06/27/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
June 27, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwob
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Gwen Legters
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
Absent:
5th Seat Vacant
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
B1. (Cont. from 5/23/96) City of Clearwater/Municipal Marina (Daisy Mae Charters) for a variance of 4 parking spaces to permit zero additional spaces where 4 additional parking spaces
are required at 25 Causeway Blvd, City Park Sub, Lots 10 thru 13 and Water Lot 1, zoned P/SP (Public/SemiPublic) and P (Preservation). VR 96-35
This item was continued from the meeting of May 23 for further study by staff regarding whether or not a parking problem exists at the marina. Mr. Richter presented background information
and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to increase the number of passengers he is authorized to carry aboard his charter fishing boat from six to eighteen.
This would require four more parking spaces at the marina where none are available. According to a recent City staff study, 318 parking spaces exist at the marina and 50 spaces are
at the Memorial Civic Center. 627 spaces are necessary to serve the existing marina uses. This indicates a parking deficiency of 259 spaces. It was indicated the application does not
appear to comply with the standards for approval. While acknowledging the applicant’s position, staff felt increasing the deficiency was not in the public’s best interest.
Al Galbraith, attorney representing the applicant, said because of more stringent Coast Guard rules, Capt. Hood has reduced his capacity request from 18 to 15 passengers. Mr. Galbraith
summarized his June 21 letter to the board and staff stating that no real parking problem exists at the Clearwater marina and Capt. Hood’s request should have been approved administratively,
and if a parking problem exists at the marina, the City created it. He indicated Capt. Hood should not pay the penalty for a perceived problem which may not exist.
Mr. Galbraith distributed copies of Exhibits A through F relating to: A) a map of parking lots showing the marina lot (#30) and the Memorial Civic Center lot (#33); B) results of a
marina parking study by Kimley-Horn and Associates; and F) a list of questions directed to the City regarding whether the City issued a building permit, did a parking study, or performed
variance
analysis for construction of new office spaces at the marina. He reiterated discussion from the May 23 meeting regarding Exhibits: C) November 14, 1995 staff report regarding the sky
tower application; D) a list of new or upgraded vessels approved at Clearwater marina between November 1991 and March 1996; and E) May 8, 1996 Marine Advisory Board minutes. Mr. Galbraith
discussed bar graphs of the Kimley-Horn results, questioning why employees park in lot 30 on weekends. It was indicated the referenced employees work in the businesses on the marina
property, not for the City. He reiterated his request for fairness, stating Capt. Hood’s request is nominal and has no measurable impact on marina parking. He said Capt. Hood has been
logging the sequential numbers of parking passes he issues per trip and has offered to guarantee he will use no more than the spaces he is currently allowed, producing the log upon demand
as proof.
In response to a question, it was indicated a 3 passenger reduction would reduce the parking variance from 4 to 3 spaces.
Edward Dorman spoke in support of the request, stating he ran a charter board for 10 years. He feels Capt. Hood has a fine boat and offers the best service of all the commercial boats
in the Clearwater marina. He strongly opposed the City stifling business on the pretext of insufficient parking, when Capt. Hood will give written assurances he does not need or want
additional parking spaces. He spoke at length regarding a number of related issues and complained that special interests receive government favors.
Six commercial charter boat owners and/or operators spoke in opposition to the request. John Topics, Suzanne Foster, Richard Howard, Brad Gorst, Alan L. Williamson, and Greg Corder
cited similar experiences regarding: 1) competition with the beach crowd for parking spaces on most afternoons and weekends during good weather; 2) desire to protect and expand their
businesses; 3) the Harbormaster having denied their requests for increased passenger capacity; 4) loss of business due to lack of parking spaces; and 5) the renewed desire to increase
their passenger capacities if this variance is granted to Capt. Hood. Ms. Foster submitted written remarks and copies of two letters from the Harbormaster in verification of her statement.
Mr. Dorman offered no rebuttal to the opposition.
Ms. Dougall-Sides noted Harbormaster Bill Held had been sworn in along with those wishing to speak in opposition. She suggested he make his statement before final rebuttal by the applicant.
Mr. Held reiterated his remarks from the May 23 hearing with regard to many charter boat owners’ requests to increase their passenger capacity, the Central Permitting Department study
of marina parking requirements, and his letter informing all marina tenants he would no longer consider requests to increase passenger capacity. He discussed times of peak demand, and
said he would like to increase passenger capacity and slips rents proportionately, but he will support the code parking requirements.
Regarding employee parking in lot 30, Mr. Held said boat employees and captains frequently park in spaces directly in front of their boats to prevent beachgoers from parking there.
He did not feel it was possible for staff to monitor parking passes accurately, because the passes are sold in large blocks. He noted Capt. Hood’s last purchase was a block of 100
passes. Mr. Held said the City Legal Department is drafting a policy to provide, subject to approval, that variances will not be processed for spaces in the marina parking lot.
Mr. Held responded to questions, stating most of the new or upgraded vessels listed in the handout were approved at Clearwater marina before he received the results of the parking study.
He did not feel they seriously impact parking because their business is primarily walk up. He said two vessels added since the parking study were replacements of existing vessels and
he was careful to ensure they did not add capacity. In response to a question, he indicated the assertion these vessels are additional to what previously existed is not correct. He
agreed parking lot occupancy depends on the weather. He will recommend to the City Commission to provide a cross walk and begin asking marina business employees, upon lease renewal,
to park in lot 33 at the Memorial Civic Center.
Captain Dan Hood and Mr. Galbraith made their final statements. Capt. Hood expressed concern big money interests receive special favors and reiterated the sky tower proposal received
favorable staff recommendation. He reiterated lot 33 is practically vacant at all times, and he has never experienced a problem parking at the marina. Mr. Galbraith suggested, as the
Kimley-Horn study indicates usage is heavier at midday, a condition to preclude Capt. Hood from taking noontime trips could help alleviate staff concerns. He offered this with reservations,
because he did not feel it was really necessary. He maintained the perceived parking problem is nothing more than an urban legend, like alligators in the sewers, that is not borne out
by facts.
Public discussion was closed and board discussion ensued. Board members made the following points: 1) the City’s master plan calls for a different use for lot 33 in the near future;
2) the formula for calculating parking space needs is mandated in the code, and is based on facts regarding occupancy and usage; and 3) the code standards for variance approval must
be followed by the board; 4) the applicant has not demonstrated special circumstances that do not apply to everyone else; 5) reasonable use of the land exists; 6) the application appears
to be for the purpose of increasing the applicant’s material gain; and 7) the request is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Land Development Code. The applicant
was encouraged to petition the City Commission to change the code if he felt the laws are not fair, but testimony from staff and the public supports the belief a parking shortage exists.
It was pointed out the staff recommendation on the sky tower proposal is not persuasive evidence, because the City Commission denied that proposal. While it was agreed the parking situation
is complex and staff is looking at solutions to ease the situation in the future, the board found no evidence to support a parking variance at this time. Board members encouraged the
City Commission to look at the parking situation to enable more boaters, beachgoers and tourists to visit the beach.
Member Schwob moved to deny the variance requested in Item B1 because the applicant has not substantially met any of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
B2. (Cont. from 5/9/96) John G. Powell/PPS Interests (Computer City) for variances of (1) 5 percent to allow 20 percent open space for the lot where 25 percent is required; (2) 20 percent
to allow 30 percent front yard open space where 50 percent is required; and (3) 6 parking spaces to permit 84 parking spaces where 90 spaces are required at 25000 US 19 N, Sec. 31-28-16,
M&B 44.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). VR 96-32
In a June 17 memo to the board, Mr. Richter explained this item is to be continued due to readvertising requirements.
Member Schwob moved to continue Item B2 to the meeting of July 11, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. New Variance Requests
C1. Wilfred Besler (The Viking Resort) for the following variances; (1) a lot width variance of 86.8 ft to allow a lot width of 63.2 ft where a minimum of 150 ft is required; (2) a setback
variance of 6.87 ft to allow a structure 5.53 ft from the East side property line where a minimum setback of 12.4 ft is required; (3) a setback variance of 7.36 ft to allow a structure
5.04 ft from the West side property line where a minimum setback of 12.4 ft is required; (4) a clear space variance of 6.87 ft to allow a clear space of 5.53 ft where 12.4 ft is required;
and (5) a waterfront setback variance of 11.25 ft to allow a wooden balcony 13.75 ft from Clearwater Harbor where a minimum of 25 ft is required at 124 Brightwater Drive, Bayside Sub
No. 2, Lot 52, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). VR 96-43
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a second story addition to expand the owner’s living area
in an existing motel building. He explained proposed square footage and location in relation to setbacks and clear space. The development will not extend the footprint, or alter the
developed character of the area. Staff recommended designing the addition to preclude its use as a separate dwelling unit, to avoid Traffic Engineering Department impact fees that would
result. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with five conditions.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter said the Land Development Code does not supersede the standard building code with regard to construction near seawalls. A separate City board
considers building code variances.
Patrick Macguire, attorney representing the applicant, submitted the application and attachments, staff report, recommendations, and comments into evidence. He explained the applicant’s
proposal to build the second story addition with a rear balcony and spiral staircase to access a front balcony. The request will not impact traffic and will be strictly for use as the
owner’s personal residence.
Wilfred Besler, the owner/applicant, responded to a question, stating he could build a smaller covered patio if he does not get the variances requested for the deck. Mr. Macguire agreed
other alternatives exist, but asked to board to consider the documents of record and the request before them. One member pointed out the board grants or denies variances based on the
documents submitted with the application. He questioned the front elevation drawing showing the proposed staircase outside the side property line. Mr. Macguire agreed the front elevation
drawing is incorrect. He said the floor plan drawing contains a more accurate representation of the staircase location near the center of the property.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Schwob moved to grant the variances as requested in Item C1 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; 3) The applicant
shall either design the addition in a manner that forecloses the opportunity to use it as a separate unit, or impact fee and parking requirements shall be satisfied for the new unit;
4) The applicant shall coordinate design of the deck with the Building Official to ensure compliance with Chapter 39 of the Building Code; and 5) Plans for the second story addition
shall be subject to the review of the Design Review Board. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Schwob and Jonnatti voted "Aye"; Member Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried.
C2. Wayne E. & Fran G. Barnhisel, for the following variances: (1) a setback variance of 5 ft to allow a new detached single family home 30 ft from a street Oak Ridge Court right-of-way
where a minimum setback of 35 ft is required; and (2) a setback of 5 ft to permit a swimming pool 30 ft from a street Abbey Lake Road right-of-way where a minimum setback of 35 ft is
required 1943 Oak Ridge Ct, Oak Ridge Court Estates, Lot 3, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-45
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a single family home and pool on a lot with 35 foot street
setbacks in the front and rear of the property. The applicants have been working with City environmental staff to preserve two sizable oak trees affected by the proposal, but it appears
a healthy but structurally unsound 48-inch oak may have to be sacrificed. Mr. Richter said the applicant will meet or exceed tree replacement requirements and many other trees exist
on the lot. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions.
Wayne and Fran Barnhisel, the owner/applicants, stated they wish to build a nice home for themselves and their four children. It was indicated Mrs. Barnhisel has worked with staff
extensively and they are satisfied this is the best of the four house plans they considered for the lot. Board members agreed the variances were reasonable in view of the lot constraints.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Johnson moved to grant the variances as requested in Item C2 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) Every reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve the 34 inch diameter oak tree located directly in front of
the home near the front door and the 48 inch diameter oak tree located where the pool is proposed, and no tree shall be removed without prior approval of the Environmental Official.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C3. Donna E. D. Swartz for a setback variance of 14 ft to allow a room addition 16 ft from Monterey Avenue right-of-way where a minimum setback of 30 ft is required at 700 Monterey Ave,
Del Oro Estates, Lot 48, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). VR 96 46
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a 565 square foot addition to the front of their existing
single family home. The addition will provide needed living space for the family of five, and another to be born at the end of July. Staff felt conditions favor the request because
of the 80-foot wide street right-of-way in the subdivision. Staff recommended approval with two standard conditions.
William and Donna Swartz, the owner/applicants, said they need additional space for themselves and their four children. The existing home has three bedrooms and two baths. Building
in front is the only option because of the way the house is laid out.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Schwob moved to grant the variance as requested in Item C3 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; and 2) The requisite building permit(s)
shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C4. LaMar A. & Janet MacNutt for the following variances: (1) a setback variance of 7.0 ft to allow replacement of an existing screened pool enclosure 18.0 ft from the Magnolia Drive
right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; and (2) a setback variance of 7.1 ft to allow replacement of an existing screened pool enclosure 17.9 ft from the Bay Avenue
right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at 322 Magnolia Dr, Harbor Oaks Sub, Lots 87 & 89 zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). VR 96 47
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to replace a storm-damaged screen pool enclosure to the east of their
single family home. The applicants indicate the pool and enclosure have existed since 1954 and are well screened from view by landscaping. Staff felt conditions support the request
and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
Janet MacNutt, the owner/applicant, responded to questions, stating a pump and filter enclosure will remain as it exists and is not part of the application. She said a recent storm
blew a 20-inch limb through the enclosure. She wishes to rebuild the enclosure as it was before the storm, with a peaked roof and raised area over the diving board.
One letter from a nearby property owner was submitted in support of the application. No
one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request.
Member Jonnatti moved to grant the variances as requested in Item C4 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; and 2) The requisite building permit(s)
shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Minutes Approval -- June 13, 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.
Board and Staff Comments
Member Johnson expressed concern with recent Commission discussion relating to changing the qualifications required of advisory board members. Members agreed development industry experience
is a valuable asset to the boards, but not to the exclusion of other characteristics that provide balance and diversity. Discussion ensued regarding DCAB’s approach to making decisions
based on Code requirements, standards for approval, personal observation, and practical experience in the community. It was felt the main qualifications should be for people interested
in the local community who are willing to spend time learning about the Land Development Code.
In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said City Attorney Akin is contacting regulatory board staff liaisons and preparing a report to the City Commission. She indicated Mr.
Shuford will be reviewing board member distribution characteristics. Concern was expressed timing for seating the fifth member is important because of summer vacation schedules.
Member Johnson moved to advise the City Commission the Development Code Adjustment Board does not think the limitation discussed by the City Commission is practical or would result
in any efficiencies the present advisory boards do not have. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
Board Reporter