09/24/1992 (2)
.'
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE AD..JUSTMENT BOARD
()~~
c2 7- ;?5/c;:!
DATE
....~'.
, ,
~,I
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
September 24, 1992
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
otto Gans
John W. Horner
John B. Johnson
Members absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman (excused)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk (arrived 1:04 p.m.)
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. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 8/27/92) Martin R and Paula 0 Cole
for a variance to install a fence within the structural
setback area adjoining the water at 726 Harbor Island, Is-
land Estates of Clwr, Unit 7C, Lot 78, zoned RS 6 (single
family residential). V 92-43
Planning Manager Shuford explained this application was continued to
allow time to readvertise the request, as the applicants would prefer
to completely fence both sides of their yard in addition to providing
a fence along the seawall.
Paula Cole, owner and applicant, stated she wishes to install a
three-foot-high fence to prevent accidental falls from the seawall
onto the barnacles and into high water below.
In response to questions Ms. Cole stated she would prefer to keep the
fence instead of having it removed after four years, as staff
recommends. She stated her family has occupied the house for eight
months and her children are six and nine years old. She said it was
an oversight that the fence variance was not included in an earlier
DCAB
09/24/92
1
..:.,........
application for variances to renovate the house and add a pool and
screen enclosure. It was indicated staff recommends a minimal fence
height of 36 to 42 inches.
Bruce Phillips, representing the applicant, displayed a model of the
proposed aluminum picket fencing material, designed not to be
visually intrusive and to provide a barrier without having a stockade
appearance.
Discussion ensued with regard to chain-link fencing.
indicated aluminum was specified on the application.
Martin Cole, owner and applicant, indicated chain-link fencing is not
appealing and would detract from the aesthetic appearance of the
house. In response to questions, he stated the fence is intended to
protect anyone from inadvertently sliding or falling from the
seawall. He said he is willing to remove the fence after four years,
if that becomes a condition of granting the variance.
It was
Discussion ensued regarding the application. A question was raised
whether or not the applicant would consider reducing the fence height
to 30 inches. Ms. Cole expressed a preference for the 36-inch
height. She stated the demographics of the neighborhood are changing
and felt the code should be modified to make safety a top priority
due to the increasing number of children living in Island Estates.
Discussion ensued regarding installing fencing less than ten feet of
the seawall in order to have greater use of the back yard. It was
felt, while protecting the children is important, the purpose of the
code is to preserve the open space and view of the water.
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 provide safety and
protection for the children and to overcome the hardship created by
the waterfront hazard subject to the conditions: 1) the 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 fence shall be
a three-foot-high aluminum picket fence constructed in accordance to
standards regarding spacing bebleen pickets <:lnd 3) the requisite
fence 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, Plisko, and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Gans
voted "nayll. Motion carried. Request granted.
DCAB
09/24/92
2
""'1
'-..." .'
.'-.....
Item B - (continued from 8/27/92) David J Gangelhoff (Gulf
Marine of Clwr, FL) to permit variances (1) to permit an
unpaved vehicle (boat) storage area; and (2) of 2 ft to
permit a fence 6 ft in height at 405 N Ft Harrison Ave, See
9-29-15, M&B 44.02; Fort Harrison sub, Lot 1; Hart's 2nd
Add to Clwr, Blk 3, Lots 5 thru 10, part of Lot 3, and part
of vacated alley; and Jones' Sub of NichOlson's Add, Blk 3,
Lots 6 thru 10, zoned CG (general commercial). V 92-44
Planning Manager ShUford explained the application is to be continued
to allow time to advertise an additional variance. Mr. Homer moved
to continue this request to the meeting of October 22, 1992. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
1. Claude Eugene and Myra Sue stinson for a variance of
7.17 ft to permit construction of a storage shed 2.83 ft
from a rear property line at 1387 Lemon st, Brookhi1l Unit
8, Blk V, Lot 5, zoned RS B (single family residential).
V 92-46
Planning Manager ShUford explained the application in detail stating
the applicant wishes to retain a 14 foot by 10 foot storage shed,
construction for which was done without a permit. The wooden shed is
built on concrete blocks and encroaches into the rear setback and
into a drainage and utility easement. The request was felt to be a
self-imposed hardship and it was suggested the applicant consider
relocating the shed to a more suitable area on the subject property.
Claude stinson, owner and applicant, stated he needs additional
storage space for books and personal records and was told by a
contractor that as long as a storage shed is temporary and can be
moved, there are no restrictions. Mr. stinson submitted photographs
of the shed, explaining it will be stuccoed to match the existing
house and hurricane ties and anchors are to be installed. He stated
it would be difficult to relocate tho shed as trees and shrubbery
would have to be removed and the shed would interfere with existing
landscaping and a screen porch on the property. He said he did not
intentionally violate the code and has worked hard to clear away
debris and improve the property to make it as beautiful as possible.
Mr. stinson indicated his neighbors have expressed no objection to
the shed and praised his efforts to enhance his property.
In response to questions, Mr. stinson indicated both he and the
contractor have worked to build the shed and an existing aluminum
shed on the property is deteriorated and will be removed.
Discussion ensued regarding other structures on the property.
Concerns were expressed the wooden shed is too massive to be moved
and the back yard is overbuilt.
DCAB
09/24/92
3
'~'... ~, '.':, "," I .,~~ .... 'I~r ': . .,'" " :,', ': ~', ..., '" , . r :',' t,: . , I ,"'" , I, '
A representative of the First Lutheran Church spoke in opposition to
the application, stating the pastor residing in the parsonage behind
the subject property objects to the view of looking directly onto the
shed roof.
.'...~...,'
Two letters were submitted in opposition to the application,
expressing concern the shed is unsightly, too close to the property
line and within the utility easement.
Mr. stinson explained the shed will not remain unfinished, but will
be properly shingled and beautifully finished to match the house. He
indicated the shed has a low-profile roof and cannot be clearly seen
from adjacent properties.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved
to deny the variance 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 there is
no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship
was shown; the variance is not the minimum; the granting of the
variance would be materially detrimental to the other property in the
neighborhood; the granting of the variance would detract from the
appearance of the community, ~ndanger the public safety through the
creation of a fire hazard, adversely affect the public health of the
community and violate the general spirit and intent of this develop-
ment code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion
was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Plisko, Gans
and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Homer voted "nay". Motion carried.
Request denied.
2. Rondenan Realty, Inc (Imperial Gardens Apts) for
variances of (1) 56 in to permit a wall 86 inches in
height; and (2) 3.5 ft to permit a wall 1.5 ft from prop-
erty line at 2100 Nursery Rd, Sec 24-29-15, M&B 41. 01,
zoned RM 20 (multiple family residential). V 92-48
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating
the applicant is requesting the variances to permit the reconstruc-
tion and renovation of the entrance/signature walls for the apartment
complex. The walls will only form an entryway and will not extend
the length of the property. He stated the height variance is
necessary to provide an opening for pedestrian access and for
aesthetics.
0'
Lamarr Bunn, landscape architect representing the applicant,
indicated extensive landscaping is being installed. He presented
photographs of the project, saying the renovation vlill aesthetically
bring the entryway into a 90's theme. He stated an archway will be
added and a sidewalk extended to Nursery Road for pedestrian traffic.
'-'
DCAB
4
09/24/92
I' . " .' + ,: ", It, ...",' " : ~.., ,,' ,,,' / ,. :,'~'.' ", '. ~" . I r'~'." , J j, ..,': ,~: "," . , '.' ',,': '
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal being a slight modification
of what is currently existing. In response to a question, Mr. Bunn
stated the planter wall outside the wrought iron fence is 24 inches
high.
Discussion ensued regarding the existing signage on the subject
property and Mr. Bunn indicated discussions are underway with the
city as to what is allowed.
Concern was expressed the six-foot height of the arch will not allow
safe passage by pedestrians. Discussion ensued regarding whether the
proposed arch is necessary or whether it can be eliminated.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the landscaping represent-
ed in the photographs is adequate. Mr. Bunn indicated additional
palms and shrubs will be added and it was understood the
owner/applicant will maintain the landscaping.
........
One citizen residing on Anita Drive requested clarification with
regard to the location of the proposed improvements. It was
indicated this project deals only with the sections of wall along
Nursery Road.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer
moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in
section 137.012 Cd) of the Land Development Code subject to the
conditions: 1) the 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 landscaping between the fence and the
Nursery Road right-of-\'lay shall be provided in accordance with
~136.016 and ~136.023; 3) the archway between the columns along
Nursery Road shall be eliminated; 4) similar column tops as used for
the other columns shall be allowed in replacement of the arches and
5) the requisite building permit sha 11 be obtained within six (6)
months from the date of this pUblic hearing. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
3. Louis J and Mary R D'Amico for variances of (1) 90 ft
to permit minimum lot width of 60 ft; (2) 3.30 ft to permit
a second story building addition 8.70 ft from side property
line; and (3) 5 ft to permit an inground pool 5 ft from
side property line at 410 Harnden Dr, Columbia Sub No 4, Lot
10, Zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 92-49
I
.....,<,.
DCAB
:3
09/24/92
, ,:', , ,," I'," :", ' .' ',. i -; ',_ '. . l ' :' '. ' I'",' ,i' , I ,I I : I'" ~ ' ' "I' 't ~, ,. ' " , . ,
r " In a letter dated September 24, 1992, the applicant requested a
continuance due to the applicant's representative being unable to
attend.
Mr. Homer moved
October 8, 1992.
ly.
to continue this request to the meeting of
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimous-
, ~
4. ci ty of Clearwater (Island Estates Marina station
expansion) to permit a variance of 26.6 ft to permit zero
ft of clear space at 205 Windward Passage, Island Estates
of Clwr unit 5, Blk 0, Lot 7, zoned CG (general commercial)
and AL/C (aquatic lands/costal). V 92-50
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating
the request relates to a proposed city-owned and operated public
marina station parking facility.
Harbormaster Bill Held indicated the city wishes to expand an
existing marina by constructing 76 wet slips on city-owned bottom
land. The facility will be unstaffed, for private use only, with no
liveaboard tenants. He stated there will be a sewage pump-out
station, but no fuel dock and the marina will not require dredging.
No docking will be allowed on the east side due to the shallow water
and a four-foot-wide walkway is proposed from the marina to the
parking lot. He said 38 parking spaces, which includes 2 handicapped
spaces, will be provided and will be available by parking permit only
as no meters will be provided. The pie-shaped lot at the end of a
cul-de-sac will be landscaped and have water retention, according to
code. No buildings or other structures vlill be placed on the site.
He felt the parking lot will not be heavily used except during nights
and weekends and does not envision the two handicapped spaces will be
used very often.
In response to a question, Mr. Held indicated an adjacent metered
parking lot is available for use by visitors to the surrounding
facilities.
Concern was expressed with regard to granting a variance to the clear
space requirement. Discussion ensued regarding whether a request for
a parking variance would be viewed differently by the Board than the
request for a clear space variance. Discussion ensued regarding
other parking areas in the vicinity being used for overflow parking
for the marina.
Discussion ensued regarding the desire to expand the marina station
facilities. Mr. Held stated obtaining the required approval for an
operation of this type is a lengthy process and, if approved,
requested 12 months be allowed for obtaining the requisite permits.
He indicated other locations were considered, but cannot be developed
due to environmental concerns. He indicated there is a waiting list
for marina boat slips with priority given to residents.
\"....,....-T.
DCAB
G
09/24/92
" , . ' , '.,'.'" .".. ~ ,:.~ , , ~ ,I. ' ,I .,'. .., r I': .. .
".'\ "~, ,,':~,,"...,~ ,1' '. ',' ".",', ,./', ,'.' ...' " ' ,..' i,' t" .,(, "
Discussion ensued regarding meeting interior landscaping, parking and
clear space requirements for the project. Mr. Held requested a
continuance to allow time to review the application. staff was
requested to have a representative of the city's Traffic Engineering
department present to explain the parking proposal.
Mr. Homer moved
October 22, 1992.
mously.
to oontinue this request to the meeting of
The motion was duly seconded and carried unani-
5. r-Iaurice F Jr, Eleanor I, and Ralph I Dunne for a
variance to allow two catwalk extensions and a cradle boat
lift on a nonconforming dock at 173 Harborage court, Marina
Del Rey at Sand Key Unit B, Lot 37, zoned RM 16 (multiple
family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V
92-51
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating
the applicant wishes to extend two catwalks and replace a cradle boat
lift on an existing privately owned dock. He noted in 1980 the city
Commission approved a blanket variance for three-foot dock widths and
38-foot dock lengths at Marina Del Rey (excluding lots 1 through 9).
Cradle lifts were added to this variance in 1989.
Ralph Dunne, applicant, stated he is one of the new owners of the
property, which has required extensive renovations. He wishes to
repair the dock to usable condition and reuse the cradle lift from
his previous residence.
steve Brunner, contractor representing the applicant, stated the
subject property is on the east end of the finger on open water. The
owner is proposing to remove seven of the eastern tie poles and
extend the catwalks to be able to pull the boat straight in for
easier and safer boarding.
In response to a question, Mr. Dunne stated he wishes to move one
walkway ten inches in order to accommodate his cradle lift and leave
a walkway at the rear of the boarding platform to safely walk around
the boat. He indicated he is trying to use what is existing with as
little additional construction as possible.
Concern was expressed this is not a minimal request. However, it was
stated the applicant is only asking to extend the dock ten feet when,
under the blanket variance, the dock could extend all the way to the
property line. It was felt this relatively small addition would not
significantly impact the view, given the large waterfront exposure of
the adjacent property.
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 Cd} of the Land Deve] opment Code more specifically
<.......,'
DCAB
7
09/24/92
:'. . ~, .'" . ," ," " .' . r' ' " '.', , ." " ","', L . " , ' ,.', ., '. ,.',', "~" . 4~ '.' , ...,' ~ ~ "
, -'"
because, the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topograph-
ical conditions of the property involved and the strict application
of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant due to a blanket variance for
much smaller lots granted by the city Commission in 1980, subject to
the conditions: 1) the 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 applicant shall remove the easternmost
pilings and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within
six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
III. Board and staff Discussion
staff was requested to investigate if parking and retention require-
ments are being met for the second floor addition at the Sea Star
Resort Hotel.
Concern was expressed with the lack of consistency in interpreting
the FEMA 50 percent rule; determining what represents 50 percent of
the property's value was discussed.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford explained the Planning and
Development Department and Building Division organization, duties and
responsibilities.
Oiscussion ensued regarding the need for a code amendment allowing
36-inch fences of "open material" in rear yards along waterfronts.
Discussion ensued with regard to standard condition #1 which deals
with documents submitted at the time of application for a variance
and whether it should be included in the motion or made part of the
application.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.
J J
~. //
//. "
, ( ,.'
Ch'a-irman
) " }
,,/ "
\, ~-,"\j /5')
, ,
ATTEST:
l
"-"
'h~L.<-/~:V
Assis . nt city Clerk
DCAB
8
09/24/92
"
f ,
~t,-'Li-cl
~ ,
~...'
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, september 24, 1992 - 1:00 p.m. - Commission Meeting Room,
City Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, Florida
I.
Public Hearings
To consider requests for variances of the Land Development Code:
Item A - (continued from 8/27/92)
Martin R and Paula D Cole for a
variance to install a fence
within the structural setback
area adjoining the water at 726
Harbor Island, Island Estates of
Clwr, Unit 7C, Lot 78, zoned RS 6
(single family residential) .
V 92-43
Item B - (continued from 8/27/92)
David J Gangelhoff (Gulf Marine
of Clwr, FL) to permit variances
(1) to permit an unpaved vehicle
(boat) storage areai and (2) of 2
ft to permit a fence 6 ft in
height at 405 N Ft Harrison Ave,
Sec 9-29-15, M&B 44.02i Fort Har-
rison Sub, Lot 1i Hart's 2nd Add
to Clwr, Blk 3, Lots 5 thru 10,
part of Lot 3, and part of vacat-
ed alleYi and Jones' Sub of
Nicholson's Add, Blk 3, Lots 6
thru 10, zoned CG (general com-
mercial). V 92-44
DCAB
1.
Public Hearings
Item A - Granted subject to the
following conditions: 1) the
variance is based on the appli-
cation for a variance and docu-
ments sUbmitted by the appli-
cants, including maps, plans,
surveys and other documents sub-
mitted in support of the applic-
ants' request for a variance.
Deviation from any of the above
documents submitted in support of
the request for a variance re-
garding the work to be done with
regard to the site or any physi-
cal structure located on the
site, will result in this vari-
ance being null and of no effect;
2) the fence shall be a three-
feet-high aluminum picket fence
constructed in accordance to
standards regarding spacing be-
tween pickets and 3) the requi-
site fence permit shall be ob-
tained within six (6) months from
the date of this public hearing.
Item B continued to the meet-
ing of October 22, 1992
1
09/24/92
. '-
(
"'-.....~ ~
~...-i
1. Claude Eugene and Myra Sue
stinson for a variance of 7.17 ft
to permit construction of a stor-
age shed 2.83 ft from a rear pro-
perty line at 1387' Lemon st,
Brookhill unit 8, Blk V, Lot 5,
zoned RS 8 (single family resi-
dential). V 92-46
2. Rondenan Realty, Inc (Impe-
rial Gardens Apts) for variances
of (1) ,56 in to permit a wall 86
inches in height; and (2) 3.5 ft
to .permit a wall 1.5 ft from
property line at 2100 Nursery Rd,
Sec 24-29-15, M&B 41.01, zoned RM
20 (multiple family residential) .
V 92-48
3. Louis J and Mary R 0' Amico
for variances of (1) 90 ft to
permit minimum lot width of 60
ft; (2) 3.30 ft to permit a sec-
ond ,story building addition 8.70
ft from side property line; and
(3) 5 ft to permit an inground
pool' 5 ft from side property line
at 410 Harnden Or, Columbia Sub No
4, Lot 10, Zoned CR 28 (resort
commercial). V 92-49
OCAB
1.
Denied
2. Granted subject to the fol-
lowing conditions: 1) the vari-
ance is based on the application
for a variance and documents sub-
mitted by the applicants, includ-
ing maps, plans, surveys and oth-
er documents submitted in support
of the applicants' request for a
variance. Deviation from any of
the above documents submitted in
support of the request for a var-
iance 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 landscaping
between the fence and the Nursery
Road right-of-way shall be pro-
vided in accordance with 5136.016
and 5136.023; 3) the archway be-
tween the columns along Nursery
Road shall be eliminated; 4) sim-
ilar column tops as used for the
other columns shall be allowed in
replacement of the arches and 5)
"the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within six (6)
months from the date of this pub-
lic hearing.
3. continued to the meeting of
October 8; 1992
2
09/24/92
/~ ,
( ,
.,.-)
'___I
4. city of Clearwater (Island
Estates Marina station expansion)
to permit a variance of 26.6 ft
to permit zero ft of clear space
at 205 Windward Passage, Island
Estates of Clwr unit 5, Blk 0,
Lot 7, zoned CG (general commer-
cial) and AL/C (aquatic
lands/costal). V 92-50
5. Maurice F Jr, Eleanor I, and
Ralph I Dunne for a variance to
allow two catwalk extensions and
a cradle boat lift on a noncon-
forming dock at 173 Harborage
Court, Marina Del Rey at Sand Key
Unit B, Lot 37, zoned RM 16 (mul-
tiple family residential) and
AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V
92-51
4. continued to the meeting of
October 22, 1992
5. Granted subject to the fol-
lowing conditions: 1) the vari-
ance is based on the application
for a variance and documents sub-
mitted by the applicants, includ-
ing maps, plans, surveys and oth-
er documents submitted in support
of the applicants' request for a
variance. Oeviation from any of
the above documents submitted in
support of the request for a var-
iance 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 i 2) the applicant shall
remove the easternmost pilings
and 3) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained wi thin
six (6) months from the date of
this public hearing.
II. Board and Staff Discussion II.
.1
III~ Adjournment
DCAB
III. Adjourned at 3:47 p.m.
3
09/24/92