09/26/1991 (2)
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
d9/~(.I'J
d)-
I '
,
DATE
. , '
"
DCAB
733
.............,'
',,-~
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, September 26, 1991 - 1:00 p.m. - Commission Meeting Room,
City Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida
To consider requests for variances of the Land Development Code:
I.
Time Extensions
1. (1st request for extension)
Delbert V. and Mary Lou Baustert for
variances of (1) 88.26 ft to permit a
lot width of 61.74 ft; (2) 7.36 ft to
permit an east side setback of 4.99
ft; (3) 10.6 ft to permit a rear
waterfront setback of 14.4 fti (4)
7.37 ft to permit 4.98 ft clear
space; and (5) 7.37 ft to permit a
side setback of 4.98 ft at 134
Brightwater Dr, Bays;de Sub No 2, Lot
49, zoned CR-29 (resort con~ercial).
V 91-24
2. (1st request for extension)
Robert E. Malke (Rose Garden
Restaurant) for a variance of 14
seats to permit 2-COP licensed
establishment with 36 indoor seats at
348 and. 348-~ Coronado Dr, Lloyd-
White-Skinner Sub, Lots 118-119,
zoned CR-28 (resort commerc i a 1) .
V 91-17
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 9/12/91)
Vision Cable of Pinellas, Inc, and
Florida Power Corp for variances of
(1) 42 in to permit 72 in high fence
in setback area adjacent to a street
right-of-way to which property is
addressed; and (2) 24 in to permit a
72 in high fence in setback area
adjacent to a street right-of-way to
which property is not addressed at
2530 Drew St, See 7-29-16, M&B 44.02
and 41.02, zoned CH (highway
commercial) and P/SP (public/semi-
public). V 91-62
DCAB
1.
Time Extensions
1. Granted six month extension to
May 23, 1992.
2. Granted six month extension to
March 14, 1992.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - Continued to the meeting of
October 10, 1991.
1
9/26/91
"':"~
1. Thelma Jones for variance of 10
ft to permit porch enclosure addition
15 ft from a street right-of-way at
1017 N Madison Ave, Springfield Sub
No 1, Blk A, Lot 8, zoned RM 12
(multiple family residential). V 91-
65
2. Mieczyslaw Wand Maria Cius for
variances of (1) 7 ft to permit 5 ft
clear space i (2) 7.45 ft to permit
side setbacks of 5 ft; (3) 14 ft to
permit addition 11 ft from Clearwater
Harbori and (4) 90 ft to permit
construction on a 60 ft wide lot at
162 Brightwater Or, Bayside Sub No 2,
Lot 42, zoned CR 28 (resort
commercial). V 91-66
3. William Wand Hala June Bentley
for variance of 2 ft to permit pool
enclosure 5 ft from a rear property
line at 1856 Greenhill Dr, Woodmont
Park, Lot 133, zoned RS 6 (single
family residential). V 91-67
DeAO
1 . Granted subject to the
following conditions: 1) the
dimensions of the proposed addition
shall not exceed 10 ft deep by 14 ft
wide and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within six
(6) months from the date of this
public hearing.
2. Granted variances #1, #2 and #4
as requested and variance #3 for 4 ft
to permit addition 21 ft from
Clearwater Harbor subject to the
following conditions: 1) this
variance is only in effect when the
subject improvement and the existing
owners' apartment on the first floor
are used exclusively by the owners of
the propertYi 2) this variance shall
not be used in any manner for the
addition of an additional motel unit
or a separate apartment; 3) no
kitchen facilities shall be installed
on the second floor of the proposed
addition; 4} the motel rental units
shall not exceed four in number and
5) the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within six (6)
months from the date of th i s pub 1 i c
hearing.
3. Granted subject to the
requisite building permit being
obtained within six (6) months from
the date of this public hearing.
2
9/26/91
r::~'\
.... >~.,~'
" '
4. Everybody's Tabernacle Inc for
variances (1) of 42 in to permit a 72
in high fence in a setback area
adjoining a street right-of-way to
which property is addressed; (2) of
24 in to permit a 72 in high fence in
setback area adjoining a street
right-of-way to which property is not
addressed; (3) of 5 ft to permit
fence zero ft from a street right-of-
way; and (4) to permit zero
landscaping on right-of-way side of
fence at 1120 N Betty Ln, Fa i rburn
Add, Blk F, Lots 1 thru 14, zoned
P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-68
III. Board and Staff Discussion
iV. Approval of Minutes of August
22, 1991.
v. Adjournment
DCAB
4. Continued to the meeting of
October 10, 1991.
III. Consensus to send memo to Solid
Waste/Operations regarding sanitation
dumpsters with copy to City
Commission. Staff was requested to
check on Pelican Restaurant parking
lot being rented on weekends, whether
a permit was obtained to replace roof
destroyed by storm at 126 Brightwater
Orive and to revie\'I Code regarding
the size of additions in beach areas.
Staff suggested Architectural Design
Board to address Board's concerns
regarding co lOTS and designs of
structures in Clearwater. Assistant
City Attorney discussed ex parte
communication.
IV. Approved as corrected.
V. Adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
3
9/26/91
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
September 26, 1991
Members present:
Thomas J. Graham, Chairman
Otto Gans, ViceMChairman
John W. Homer
Alex Plisko
Absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Excused
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission
Chambers of City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone
adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may
appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer 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.
I. Time Extensions
1. (1st request for extension) Delbert V. and Mary Lou Baustert
for variances of (1) 88.26 ft to permit a lot width of 61.74 ft; (2)
7.36 ft to permit an east side setback of 4.99 ftj (3) 10.6 ft to
permit a rear waterfront setback of 14.4 ft; (4) 7.37 ft to permit
4.98 ft clear space; and (5) 7.37 ft to permit a side setback of
4.98 ft at 134 Brightwater Dr, Bayside Sub No 2, Lot 49, zoned CR-29
(resort commercial). V 91M24
Mr. Homer moved to grant a six month extension to May 23, 1992. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Reauest oranted.
2. (1st request for extension) Robert E. Malke (Rose Garden
Restaurant) for 'a variance of 14 seats to permit 2-COP 1 icensed
establishment with 36 indoor seats at 348 and 348-~ Coronado Dr,
Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 118-119, zoned CR-2B (resort
commercial). V 91-17
Mr. Gans moved to grant a six month extension to March 14, 1992. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. ReQuest Qranted.
DCAB
1
9/26/91
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 9/12/91) Vision Cable of Pinel las, Inc, and
Florida Power Corp for variances of (1) 42 in to permit 72 in high
fence in setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way to which
property is addrcssedj and (2) 24 in to permit a 72 in high fence in
setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way to which property is
not addressed at 2530 Drew St, Sec 7-29-16, M&B 44.02 and 41.02,
zoned CH (highway commercial) and P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-
62
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to construct a six-foot-high chain link fence within the
structural setback al'p.a of property which is being leased from Florida Power.
He expressed concern regarding the visual impact from Old Coachman Road and Drew
Street.
Discussion ensued regarding the parking and setback variances granted in December
of 1989 to redevelop the site by redesigning the vehicular use areas and
constructing a building and parking lot on the adjacent Florida Power easement.
The meeting was recessed from 1:13 p.m. to 1:25 p.m. due to a fire drill.
Steve Seibert, attorney representing the applicant, stated Vision Cable's fleet
of 70 service vehicles contains electronic equipment and needs to be secured.
It is more practical, compact and convenient to have all the vehicle parking
adjacent to the building site. He indicated there is a similar fence on the'
property across the street, the proposed fence will be 30 feet from the street
and the height of the fence will not affect the aesthetics or impact traffic
safety. Mr. Seibert referred to the Traffic Engineering Department's comment
that cha i n 1 ink fences samet ;mes appear opaque and stated the applicant will
angle the fence along entrances to avoid creating a traffic hazard during ingress
and egress. He indicated providing landscaping and a fenced area to provide for.~
vehicle safety were overlooked when obtaining site plan approval.
In response to questions, Mr. Seibert indicated the northwest corner of the
property has less space for a parking lot and would also require setback
variances. He stated Vision Cablels lease with Florida Power is annual and
renewable, allows for fencing and parking and the fleet is operated by Vision
Cable employees.
The Assistant City Attorney returned at 1:40 p.m.
Concern was expressed in having permanent parking in a Florida Power easement and
it was indicated the parking variance granted in December of 1989 was for
overflow and not permanent parking.
D;scussior. ensued in regard to the location of the subject property in relation
to the junior college and it was indicated great pains had been taken in that
vicinity to maintain the openness of a college campus by the use of rail fences
and landscaping in the parking areas.
Mr. Seibert requested a continuance to explore other options.
DCAB
2
9/26/91
Mr. Homer moved to continue this request to allow the applicant to consider other
options. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request
continued to the meeting of October 10, 1991.
1. Thelma Jones for variance of 10 ft to permit porch enclosure
addition 15 ft from a street right-of-way at 1017 N Madison Ave,
Springfield Sub No I, Blk A, Lot 8, zoned RM 12 (multiple family
residential). V 91-65
Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to
build an enclosed porch addition on the front of the house which will be in
keeping with setbacks in the neighborhood.
Gloria Jones, daughter of and representing the applicant, indicated the proposed
addition will be an enclosed room and will extend farther toward the street than
the existing s1ab which is about five feet wide. She stated she feels the
addition will improve the property and be an asset to the neighborhood.
Thelma Jones, owner and applicant, indicated building materials for the proposed
construction have already been purchased and if left out in the weather will
deteriorate. She hopes the variance is granted quickly in order for construction
to proceed.
Six letters were presented in support of the application.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant
the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the
standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development
Code, more specifically because, the variance is the minimum necessary to
overcome the hardship created by the change in the code and the subdivision being
developed under different zoning regulations subject to the conditions: 1) the
dimensions of the proposed addition will not exceed 10 ft deep by 14 ft wide and
2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the
date of this publ ic hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Request Qranted.
2. Mieczyslaw Wand Maria Cius for variances of (1) 7 ft to permit
5 ft clear space; (2) 7.45 ft to permit side setbacks of 5 ftj (3)
14 ft to permit addition 11 ft from Clearwater Harbor; and (4) 90 ft
to permit construction on a 60 ft wide lot at 162 Brightwater Dr,
Bayside Sub No 2, Lot 42, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 91-66
Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to
expand his living quarters by placing a second-floor addition over the existing
footprint. He stated a portion of the proposed deck for u~e exclusively by the
owners will extend out farther than the existing footprint.
Robert Fuchs, representing the applicant, stated the addition will create more
space for the family, the deck size can be reduced and is necessary to enable the
handicapped child, who lives in the home and requires constant attention, to be
safe and enjoy the view of the water.
DCAB
3
9/26/91
f' '\
In response to questions, Mr. Fuchs stated the proposed deck will be directly
over an approximate eight by ten foot patio and the motel consists of four units
plus the applicant's residence. He indicated the entire family currently resides
on the first floor which includes two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, laundry and
a staircase leading upstairs.
In response to questions, Mr. Fuchs indicated the proposed addition will enhance
the area where a number of motels have live-in owners, Mr. Cius wishes to keep
the rental units intact and it is necessary for the elderly parents to live in
the home to help take care of the handicapped child.
Discussion ensued regarding the conversion of the unit to accommodate six family
members being an intense use of the property, whether a hardship exists and
whether the request is based on financial gain. Although there was no objection
to a second floor add it ion, concern was expressed that the proposed square
footage for the addition was excessive. There was discussion in regard to
reduc i ng the number of mote 1 un its resu 1t i n9 in a f i nanc i all oss for the
applicant.
Concern was also expressed in regard to future expansion of this unit into two
and it was suggested, if approved, conditions of approval could include no
additional kitchen being allowed and the existing apartment and addition being
for the exclusive use of the owners.
Discussion ensued in regard to whether or not the square footage of the expansion
could be 1 imited as concern was expressed regarding whether the request is
minimal.
It was pointed out the expansion of this unit will be required to meet FEMA
regulations.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant
vari ances Ill, #2, and #4 as requested because the app 1 i cant has substantially met
all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the land
Development Code, more specifically because, the particular physical surroundings
and shape of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions
of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the
applicant subject to the conditions: 1) this variance is only in effect when the
subject improvement and the ex i st i ng owners I apartment on the first floor is used
exclusively by the owner of the property; 2) this variance shall not be used in
any manner for the addition of an additional motel unit or separate apartment;
3) no kitchen facilities shall be installed on the second floor of the proposed
additionj 4) the motel rental units shall not exceed four in number and 5) the
requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date
of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request Qranted.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny
variance #3 as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met
all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land
Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown; the variance is not
a minimum and the granting of the variance would violate the general spirit and
intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006.
The motion was duly seconded.
DCAB
4
9/26/91
Mr. Shuford pointed out denying this request would result in having to set back
the second floor addition.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the new roof over the patio was legal
and it was indicated the roof was rebuilt after it was destroyed by a storm.
Mr. Gans withdrew his motion to deny variance #3 and the seconder withdrew the
second.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant
variance #3 for four feet to permit construction 21 feet from Clearwater Harbor
because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as
listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, more specifically
because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and
not caused by the applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome
the hardship created by the location of the existing building on the property
subject to the conditions: 1) this variance is only in effect when the subject
improvement and the existing owners I apartment on the first floor is used
exclusively by the owner of the property; 2) this variance shall not be used in
any manner for the addition of an additional motel unit or separate apartment;
3) no kitchen facilities shall be installed on the second floor of the proposed
addition; 4) the motel rental units shall not exceed four in number and 5) the
requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date
of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being
taken, Messrs. Homer, Pliska, and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted IInayll.
Motion carried. Request qranted.
3. William Wand Hala June Bentley for variance of 2 ft to permit
pool enclosure 5 ft from a rear property line at 1856 Greenhill Dr,
Woodmont Park, Lot 133, zoned RS 6 (single family residential). V
91-67
Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to
construct a screen enclosure over an existing pool five feet from the rear
property line.
Carl Kleinschmidt, representing the applicant, stated he built the owner1s pool
and the owner intended from the beginning to obtain bids from screen enclosure
compan i es to enc lose the pool. He said he was not aware of the seven-foot setback
requirement for screen enclosures. He indicated the enclosure is necessary due
to a nearby tree dropping berries which stain the pool and deck and the two feet
in the rear are necessary for maintenance access.
In response to questions, Mr. Kleinschmidt indicated he has worked for the pool
contractor for 12 years, has built other pools in the county but not recently in
the City of Clearwater and the original plans did include the screen enclosure.
It was felt allowances should have been made for the enclosure when building the
pool. Mr. Kleinschmidt said failure to request variances for the enclosure was
an oversight.
DCAB
5
9/26/91
r" William Bentley, owner and applicant, stated he relocated to the area a year ago
.~ and would not have put in a pool without being able to screen it because of
falling debris from the nearby tree. He indicated he had confidence in his
contractor when he contracted for the pool and enclosure. In response to a
question, he indicated he desired a larger pool, but the area was too small.
A petition containing six names was presented in support of the application.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the variances for the enclosure would
have been granted if requested at the time of the original application. Concern
was expressed that applicants sometimes misrepresent what they intend to do. It
was felt although this is a minimal request the contractor should have been aware
of the Code regarding the setbacks involved.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Pliska moved to grant
the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the
standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development
Code, more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is
unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the condition being the
location of the.tree and the existing conditions of the house and the variance
is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the tree and house
location subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six
months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously. Request Qranted.
4. Everybody's Tabernacle Inc for variances (1) of 42 in to permit
a 72 in high fence in a setback area adjoining a street right-of-way
to which property is addressed; (2) of 24 in to permit a 72 in high
fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which
property is not addressed; (3) of 5 ft to permit fence zero ft from
a street right-of-way; and (4) to permit zero landscaping on right-
of-way side of fence at 1120 N Betty Ln, Fairburn Add, Blk F, Lots
1 thru 14, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-68
,
i
l..,_'
......-.'
Mr. Shuford stated the applicant is requesting a continuance due to incorrect
information having been furnished by the applicant.
,
Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of October la, 1991. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued to the
meeting of October la, 1991.
DeAB
9/26/91
6
~...,~,,::; !;....}.] ~..'. ':':~>'a'~>.a ;I: ~.~. ;..;. :~". ~'. , ~/,'~', 'r.,." ':-:,'; " .~. ~ ',: 'r.l: ; . .,", ..... '."J .' : .1.,' .....J.;".:;,' '~ '.~ . I I ~ ., ." ", ,'. ,~ ',1 .... ':/t
. '
tr:'lft
III. Board and.Staff Discussion
Discussion ensued regarding dumpster locations and enclosures. Consensus was to
send memo to Soli,1 Waste/Operations regarding sanitation dumpsters with a copy
to the City Commission.
Staff was requested to check on fees being charged to park at Pelican Restaurant
on weekends t whether a permit was obtained to replace a roof destroyed by a storm
at 126 Brightwate,. Drive and to review the Code regarding the size of additions
in some areas. Staff ~uggested an Architectural Design Board be established to
address the Board I s concerns regarding colors and designs of structures in
Clearwater. Assistant City Attorney discussed ex parte communications.
IV. Approval of Minutes of August 22t 1991
The minutes of August 22, 1991 reflected Mr. Plisko as having voted in cases
V 91-40, V 91-54 and V 91-56. Mr. Pliska was not in attendance at this meeting
and the minutes will be corrected to reflect this.
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of August 22, 1991, as correctedt in
accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Approved as corrected.
v. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
.. .._....~J
;:.~IJ
DCAB
7
9/26/91