04/11/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
April 11, 1996
Present:
William Schwob
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
John Richter
Patricia O. Sullivan / Gwen Legters
Senior Planner
Board Reporters
Absent:
Otto Gans
5th Seat Vacant
Chair
Board Member
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process.
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
B. Continued Variance Requests
D1. (cont. from 3/28/96) L.O.M., Inc. for variances of (1) 7 ft to permit a structural setback of 6 ft from a side (north) property line; (2) 1 ft to permit a structural setback of
15 ft from a rear property line; and (3) 3 percent to permit 22 percent of open space for the lot at 309 S Gulfview Blvd, Lloyd-White-Skinner, Lots 60, 61, 62, 108 and 109, together
with part of Lot 107, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 96-19
This item was continued to allow time for redevelopment of the site plan to address concerns expressed at the March 28 meeting.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the site plan redesign is underway and requested a continuance to April 25, 1996. He said the applicant will pay readvertising
costs. Staff did not express a problem with the continuance request.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item B1 to the meeting of April 25, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. New Variance Requests
C1. Tom M. Sehlhorst & Helen V. Robinson for variances of (1) 7.3 ft to allow a structure 2.7 ft from rear property line where 10 ft is required; and (2) 9.3 ft to allow a structure
0.7 ft from a side (east) property line where 10 ft is required; (3) 3.2 ft to allow a structure 6.8 ft from a side (west) property line where 10 ft is required; (4) 550 sq ft to permit
a minimum lot width of 6950 sq ft where 7500 sq ft is required; (5) 25 ft to permit a minimum lot width of 50 ft where 75 ft is required; and (6) 3 ft to permit aisle width of 21 ft
where 24 ft is required at 604 Palm Bluff St, Palm Bluff 1st Add., Lot 23, zoned CI (Infill Commercial). V 96-22
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the variances are needed to allow structural reinforcement necessary to bring an existing nonconforming
building into compliance with the building code. The building was built without a permit on a narrow, nonconforming lot. Mr. Richter detailed the numerical and dimensional development
requirements for the zoning district and gave a brief history of the site. He noted the same setback and lot width variances were granted on March 23, 1995, but expired without a building
permit being obtained. Staff felt conditions support the first five variances and recommended approval with three conditions.
The variance to driveway width does not appear to comply with standards for approval. It was indicated the driveway is needed to provide access to two parking spaces required to permit
use of the building as a construction company office. City Traffic Engineering opposed narrowing the driveway as unfavorable for traffic safety, suggesting narrowing the landscape buffer
instead. Staff noted this would require another variance. City Environmental Management expressed no objection to the variances or the use of pervious material for the parking spaces.
The applicant was advised an affirmative vote of all three members present is required to approve variances and a two week continuance may be requested. The applicant chose to proceed.
Tom Sehlhorst, the applicant, said he was unsuccessful on three separate attempts to pull a permit for this building. He spoke at length of the difficulties he has experienced trying
to bring his numerous properties into compliance, due to zoning changes, buildings being condemned or burned down, the bad neighborhood, and his financial difficulties. He complained
a triple fee will be imposed when he pulls the permit for this work and felt the City is making it impossible for him to meet code. Discussion ensued regarding the problems he has encountered
achieving compliance and proceeding with his plans. In response to a question, he did not agree with staff’s recommended conditions.
Discussion ensued regarding traffic circulation on the site, driveway width, and the size and number of parking spaces required. Discussion ensued regarding widening the parking spaces
to facilitate narrowing the driveway. It was indicated this would require Traffic Engineering approval. Mr. Richter responded to questions regarding structural setback and lot width
variances, stating they are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. It was noted several neighbors spoke in support of the previous application.
Member Johnson moved to grant variances #1 through #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, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys,
and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance
request regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite
building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) existing building code violations shall be timely corrected. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
Member Johnson moved to grant variance #6 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 above three conditions plus: 4) Parking spaces shall be increased to 12 feet in width, and the parking lot layout shall receive approval from the City Traffic
Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C2. Barnett Bank for variances of (1) 4 percent to allow 26 percent open space for the lot where 30 percent is allowed; and (2) 16 paved parking spaces to allow 48 paved parking spaces
where 32 parking spaces are allowed to be paved at 2150 Cleveland St, Professional Business Complex, Lot 3 together with the West 70 ft of Lot 1, zoned OL (Limited Office). V 96-23
In a letter dated April 10, 1996, the applicant requested a continuance to prepare design improvements and gather information to support their request.
Member Johnson moved to continue this item to the meeting of April 25, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C3. James E. & Jeanne B. Wagner for a separation distance variance of 11 ft to permit an adult care living facility to be located 1189 ft from an existing Level I Group Care where 1200
ft is required at 2345 Nursery Rd, Pinellas Groves Sub, SW 1/4, a portion of Lot 19, lying in Sec 19-29-16, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential.) V 96-24
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to use an existing single family home as an adult congregate living facility
(ACLF) within 1200 feet of an existing facility. It was indicated the eleven foot variance is minimal, representing less than a one percent departure from the code requirement. Approval
will not result in concentration of facilities within a neighborhood nor should nearby residential subdivisions be adversely affected, as both ACLF’s are oriented to Nursery Road rather
than to interior residential streets. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
Mr. Richter noted objections from the residents of the Premier Place subdivision where the subject property is located. He explained residents in the vicinity of any proposed ACLF
frequently express concerns their homes will be adversely affected. He offered assurance that once ACLF’s are established, nearby residents have not experienced any disturbances and
frequently are surprised to learn of a facility’s existence. He said City code enforcement personnel have no record of complaints associated with ACLF’s anywhere in the City. In response
to a question, Mr. Richter affirmed an ACLF with up to six beds is a permitted use in this zoning district.
Judith Beezhold, representative and prospective purchaser, stated this proposal came about as she and her husband were looking for a caring and loving place to take care of her widowed
mother-in-law. They wish to provide such a residence for six people. Ms. Beezhold said the facility will be immaculate, and an asset to the community. They will follow the rules and
don’t intend to disturb the neighbors. She said this location, near many doctors and hospitals, is ideal. They will provide 24-hour care, so no one will be wandering around the neighborhood.
Discussion ensued regarding Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requirements for staff and residents.
In response to questions, Ms. Beezhold said they own no other facilities, and the property would look no different from a regular house, except for an attractive sign by the door with
the name, and perhaps, visitor information. She felt they would experience no more traffic ingress and egress than a typical home with teenagers. She is a registered nurse and has
the financial capacity to ensure a well-run facility. She will operate the ACLF along with her daughters, who have good medical and business backgrounds for managing this type of facility.
One board member agreed with staff that a well-run ACLF is no detriment to a neighborhood when the rules are followed.
It was indicated one man was present to speak in support of the opposition.
Jerry Hardy, 2319 Nursery Road, spoke in opposition to the request, stating he owns a home and a vacant lot in the vicinity. He expressed concerns a commercial venture in this residential
area will adversely affect the resale value of his property.
Mr. Hardy submitted a petition in opposition with signatures representing six properties within 500 feet of the subject property. Another petition in opposition was submitted with
23 signatures representing 15 properties on Excaliber Drive.
Ms. Beezhold reiterated she did not feel this well supervised, permitted use on a major thoroughfare would be noticeable or have any impact on traffic or the adjacent subdivision.
She pointed out she could operate an ACLF in one of the homes on Excaliber Drive without a variance, but carefully chose the subject location because of its lack of impact on the subdivision.
In response to a question, she stated the existing six foot stone fence bordering two sides of the subject property will remain.
Board discussion ensued regarding the application. While acknowledging the growing need for this type of facility, the minimal nature of the variance, and the relative lack of impact,
concerns were expressed with the significant opposition by the neighbors.
Member 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) The variance is based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding the work to be done with regard
to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in the variance being null and of no effect; and 2) The requisite occupational
license shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. There was no second.
Member Jonatti 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. There was no second.
Member Johnson moved to continue V 96-24 to the meeting of April 25, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
It was explained for the benefit of the public, this item will be heard at the next meeting when more than three board members are expected to attend. Anyone with an interest in the
item was advised to attend the next hearing, or submit their interest to the board in writing. The applicants were advised to meet with the homeowners to explain their proposal.
D. Land Development Code Amendments
D1. Ordinance 6013-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code, amending Section 35.11, Code of Ordinances to revise the definition for Variance; providing
an effective date.
Mr. Richter presented written background information. He stating this amendment removes hardship from the code definition of a variance, bringing the definition in line with the standards
for approval. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said he understood it was the City Commission’s intent to remove the requirement to demonstrate hardship in order to receive variance
approval.
Member Jonatti moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 6013-96 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E. Minutes Approval -- March 28, 1996
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously
F. Board and Staff Comments
1. Rules of Procedures and Policies
2. Board Procedures - Pinellas County Board of Adjustment
Board and staff discussion was continued to the April 25 meeting in order for a full board and Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides to be present.
Mr. Richter stated copies of the lobbyist registration ordinance will be distributed and discussed at the next meeting.
Mr. Richter reported Member Gans will present the board’s annual report to the City Commission on April 18, 1996. Mr. Gans and Ms. Legters were wished speedy recoveries.
G. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
Board Reporter