09/23/1993 (2)
DCAB
~'!.. ' ;
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
27
-
o 9/23 /'7.,"7
//9)1
DATE
f.'" ',..,~.< ,. ~ " .... I, " ...,...... " ;~+..l.<. . .',' . .... .~I, . ,:.:" . ,',. . '. .~', ..... '. ' . "'~'
/ .. h...,
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, September 23, 1993 - 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:
J. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (continued from 9/9/93) Jacqueline S Latimer for variances of (1) '10ft
to allow an inground pool15 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 10
1t to allow an addition 15 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1050 Bay
Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 68, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) V 93-64
Action:
Denied.
ITEM B - (continued from 8/26 & 9/9/93J Georgia A. Miller for variances (1) of 5
ft to allow a wooden fence 0 ft from property line where 5 ft is requireu; (2) of 5 ft to
allow 0 landscaping where 5 ft is required; (3) to the requirement for a gate at intersection
of Carlton Street east of Greenwood Avenue, Fairmont Sub, Blk G, Lot 9, zoned RM 12
(Multiple Family Residential). V 93-60
{
'-~~/~
Action: Direction was given to send a certified letter to the applicant, giving her ten
days to respond whether or not she intends to proceed with this application. If she
chooses to proceed, a public hearing will be rescheduled. If she withdraws the request,
the application fee will be refunded. If she does not respond, the application will be
considered to be withdrawn and the application fee will not be refunded.
1. Lee E. & Deborah B. Arnold Jr for variances of (1) 0.15 ft to <Jllow a non-
conforming structure to be elevated 4.85 ft from a side property line; (2) 7.56 ft to allow
a non-conforming structure to be elevated 17.44 ft from a street right-af-way from where
property is addressed at 1049 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub. Blk 271, Lots 2 & 3, Part of
Water Lot" A", zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-57
Action: Granted as requested subject to the folio wing 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 shall be obtaine(J within six (6) months
from the date of this public hec1ring.
\
'<1'-:,: /
DCAB Action
09/23/93
~ . ~ ' ". " j . ,,': . ", . .." . ~ . : "j, '. '. ,'" . . , . r ": I, ..' .". I , I I .
, ,
. . ;
The following Land Dovelopment Coda amendments will also be considered:
f'
1. Ordinance No. 5460-93 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land
Development Code: amending sections 44.08 and 44.54, Code of Ordinances, to allow
temporary signs under certain circumstances; providing an effective date. .
Action: Recommended approval with the following changes: 1) eliminate "20 small'
balloons" (intent is to permit one large balloon) and 2J banners or temporary signs shall be
properly maintained or subject to removal by the City.
2. Ordinance No. 5463-93 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land
Development Code; amending section 42.21, Code of Ordinances, to revise the.
requirements for nonconforming uses on barrier islands to encourage compliance with
development and building regulations including flood damage prevention regulations;
providing an effective date.
Action:
Recommended approval.
II. Board and Staff Discussion
,
III. Adjournment
("~, . Adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
V
.,
i...........
DeAB Action
2
09/23/93
r~:",
.~..~,s'
'~;.IJ
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
September 23, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Members absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman lexcused)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Gwen J. Lagters, 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 appllcant 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 a9 enda order although not necessarily
discussed in that order.
I.
Time Extensions
1. William A Day Trustee, for variances of (1) 21.5 ft to permit stairs 2.5
ft from side (south) property line where 24.0 ft is required; and (2) 15.6 ft to
permit a building addition 9.4 ft from Clearwater Harbor where 25 ft is required
at 473 East Shore Dr, Replat of Clearwater Beach Park First Addn, Blk C. Lots
6 and 7, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 93.22
The appllcant requested a time extension for variances granted on April 8, 1993 due to delays
in engineering and design.
Mr. Gans moved to grant a six-month time extension to April 8, 1994. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (col1tinued from 9/9/93) Jacqueline S Latimer for varia nces of (1) 10
ft to allow an jnground pool 15 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is
required; and (2) 10 ft to allow an addition 15 ft from street right.of.way where
25 ft is required at 1050 Bay Esplanade, Mandalav Sub, Blk 68, Lot 13, zoned
RS 8 (Single Family Residential) V 93.64
DCAB Minutes
1
09/23/93
~.,-t..,
. '\
,
(' ".
........./
,
~~-
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to
construct an in-ground pool and an addition to the house for associated pool equipment
primarily in the side yard on the north end of this irregularly shaped lot. An application for
seven variances was heard in 1991; three variances were granted and four were denied. She
noted, if a fence is required for insurance purposes, only 30 inches in height is allowed off Bay
Esplanade Avenue.
Patty Stough, architect representing the applicants, stating a variance was granted September
12, 1991 to allow an addition to be built over an existing garage. The addition was not built
and they are requesting to use that variance to put in the pool and equipment. She said a
therapeutic lap pool is needed for Mrs. Latimer's recovery and rehabilitation. She stated the
pool will be totally buffered by a berm, extensive landscaping and a fence which will meet
fence requirements. Ms. Stough indicated a hardship exists in meeting the setbacks for the
three street rights-of-way, the configuration of the property and Mrs. Latimer's need for
physical therapy.
Ms. Glatthorn stated, for the record, the written staff report was incorrect as it should have
stated the request appears to support the standards for approval Therefore, the correct staff
recommendation is for approval.
It was noted a redevelopment plan for Clearwater Beach is being proposed for this zone,
reducing the setbacks from street rights-of-way from 25 feet to 15 feet. If it goes into effect,
Case # 1 and part of Case 112 would not be necessary.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. It was indicated there was some discussion, at
the previous hearing for this property, to put the pool in its presently proposed location.
Concern was expressed with the pool appearing to be in the front yard, although the property
is addressed to Bay Esplanade.
Deborah B. Arnold, the adjacent property owner across Bay Esplanade, spoke in support of
the application, as long as it is properly landscaped.
Discussion ensued regarding future plans to relocate the driveway and the status of the
purchase of the property for the driveway was questioned.
It was indicated the proposal does not impair sight lines, nor impact the neighbors. The low
landscaped wall would have the appearance of a sculpture, more than a fence and there is an
abundance of green space. However, concern was expressed that adding the pool
overdevelops the property. It was noted there are no visible pools of this size in the vicinity.
Denial was recommended until such time as the City reduces the setback requirements in this
area and the requested improvements can be made without a variance.
Based upon the information furnishod by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances
as requested because the applicnnt has not demonstrated she has met all of the standards for
approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because the variances is
DCAB Minutes
2
09/23/93
not the minimum; the granting of the variances would be materially detrimental Of injurious
,:'?~ to other property in the neighborhood and would violate the general spirit and intent of this
development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded
and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr.
Pliska, voted "nay". Motion carried.
ITEM B . (continued from 8/26 & 9/9/93) Georgia A. Miller for variances (1)
of 5 ft to allow a wooden fence 0 ft from property line where 5 ft is required:
(2) of 5 ft to allow 0 landscaping where 5 ft is required: (3) to the requirement
for a gate at intersection of Carlton Street east of Greenwood Avenue, Fairmont
Sub, Blk G, lot 9, zoned RM 12 (Multiple Family Residential). V 93-60
Neither the applicant nor a representative were present and a Question was raised whether
or not she had been contacted by staff.
Ms. Glatthorn stated several attempts were made to contact the applicant to inform her of
the need to be present.
Discussion ensued regarding the circumstances involved with this applicant and the State
Code of Ethics regarding the Sunshine law.
\."",.../
DCAB Minutes
3
09/23/93
I ,
-.'
Mr. Johnson moved to send a certified letter to the applicant, giving her ten days to respond
whether or not she intends to proceed with this application. If she chooses to proceed. a
public hearing will be rescheduled. If she withdraws the request, the application fee will be
refunded. If she does not respond, the application will be considered to be withdrawn and
the application fee will not be refunded. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
1. Lee E. & Deborah B. Arnold Jr for variances of (1) 0.15 ft to allow a
non-conforming structure to be elevated 4.85 ft from a side property line: (2)
7.56 ft to allow a non-conforming structure to be elevated 17.44 ft from a
street right-of-way from where property is addressed at 1049 Bay Esplanade,
Carlouel Sub, Blk 271, lots 2 & 3. Part of Water lot "A", zoned RS 8 (Single
Family Residential). V 93-57
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to
elevate an existing single-family residence to a 12-foot base elevation.
Bob Ray, architect representing the applicant. detailed the application, stating the proposal will
meet FEMA requirements and will avoid future flooding of the living spaces of the home. An
existing masonry garage will remain at ground level. He responded to questions. stating the
transitional space between the house and garage is to remain open and the applicants have
plans for a deck and a pool in the back yard.
The applicant was commended for elevating without increasing the footprint.
(.....,
( "',
.~...~~" '" f
I .
....:f .
Patty Stough. architect representing the adjacent property owner across Bay Esplanade, spoke
in support of the application. She raised a question regarding the proposed height of the
structure. It was indicated the proposal will remain within the 30-foot height limit.
Mr. Ray clarified details regarding the proposed entry pavilion elevation.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variances
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, more specifically because. the
variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the elevation of
the house to eliminate flooding dangers 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 shalf be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The following Land Development Code amendments will also be considered:
1. Ordinance No. 5460-93 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the
Land Development Code; amending sections 44.08 and 44.54, Code of
Ordinances, to allow temporary signs under certain circumstances; providing
an effective date.
Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Supervisor, gave an overview of economic development
issues associated with this item, stating it would allow new businesses to display banners and
balloons during their critical starting up period. Also, a business which is damaged and does
not qualify under the storm damage provision, could have a temporary window sign. He
stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the amendment with the
exception of the balloons.
Discu'ssion ensued and it was indicated balloons are not aesthetically pleasing and have been
found to be environmentally harmful to sea life, birds and small animals. However. there was
no objection to having one large balloon.
Mr. Shuford responded to questions regarding the maximum allowable area allow for
freestanding and attached banners. Concern was expressed with the gO.day time limit for
allowing banners because they could deteriorate during that length of time. It was felt the
City should be allowed to remove damaged or improperly maintained banners.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of the amendment with the following changes: 1)
eliminate "20 small balloons" (intent is to permit one large balloon) and 2) banners or
temporary signs shall be properly maintained or subject to removal by the City. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
DCAB Minutes
4
09/23/93
,r"'-
, \
..
I
'.TJI~H'
I
'.....". '
2. Ordinance No. 5463-93 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the
land Development Code: amending section 42.21, Code of Ordinances, to
revise the requirements for nonconforming uses on barrier islands to encourage
compliance with development and building regulations including flood damage
prevention regulations; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford explained the purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow rebuilding on
Clearwater Beach to the previously existing density as long as the new construction complies
with the Code.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 5463-93 relating to non-
conforming densities as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Board and Staff Discussion
Concern was expressed with the proposal to decrease setbacks for pools on Clearwater
Beach. ,Discussion ensued regarding averaging front setbacks for a whole neighborhood block.
The need for strong code enforcement was stressed. Mr. Shuford discussed the recent staff
reorganization in the Code Enforcement Department, stating it will be under the direction of
Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice. He questioned how stringently the code should be enforced
due tothe different communities involved. It was indicated the codes affecting life safety and
health are the most important.
Mr. Shuford was congratulated for his recent promotion to Director of Central Permitting and
for achieving certification from the American Institute of Certified Planners (AIC?).
Concern was expressed with having to make an appointment to speak with planners during
certain hours. Mr. Shuford said that if someone needs to get in touch with planners during
a time when they are not taking telephone calls, that individual should let the secretary know
so a planner can be available.
Discussion ensued regarding sign variances and whether or not the City Commission will
continue to hear them. The excessive height of the new sign at Countryside Mall was
questioned and it was indicated a variance was granted by the City Commission. Mr. Shuford
indicated FOOT also agreed to list the mall on a highway directional sign.
Discussion ensued regarding parking in front yards in residential areas. Mr. Shuford stated
this issue was taken to the City Commission in 1992 as a discussion item and they decided
not to pursue it.
Staff is to investigate construction and variances granted for the propertY at Druid and
Magnolia.
Concern was expressed that the main design direction of a house should be designated as the
front yard, regardless of where the property is addressed.
DCAB Minutes
5
09/23/93
I " "
~ . :
, .
.' '
.~ In response to a question regarding having address numbers on buildings, Mr. Shuford stated
.., .. a notice will be mailed with utility bills to see what kind of response can be generated for
residential properties. He stated the street number is allowed to be put on the curb in
residential areas. However, it was felt addresses should be at eye level, especially for
commercial properties.
III. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Chairman
o
, ...~"
~)
DCAB Minutes
6
09/23/93