06/08/1995 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, June 8, 1995 - 1:00 p.m.
Commission Chambers, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, FL
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chair
Joyce Martin
Otto Gans
William Schwob
Members absent:
Emma Whitney, Vice-Chair
Also present:
Scott Shuford, Director, Central Permitting Department
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney, Legal Department
Gwen Legters, Staff Assistant II, City Clerk Department
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. He 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.
To provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
Member Schwob moved to approve the minutes of April 27 and May 25, 1995, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The following variance requests were considered:
1. The Islander Condominium Association, Inc for a variance to allow a 4 ft high fence within the rear structural setback area of a waterfront property where it is prohibited at 105-121
Island Way, 51 Island Way Condo, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential). V 95-28
Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail. He stated the applicants wish to enclose their swimming pool area with a four foot high fence to enhance safety and fulfill insurance
obligations. Segments of the fence are proposed to be located in the 25 foot setback from the water. This type of construction is restricted by code to preserve the view of the water
for neighboring properties. Staff indicated this proposal would not affect the view. Due to the safety considerations involved, he stated the application appears to comply with all
the standards of approval, subject to the recommended conditions.
Shirley Moran, representing the Islander Condominium Association, addressed the Board. It
was noted Ms. Moran is not listed as an authorized representative. Ms. Moran stated she is a member of the association Board of Directors and would be speaking for Mr. Calhoun, who
was out of town. Mr. Shuford suggested going on with the hearing and requiring an affidavit of authorization to be filed before the expiration of the appeal period. Mr. Lance supported
this idea.
Ms. Moran stated the variance is needed because of the problems they have experienced obtaining insurance. There is also a problem at night with trespassers entering the property along
the sea wall. In response to a question, she stated the fence is to be constructed of square aluminum tubing, spaced 4 inches apart, with horizontal supports along the top and bottom.
It was verified the fence will not be chain link.
Chuck Sullivan, attorney speaking for an adjacent property owner, wished to ascertain the type of fencing material. While supporting the application for safety reasons, he stated for
the record there is a continuing concern regarding allowing a fence where none has been granted in the past.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member 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, 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; 3) the applicant shall submit a letter authorizing Ms. Moran as representative within 14 days
from the date of this public hearing and 4) the fence to be installed shall be of open aluminum construction to allow visibility. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Religious Community Services, Inc for a variance of 6 ft to permit a structural setback of 19 ft from a street (Flagler Dr) right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1520 N. Saturn
Ave, Sec 2-29-15, M&B 44.01, zoned RM 12 (Multiple Family Restaurant). V 95-29
Member Plisko declared a conflict of interest concerning this case. Member Gans assumed the chair.
Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail. He stated the applicants wish to construct a recreation room for an indoor play area for children within the Flagler Drive setback.
He stated a conforming play area could be constructed on the south side. The applicant is concerned because this would result in the loss of a secure outdoor play area. Relocating
this outdoor play area to the north would require moving existing playground equipment and constructing a privacy fence for security. Such a fence would require a height variance that
would be greater than this minor setback variance. Staff indicated the application appears to support the standards for approval subject to two conditions.
Karla Conway, representing the applicant, stated the RCS program provides transitional housing
for single family households with children. There is no space in the existing building adequate to meet with mothers and children and an activity room is needed for the children. Due
to the vagrant problem in the area, it is preferred not to have the children in an unenclosed, unsupervised area.
In response to questions, Ms. Conway stated she meets with families and at risk children for counseling. She stated trying to hold the meetings in this small space is chaotic.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford explained locating a fence to the north would require a two foot height variance. A conforming four foot tall fence could be constructed. However,
the applicant states a six foot fence would be needed for security. He stated a six foot fence three feet off the property line would pose a greater imposition than the minor setback
variance being requested.
Discussion ensued regarding other existing structures on the property. The Board agreed with the staff analysis. It was felt the existing playground is nice and it would be a shame
to move it.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Schwob 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, 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, Members Gans, Martin and Schwob voted "Aye"; Member Plisko abstained. Motion carried.
3. Waclaw & Zenona Niewiarowski (Sunset Point Wine & Liquors) for a variance of 3 additional parking spaces to permit 0 additional parking spaces where 3 additional spaces are required
at (2516 Sunset Point Rd), Blackburn's Sub, part of Lot 12, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 95-30
Member Plisko resumed the chair.
Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicants wish to enclose an existing carport for additional storage for their alcoholic beverage package sales store. The
variance is to allow the addition without meeting the additional parking requirement. Existing parking is nonconforming and insufficient. Staff indicated the application does not appear
to support the standards for approval.
Discussion ensued regarding the parking requirement. Mr. Shuford explained the building with the addition would require 15 parking spaces. A proposed Land Development Code amendment,
if adopted, would reduce the requirement to 13 spaces. A drawing shows 11 existing parking spaces and staff investigation confirmed this. One member stated he counted 16 spaces on
the site. A question was raised if additional parking spaces could be gained by reconfiguration. This was not felt to be feasible. Mr. Shuford suggested working with the City
Traffic Engineering Department to create conforming handicapped parking.
A question was raised why storage area requires additional parking. Mr. Shuford indicated the calculations are based on gross floor area. There is concern adding storage could free
some of the existing area for additional retail use.
Tim Johnson, attorney representing the owner/applicants, stated they have operated the business for 16 years. The Planning and Zoning Board approved enclosing the carport subject to
certain conditions. One of the conditions was to obtain the necessary parking variance. He stated the business has changed over the years and more products are now available. The
new storage area will be used for additional storage. It will not increase the retail floor area.
Mr. Johnson stated there has never been a parking problem at this location. He said a large part of the clientele lives in Top of the World condominiums. Many customers have their
purchases delivered instead of driving to the store.
Mr. Johnson explained the apparent discrepancy in the number of existing parking spaces. He stated the parking situation was reviewed as part of the conditional use application process.
When the applicant learned there were not enough spaces, he moved a dumpster and tried, on his own, to create additional parking. It was not yet known if this new parking is conforming.
Mr. Johnson pointed out this was done in the spirit of cooperation and illustrates the applicant’s willingness to comply.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. It was noted the new parking appears functional. It will need to be reviewed for conformity. There was no problem with the request as
long as the proposal does not create more retail area and the business remains a carry out package liquor store. Mr. Johnson restated his testimony that this application will not increase
the retail sales area.
In response to questions, Mr. Johnson agreed to a condition requiring providing a handicapped parking space. Clarification of the alcoholic use classification was requested. It was
indicated the establishment sells liquor, beer and wine.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member 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, 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) the storage square footage shall not be used to create
additional square footage for retail sales; 4) the site shall be reviewed for the possibility of providing a handicapped parking space to be located through the direction of the City
Traffic Engineer and 5) the variance shall remain in effect provided this site is not enlarged and is restricted to package sales of beer, wine and liquor for off-premise consumption.
D. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - None.
E. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS - None.
F. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None.
G. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS
Member Schwob was welcomed as a new member. Mr. Shuford said it is a pleasure to work with him again.
H. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:41 p.m.
Chair