sale of either property. There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. It was the general consensus that the present request was tantamount to redesign and it was noted that engineering errors are difficult to correct. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to deny the requests for variances 1) and 4) , 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 strict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In a separate motion, Ms. Whitney made a motion to deny items 2), 3) and 5) because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded. Staff's recommended approval of items 3) and 5) was noted, and Assistant City Attorney Miles Lance opined that the applicant would be in violation of the code if the motion carried. Upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney and Ms. Martin voted "aye"; Chairman Plisko, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gans voted "nay". The motion was denied (3-2). Responding to a question from the board, Mr. Richter said that a variance for lot width was not necessary to accommodate the seventh parking space and the remaining variances comprised the landscape and open space issues. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance requests 2), 3) and 5) 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 6 months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded, and upon the vote being taken, Chairman Plisko, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gans voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney and Ms. Martin voted "nay". The motion carried (3-2). B2. Tom Sehlhorst & Dorothy M. Casey (Catarelli Construction) for variances of (1) 25 ft, to permit a minimum lot width of 500 ft. where 75 ft. is required; (2) 550 sq. ft. to permit a minimum lot area of 6,950 sw. ft. where 7,500 sq. ft. is required; (3) 3.2 ft. to permit a structure 6.8 ft. from a side (west) property line where 10 ft. is required; (4) 0.7 ft. to permit a structure 9.3 ft. from a side (west) property line where 10 ft. is required; and (5) 7.3 ft. to permit a structure 2.7 ft. from a rear property line where 10 ft. is required at 604 Palm Bluff St., Palm Bluff 1st Addition, Lot 23, zoned CI (Infill Commercial). V 95-14 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated a citation issued for absence of a hurricane anchor revealed the building was constructed without a building permit. Mr. Richter described the neighborhood as fragile. He said staff encourages investment in the neighborhood and recommends approval of the variances to bring the structure in compliance with the building code. The existing construction trailer on the site would require approval as an outdoor storage facility if it were to remain on the premise. It was noted when the item was advertised, variance requests (3) and (4) both indicate a "west" property line. Assistant City Attorney Miles Lance opined the item was improperly advertised and said the hearing is predicated upon a legal advertisement which properly notifies the public; he advised the item be continued. Mr. Sehlhorst was advised he would incur no additional charge as a result of this error. Mr. Richter noted that the mailing to neighboring property owners was not proper as well. Mr. Sehlhorst pointed out that he has submitted a written protest that Mr. Johnson has had outside conversation and viewed exhibits which were not properly represented to him. He asked that Mr. Johnson either be replaced with a substitute person for this item, or that his participation be a "aye" vote. The Chairman said this situation would be addressed on the date of the rescheduled hearing on this item. A motion was made by Ms. Whitney to continue V 95-14 to March 23, 1995. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B3. Katherine A. Stull for a variance to allow a 2.5 ft. high fence within the rear structural setback area of a waterfront property where it is prohibited at 995 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub, Blk. 274, Lots 5-6 and parts of Lots 4 & 7, zoned RS 8- (Single Family Residential. V 95-15 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the applicant proposes to place a 2-1/2 ft. high aluminum rail fence on the rear property line, in this case the sea wall, adding the effect on neighboring properties would be minimal. He noted an ordinance now being considered which would allow open fences within the waterfront setback, but to the best of his recollection, he was not aware of a residential fence placed directly on top of the seawall, as this applicant requests. Speaking for the applicant, David Golobish, 100 Turner Street, Clearwater said the fence was requested to be attached to the concrete cap of the seawall for safety purposes and would keep pets and grandchildren from falling into the water. The present woody hedge is overhanging the seawall, difficult to maintain and dying in some places. There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. In the ensuing brief discussion general consensus was approval of the fence, but concern was expressed that granting of the application would establish a precedent. 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 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 only two and one-half feet high with aluminum railings and constructed as indicated on the site plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B4. JEC Funding, Inc. (Eckerd Drug Company) for a variance of 2 ft. to permit an awning 3 ft. from the curbline of Mandalay Avenue where 5 ft. is required at 467 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater Beach Park 1st Addition Replat, Blk. A, Lots 9-10 and vacated alley in between, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 95-16 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the present canopy extends further to the curb line and the existing overhang will be removed and replaced by the awning requested. Staff recommended approval based on the greater distance from the curb line and the upgrading of the appearance of the store front and the beach business district. Speaking for the applicant, Leslie L. Noyce, 8333 Bryan Dairy Road, Clearwater, regional construction manager for Eckerd Drug Company, described the architectural design and renovations proposed for the current site. He said the awning will improved the appearance of the location and protect customers and pedestrians from the weather. He shared a rendering of the front elevation of the proposed project and was advised that the board would allow him to retain the sketch at the conclusion of his presentation. There will be no change to the present parking lot. 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; 3) any signage attached to the awning shall be subject to separate permitting and review. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B5. David R. Little for variances of (1)) 90 ft. to permit a minimum lot width of 60 ft. where 150 ft. is required; and (2) 7.04 ft. to permit a side setback of 4.96 ft. where 12 ft. is required at 333 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd-White-Skinner, Lot 67, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-17 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the premise is a commercial/office mix and the applicant proposes to extend the storefront about 2 ft. to the west and, to keep the architectural integrity of the building, add approximately six ft. to second story deck. Staff considers the variance request minimal. Note was made of the absence of information on the application. Mr. Richter said a telephone contact with the applicant produced additional information, received too late to include in members' packets. The applicant, David Little, owner of 333 South Gulfview Boulevard, Clearwater gave a background summary of the property, and described his efforts to renovate the single family home into a commercial property. He offered a photograph of the original home at the time it was purchased in 1979. In the ensuing discussion, Mr. Little said he had no plans for an additional business at the present time. Mr. Richter offered the proposed addition is very small, 70 sq. ft., and noted the 50% parking reduction on Clearwater Beach. The chain in front is for the tenants' use at night only. Mr. Little counted the 14 parking spaces and said there is room to park in close proximity to the dumpster space. He said the request would have little effect upon his neighbors and would improve the appearance of the building and the beach community. Mr. Gans offered a complete history of the applicant's past variance requests, beginning in 1986 to accommodate a second floor real estate business. He noted past discussion relative to over-saturation and whether previous parking variances should go with the land, which remains unanswered today. He said, in his opinion, this request will cause over-utilization of the property and the applicant did not meet the conditions for approval. Opinion was expressed that the owner's business is growing and the request was rather insignificant. In contrast, it was noted Mr. Little definitely already has reasonable use of the land, was granted numerous variances through the years, and the property is currently nonconforming. 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; 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 upon the vote being taken, Mr Johnson, Ms. Whitney and Ms. Martin "aye"; Chairman Plisko and Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried (3-2). B6. Antonios Markopoulos (Paradise Beach Resort DBA Days Inn) for a variance of 100 sq. ft. to permit new motel rooms with 600 sq. ft. of habitable floor area where a maximum of 500 sq. ft. is allowed at 100 Coronado Dr., Lloyd-White-Skinner, Lots 44-47 & Lots 90-93 and vacated street together with Columbia, Blk. A, Lot 1, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-18 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the Clearwater Beach Days Inn proposed to convert the former fourth floor restaurant, vacant for seven years, into six motel units. Each proposed unit will contain two sleeping rooms, each with an individual bathroom. Mr. Richter said staff expressed concern for the possibility of increased density of the proposed six motel units, if the six rooms into twelve rooms by adding doors. Responding to questions from the board, Mr. Richter said parking will be less impacted as a result of this motel use, and present parking is located across the street, to the south. The applicant does not need additional storage space and wants to utilize all of the fourth floor area for motel room space. The applicant, Antonios Markopoulos, 100 Coronado Drive, Clearwater Beach said he purchased the property seven years ago, after it had been closed for eight years. He conveyed his efforts to rehabilitate the property and said the shortage of parking precluded development of the fourth floor restaurant. Mr. Markopoulos explained the motel suites were designed to accommodate the needs of his motel patrons who wanted separate quarters for adults and children. It was noted that motel rooms presently have individual room air conditioners, all of which are in working order. Concern was again expressed that the six units could be converted to twelve with addition of a separating door. 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 deny the variance(s) 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. There was no second. 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 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 motel rooms will be a two bedroom, two bath suite with one entrance only to be use as one motel room per drawings submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The board emphasized that it be clearly understood that approval was granted for occupation of the fourth floor former restaurant area by six motel suites only. B7. Lloyd S. & Ruth B. Marks (Dunkin Donuts) for a variance of 3 additional parking spaces to permit 00 additional parking spaces where 3 additional parking spaces are required to allow a 194 sq. ft. expansion at 600 S. Missouri Ave., Turner Street Groves, Lots 6-13, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 95-19 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the expansion would entail 84 sq. ft. for a walk-in freezer and 110 sq. ft. of new seating and counter area. This addition would require three additional parking spaces. Mr. Richter explained the applicant owns the 1,250 sq. ft. pawn shop next door which he plans to demolish when the lease expires in February, 1996. Thirty-two parking spaces would then be required; however, there are only 18 parking spaces available on the two sites and the property is substantially non-conforming. Speaking for the applicant, John A. Ziemnicki, World Design, Inc., 4301 32nd Street West, #C-4, Bradenton displayed a rendering and explained the circumstances surrounding the applicant's request. He indicated the present land-leased Dunkin' Donuts site is old and run-down, and corporate Dunkin' Donuts requires its stores to upgrade to its new image. He described the proposed walk-in cooler, landscaping and site redesign to accommodate the addition of a drive-thru, proposed for construction following the demolition of the pawn shop, presently owned by the applicant. The Chairman said the board could better understand the application if a site plan were submitted with the application indicating what the proposed final scheme will be, and submission of a signed package including expiring leases was suggested by the board. A motion was made by Ms. Whitney to continue this item to March 23, 1995 to allow the applicant to bring in further documentation to support this request. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The board recessed at 3:12 p.m., reconvening at 3:20 p.m. during which time Mr. Lance left the meeting. The following Land Development Code Amendments were considered: D1. Ordinance No. 5768-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 40.433 and 40.434, Code of Ordinances, to provide for revised permitted and conditional uses in the Infill Commercial District; amending Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplementary standards for approval for new conditional uses allowed in the Infill Commercial District; providing an effective date. Mr. Richter gave the background of the proposed Land Development Code Amendment and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated this amendment addressed permitted and conditional uses which were questioned as a result of the rezoning of the Lakeview Road area. Specifically, it proposes that 1) convenience stores, 2) indoor commercial recreation uses, and 3) gasoline stations no longer be included as permitted uses and be designated as conditional uses, thereby mandating approval by the Planning & Zoning Board. The brief ensuing discussion determined all of the above three uses create considerable vehicular traffic. The late hours and trash problems of convenience stores, the potential noise problems of recreational uses, and the late-night lighting and proximity to neighbors were mentioned to support approval. A motion was made by Mr. Johnson to recommend endorsement of Ordinance No. 5768-95 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D2. Ordinance No. 5769-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, creating Section 30.058 to establish vehicle parking restrictions in residential areas, including a prohibition of parking on lawns and open space areas of single family, duplex, and triplex uses in residential zones and any unpaved street right-of-way adjacent to authorize the issuance of parking tickets for any violation of the parking restrictions in residential areas and incorporating the provisions contained therein in Section 30.058; providing and effective date. Mr. Richter gave the background of the proposed Land Development Code Amendment and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated this amendment will preclude parking vehicles on front lawns and street rights-of-way adjoining residential neighborhoods and be enforced by police issuance of parking tickets. It will also relocate the existing restrictions regarding boats, RV's, trailers, trucks, commercial vehicles located in residential neighborhoods from Ch 42 to Ch 30 of the Code of Ordinances, placing jurisdiction for enforcement of these violations with the police department. It was mentioned that the Clearwater Beach police are very much in favor of this proposed amendment. A motion was made by Mr.Gans to recommend endorsement of Ordinance No. 5769-95 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was requested that the citizen's letter received in support of the proposed amendment accompany the board's recommendation of endorsement to the City Commission. There were no Chairman's or Director's items for consideration. The following are Board and Staff comments: The possibility of increased enforcement and investigation of the background of applications was questioned. Mr. Richter said recent variances will be included in the staff report and discussed. He said, however, long term history of properties is difficult to research, but all relative information available will be brought to the attention of the board. For the information of the board, a copy of Ordinance 5754-95, creating a new appeal process whereby the City Commission will hear conditional use appeals regarding alcoholic beverage requirements, was included with their packets. The need to enforce ordinances relative to problems with bicycles and dogs on the beach was mentioned. The difficulty of determining whether an area of the beach is public or private was seen as a possible impediment to enforcement. There being no further business, by motion duly seconded, the meeting adjourned at 3:39 p.m.