Loading...
04/27/1995 MINUTES DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Thursday, April 27, 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 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 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. 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 April 13, 1995 meeting were approved as submitted. The following variance requests were considered: B-1. (cont. from 4/13/95) Paschoalina C. Potter (Southmore Apartments) for a variance of 1 additional parking space to permit 0 additional parking spaces were 1 additional parking space is required to allow a 2 unit motel conversion at 463 East Shore Dr. Clearwater Beach 1st Addition Replat, Blk C, Lot 8 and riparian rights and part of Lot 9, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 95-22 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He explained the application is for conversion of a single apartment unit, located in a six-unit apartment complex, into two motel units creating a need for a variance for one additional parking space. The City Traffic Engineer expressed concerns relative to the current shortage of parking at the site, and opined that additional parking would only further complicate the beach parking problem. It was noted at the last DCAB meeting that a turnaround in the tropical garden area would create the required parking space and the request was continued to explore the possibility of using this area. Speaking for the applicant, Tom Nash, 400 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, said the applicant did not wish to use the tropical garden area for a turnaround and suggested several other solutions. He described the variance request as "minute" and added the conversion of the tropical garden for parking would be an undue hardship. Responding to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Nash said the applicant will realize economic gain; however, he stressed the importance of the green area. In the ensuing discussion it was noted that the site was so saturated with impervious surfaces that any use of the present green space would necessitate digging up sidewalks for counterbalance. Mr. Richter reported that the open space requirement for Beach Commercial zoning is five percent of the lot area. There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. Mr. Nash contended that there was no opposition from the beach community and asked that the board view the application from a practical standpoint. There was general agreement that the application did not meet all of the required standards for approval. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, a motion was made by Mr. Gans 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 do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; 2) the strict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings; 3) the variance is based exclusively upon a desire for economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner; and 4) 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. B-2. (cont. 1/12/95 & 2/9/95) Alpha Beach Resort, Inc./Stephen Ginez (Quality Inn Beach Resort) for variances of (1) 6 percent to permit a minimum open space for the lot of 19 percent where 25 percent is required; and (2) 25.4 ft to permit 24 ft of continuous clear space where 49.4 ft is required to allow a new parking structure at 655 S. Gulfview Blvd., Bayside Sub. No. 5, Blk C, Lots 8-11 and riparian rights, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-06 Chairman Plisko stated that application V 95-06 had been withdrawn. B-3. (cont. from 2/23/95 & 3/23/95) Lloyd S. & Ruth B. Marks (Dunkin Donuts) for a variance of 3 additional parking spaces to permit 0 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 Chairman Plisko stated that application V 95-19 had been withdrawn. B-4. Alan C. Bomstein, TRE (Creative Contractors, Inc) for a variance of 2 ft to permit a fence height of 8 ft where a maximum of 6 ft is allowed at 620 Drew St., Jones Sub of Nicholson's, Blk 6, Lots 3, 4 & 5 and part of Lots 2 & 6 and part of vac alley, zoned UC-C (Urban Center-Core). V 95-24 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the applicant is requesting an eight foot fence to allow the back parking lot to be enclosed due to a need for additional security for the property, and added that the proposed fence was endorsed by Clearwater Police Department. He said the Pinellas Trail may border the subject premise on the east, and staff deemed it appropriate to recommend landscaping and a gate on the east property line if the Pinellas Trail is located on the east side of the property. The applicant, Alan C. Bomstein, 620 Drew Street, Clearwater, described a rash of crime in the area behind his office, affecting employees using the parking area in the evening hours. He cited transients and several crime incidents, confirming the need for security. Mr. Bomstein asked to use trees in his landscape efforts because of the possibility that shrubbery may attract crime and objected to the requirement for a gate. It was suggested that landscaping be added as a condition if a proposed segment of the Pinellas Trail borders the property. . In the ensuing discussion, it was suggested that the eight foot fence be topped with barbed wire; Mr. Bomstein said the appearance of barbed wire would be offensive and was not needed because the area is basically used only in daylight hours. Responding to a question from the board, he indicated the neighboring ice house is being slowly remodelled by the owner. 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 fence permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) landscaping will be provided when the adjacent segment of the Pinellas Trail is completed. B-5. Danny C. & Mitchell Harter for variance of 5 ft to permit a structural setback 20 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1116 Howard St., Carolina Terrace Annex, Lot 27 and part of Lot 26, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-25 Chairman Plisko stated that application V 95-25 had been withdrawn. The following Land Development Use code amendments were considered: D-1. Ordinance No. 5820-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 42.34, Code of Ordinances, to require an aisle width of fifteen feet within parking lots that have parking spaces at an angle of 50 degrees, to cap the number of paved parking spaces within a parking lot at 25 percent of the Code requirements, to allow grass parking for warehouse stores, to establish new offstreet parking spaces requirements for three family dwellings, accessory dwellings, mobile homes, multiple family dwellings, elderly and low income dwellings, retail sales and shopping centers, vehicle service uses, personal service uses, offices, private clubs, lodges and other fraternal, civic, union-related and religious organizations, boat slips with live-aboard vessels, and fabricating, processing, and manufacturing uses, and to require conformance to the uniform system of traffic control devices, providing an effective date. Mr. Richter explained in detail the proposed ordinance changes to the City's parking standards and requirements. He said it was prompted by a survey conducted by the agency for bay management which addressed area zoning, parking and credible national parking standards. There was some strenuous disagreement with the concept that there is more area parking available for commercial use, personal use and residential use than is needed. It was noted that the parking requirements for the State of Florida are very different from national standards, and the incongruity of work space vs parking spaces required for facilities such as attorneys' and medical offices was stressed. A question was raised as to why "traffic engineer" was deleted from the ordinance text; Mr. Richter replied that traffic was an arm of the Public Works/Engineering Department, and the wording was changed at the request of the City Engineer. It was generally agreed that the text should specify an engineer qualified to deal with traffic situations. It was requested that the record indicate the board's concern with the proposed ordinance's reduction in the number of parking spaces at this time; Countryside Mall was noted as an exception. Opinion was expressed that the ordinance was "pro-development". A motion was made by Mr. Gans that proposed ordinance 5820-95 be returned to staff for reevaluation and readdressed by the board at its May 16, 1995 meeting. He added that, while there are many areas of agreement, there are areas of great concern as to the reduction in the numbers of parking. Doubt was expressed as to the value of national statistics due to the seasonal aspect of area parking needs. There were no Chairman's or Director's items for discussion. Following are Board and staff comments: Mr. Gans revisited the code enforcement presentation of Lt. Kronschnabl at the board's last meeting. He noted the lieutenant's invitation that the board members contact him personally for any of the board's code enforcement needs, promising an response within 48 hours. Mr. Gans added that some of the questions raised by the board at the meeting two weeks ago, however, have not received an answer. Ms. Martin noted code enforcement has not responded to the lighting situation at her condominium complex as yet. There being no further business, by motion duly seconded, the meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m. _____________________________ Alex Plisko, Chairman