03/09/1995 (2)
'~~~:<;.::.'~' :, .~~ .
'.
.'
,; ,
:':, .~. : '. ~
~. '. .
,.','.' .c
;.' .
~,~.~., .
~:~~:. :' ,: '.: c . "
',': ~ ", '
:~! ~, >
.',." ,r '
.:l" ", ,
.. -,"
'. ..... ,
':!
, ,
. "
. .', ",
~t~,t~;.~r... ~q~~"""i.f::~""I1~'~'~'\"" ,>.' ;'.~. ~...~:.'> "' '" ~.'~~. L."
. . .
. r"'1.,' j" I,":~c',~'.d"",~ ,:""">,,.!,., :"";':'::"~}:::;"- ,lc;r,.....~.I'.' :>;. '..':' . '>'\!'f' c...>.....c'. "<"..~,,
. . . 1'""'1
" i-
',-,.'
','
':0
v
. DCAB
Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
Date
. qq's'
1- 1137
. ,
Wi,,,.,. . .'
~: ,.\,,\ '. c
, .
n
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE AD.JUSTMENT BOARD
Thursdny, Mnrch 9 - 1:00 p.m.
Commission Chambers, \ 12 South Osceola A venue, Clearwater, Florida
Agcndn Item No.:
A. Approved minutes of the February 23, 1995 meeting as submitted.
B. VARIANCE REQUESTS:
Bl. Jack J. Geller & Patricin PerLcl~Gcner for a variance of Ion to permit a structural setback
of 10 ft from a rear property line where 20 ft is required at 3431 Lake Shore Lune, Wynwoods
Landing, Lot 63, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 95-20
Actin".. Denied.
B2. William D. & Mary E. Rcppcr for variances of (\) 13 percent to permit 42 percent of open
space for the lot where 55 percent is required; and (2) 10 percent to permit 50 percent open space
for the front yard where 60 percent is required at 3268 San Mntco St, Del Oro Groves, Lots 544-
546, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 95-21
~:~J Actio,,: Dellied request for variance 2).
.tJctiom Grallted request for variance 1) subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is
based on the application for;l 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 und of no efTect; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall
be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing.
D. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS:
Dl. (cant. from 01/26/95) Ordinance No. 5766~9S of the City ofClenrwater, Florida, relating to the
Land Development Code; amending Sections 36.033,36.066, 36.083. 37.21, 40.674, 43.03, 43.04,
43.21 through 43.25,43.51,45.02,45.21,45.23,45.25,46.03. 46.07, 46.34,54.23 and 54.53, Code
of Ordinanccs, to deletc the requirement for receipt and referral of annexations. subdivision plats,
site plans, Zoning Atlas amendments and Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendments; to provide
for variance approval by the Planning and Zoning Board; to require the posting of properties which
arc thc subject of proposed site plans and subdivision plats; to authorize the Development Code
Administrator to certify site plans and subdivision plats; to authorize the City Manager to detemline
whether to require the conveyance of land, payment of cash. or a combination thereof to satisfy the
~...; recreation land impact fce and open space impact fee; providing an effective date.
nctDC03n.95
1
03/09/95
i-: c',p,
,,'
." .
~~~~,....~:~\' ,,.. ":/ .
: .. ~ "
I '
~-..
,
"'~ Action: Recommend endorsement with the following concerns: ]} that the Planning & Zoning
Board would hear variances under this ordinance without solid experiential knowledge of the
'standards for approval; 2} having variances und conditionl1luse permits heard by separate boards
provides "checks and balanccs"~ 3) fees could be adjusted to eliminate the financial Hpenalty" of
having to go to multiple boards; 4} with recent code changes (elimination of dock regulations,
revision of alcoholic beverage regulations, etc.), variances associated with conditional use permits
would be infrequent; 5) if sign variances became to much of a workload for DCAB, consideration
should be given for a separate board which would meet onee a month to address only sign variance
applications.
D2. Ordinance No. 5792-95 of the City ofClearwnter, Florida, relating to the Land Development
Code; amending Section 42.26(6)(a), Code of Ordinances, to provide for fences in waterfront
setbacks up to 36 inches in height in single family zoning districts only; providing an effective date.
Actio,,: Recommefld efldorsemeflt with the following concerns: 1) that chain link fences will not
be pennittcd; and 2) the fence or fence supports will not be affixed directly to the sea wall.
(:>
','
l
\
Q
actDC03a.95
2
03/09/95
it':{~~~j1-.
"i~:'~' '.".:~ <'
~
~. 1'1 "
MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT HOARD
Thursday, March 9, 1995 - 1 :00 p.m. '
Commission Cbambers, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, FL
//:
. "
./
Mcmbers present:
Alex Plisko, Chair
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair
Joyce E. Martin
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Also present:
Scott Shuford, Director, Central Permitting
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sally Demarest, Board Reporter, City Clerk Department
,()
The meeting was called to ordcr by the Chair at I :00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall.
Mr. Gans led the Plcdge of Allegiance and Invocation. Mr. Pliska outlined procedures and advised
anyone adversely affectcd by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal
through the City Clerk Department within two weeks. He noted Florida law requires any applicant
appealing a decision of this Board to havc a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. .
In order to provide continuity. the i terns will be listed in agcnda order although not necessarily
discussed in tbat ordcr.
By motion duly seconded, the minutes of the February 23, 1995 meeting were approved as
submitted.
The following variance requests were considered:
B 1. Jack .1. Geller & Pntricin PcrLcl-Gcller for a variance of 10 n to permit a structural
setback of 1 0 it from a rear property line where 20 ft is required at 3431 Luke Shorc Lanc.
Wynwoods Landing, Lot 63, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 95~20
i
.1
I
Central Penllitting Director Scott Shuford gave the background of the application and presented, in
writing, the staft'recommendations. He indicated the applicants are requesting a new addition to be
used as an exercise room with a handicap accessible bathroom. which addition will extend Ion.
from the existing building to the Ion. drainage casement.
.~
minDC03a.95
1
03/09/95
.,..-:~ ~ ~ .
'"'""'\
Thc applicunt, Juck Geller. 3431 Lakeshorc Lane, Clcarwater, rcported a brcakdown bctween him
llnd his contractor regarding the reason for the requcsted addition. l-le distributcd copies of a lctter
datcd March 8, 1995, from Fred 1. Ferderigos, M.D., Mrs. Geller's doctor, reporting an officc visit
on June 24, 1994, at which time he diagnosed a problcm with her right knee and recommended
strengthening exercises and a rclurn lo lhe office ifpain persisted beyond six wceks. Mr. Geller said
the first floor exercise room is nccessUl)' because of his wifc's knee problem and to avoid her use of
the stairs. He additionally distributcd two simple sketches to illustrate the present and future
utilization of the area, located off the master bedroom.
The Chairman questioned the sketch which indicated an oversize bathroom and large master closet
as part of the new addition; the applicant replied that the drawing may not be according to scale.
The applicant's contractor, Kathy Helmus, 668 Poinsettia Road,' Dclleair, described the proposed
changes to the existing bathroom and closet to accommodate handicap use.
, )
"1
There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application.
'....:)
In the ensuing discussion it was noted the proposed addition infringcs 10ft. into the rear setback
of the applicant, and abuts the 10 it side setback of Mr. Geller's neighbor. Ovcrutilization of the
property and creation of a non~confonl1ity was questioned, as well as the lapse of time between Mrs.
Gcller's doctor visit on June 24, 1994, and her doctor's lctter of support datcd March 8, 1995. A lift
to carry Mrs. Geller to the present upstairs exercise room was suggested as a feasible solution to the
GeHers' problem. Concern \Vas expressed that the proposed addition was not in harmony with the
Land Development Code and would result in overutilization of the property.
Based upon the information furnish cd by thc applicant, Mr. Gans 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, morc specifically because: 1) There arc not
special circumstances relatcd to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions applicable to the land or buildings, or such circumstances arc not peculiar to such land
or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; and
2) the gnmting of the variance will not be in hannony with the general purpose and intent of the land
developmcnt code and comprehensive plan and will be materially injurious to surrounding properties
or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The motion WHS duly seconded and upon the vote
being taken, Mr. Johnson: Mr. Guns, Ms. Whitney, Ms, Murtin voted tlayeH; Chairman Pliska voted
tlnaytl. Motion curried. (4-1)
82. William D. & Mury E. Rcppcr for variances of (1) 13 percent to permit 42 percent of
open space for the lot wherc 55 pcrcent is rcquired; and (2) 10 perccnt to permit 50 percent
open space lor thc front yard where 60 percent is requircd at 3268 San Mateo St, DelOra
Groves, Lots 544-546, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 95-21
u
min DC03n. 95
2
03/09/95
"
When the item was introduced, Mr. Johnson said he would not include himself in the discussion und
vote, and he was excused from the roon.... Mr. Shuford gave the background of the npplication and
presented, in writing, the stall' recommendations. He noted a stalT recommendation for continuance
of this item has been changed because the applicant has submitted a required floor plan. Mr. Shuford
said the house was built in 1959. Much of the requested variance will correct code violations
generated at the time the house was built, and will consist of a 10% open space for the driveway
addition and 120 sq. ft. lot open space. Mr. Shuford mentioned that the recent ordinance prohibiting
front lawn parking may produce more requests of this type.
The applicant, Bill Rcppcr, 3268 San Mateo Street, Clearwater, said the proposed construction
would move the front of the house out, actually using about 80 n. of open spac~ which is now
covered with old shrubbery. Mr. Repper said his father has had two strokes, is handicapped, and
lives with him; the wider driveway will accommodate transportation for the father. The differences
between the existing and proposed front elevation were discussed. Mr. Reppcr said the changes will
improve the exterior ofthis older home and explained this additional bedroom is needed 'because his
wife is moving her political consulting business into the home, assuring the board that any rcquircd
applications Of permits have been obtained.
Speaking for the applicant, Frank Laurich, 156 Darby Court~ Dunedin, the applicant's contractor,
presented simple line drawings and described the second Door addition over the garage, the balcony
off the master bedroom and the stair well.
I"......)
--
.,
In the ensuing discussion, ovcrdevdopment of the land and hamlOny with the surrounding
environment was questioned.
There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application.
A motion was made by Ms. Whitney to grant variance request #1 which would serve to widen the
driveway; there was no second. It was suggested the applicant might be able to add some width to
the present driveway without a variance. Ms. Whitney withdrew her motion.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the request for
variance #2 because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed
in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically becausc: I) There are not
special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions applicable to the land or buildings, or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land
or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; and
2) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land
development code and comprehensive plan and will be muterially injurious to surrounding properties
or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote
being. taken, Chaimmn Plisko, Ms. Martin and Mr, Gans voted lIaye"; Ms. Whitney votcd IInay"; Mr.
Johnson did not vote. Motion curried. (3~ I)
,
.....J
minDC03a.95
3
03/09/95
":'.."' ~ '. ..
."~
Based upon the information furnished by the npplicunt, Ms. Whitney moved to grlmt the variance
as requested because thc applicant has substuntially mct all of the standards for approval as listed
in Section 45.24 oflhc Land Development Code, more specifically, because the variance arises from
a condition unique to the property and was not caused by the owncr or applicant subject to the
following conditions: I) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents
submittcd by the applicant. including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in
support of the applicant's request for a variance. Dcviation from any of the above documents
submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with rcgard 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(s) shall be obtained within six months from the datc of
this public hearing. The motion wus duly secondcd and upon the vote being taken, Chairman
Pliska, Mr. Gans, Ms. Whitney and Ms. Martin voted "aye"; Mr. Johnson did not vote. Motion
curried. (4-0)
The following Land Dcvclopment Use codc nmcndmcnts wcre considercd:
I ..~IJ")
~~~
D 1. (cant from 01/26/95) Ordinance No. 5766-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating
to the Land Development Code; runending Sections 36.033, 36.066, 36.083, 37.21,40.674,
43.03,43.04,43.21 through 43.25, 43.51,45.02,45.21,45.23,45.25,46.03,46.07,46.34,
54.23 and 54.53, Code of Ordinances, to delete the requirement for receipt and referral of
annexations, subdivision plats, site plans, Zoning Atlas amendments and Comprehensive
Land Use Plan amendments; to provide for variance approval by the Planning and Zoning
Board; to require the posting of properties which arc the subject of proposed site plans and
subdivision plats~ to authorize the Development Code Administrator to certify site plans and
subdivision plats; to authorize the City Manager to determine whether to require the
conveyance of land, payment of cash, or a combination thereof to satisfy the recreation land
impact fee and open space impact Ice; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford explained the amendment in considerable dctail and the ensuing discussion noted p 3
item (h) will be clarified; he made special note of p 6, item (3), additional requirements for site
p'ans~ and emphasized p 11, item (3) which requires an accurate site plan, drawn to scale. The
underlined change to the top of p II, sec 45.02 was particularly noted. Staff still recommends a 25~
acre cap as the size limitation for receipt and referral; the board concurred.
The Frenchy's application, now under appeal, was exampled. Mr. Shuford opined that the Planning
and Zoning Board (PZ) may take a broader view in considering variance applications. He said staff
was instructed to streamline the dcvelopment process as much us possible and reduce the amount
of multiple board hearings for onc request.
Concern was expressed that, in the interest of expedience, "counterbalance" may be compromised.
The Chairman noted the "fine line" for special exccptions for alcoholic beverage use, and the
procedural delays involved. There was mention that the present procedure creates a desirable
balance which results in good govcrnment.
v
minDC03a.95
4
03/09195
, I , ~. I' ~'. . ' . I, ' ........ . '
',~",""-,
..~ The Chairman said, in his opinion, the receipt and referral process did not need to go to the City
..,/ Commission; Mr. Shuford acknowlcdged the extremely awkward position in which the City
Commission is placed when a developmcnt meets all City code requirements, but is strongly
opposed by concerned citizens.
Signs were mentioned as a IIspccial herntl commanding expertise in technology and construction
techniques. A separate sign board was suggested, possibly compromised of sign company
representatives, realtors, or the like. There was a brief discussion cstim~lting the amount of time it
currently takes the volunteer board members for paperwork, site visits, etc, and the amount of extra
time the proposed added workload would require.
A motion was made by Ms. Whitney to recommend endorsement to the City Commission, with
the following concerns: I) that the Planning & Zoning Board would hear variances under this
ordinance without solid experiential knowledge ofthe standards for approval; 2) having variances
and conditional use permits heard by separate boards provides "checks and balances"; 3) fees could
be adjusted to eliminate the tinancial"penalty" of having to go to multiple boards; 4) with recent
code changes (elimination of dock regulations, revision of alcoholic beverage regulations, etc.),
variances associated with conditional use permits would be infrequent; 5) if sign variances became
too much of a workload for DCAB, consideration should be given tor a separate board which would
meet once a month to address only sign variance applications. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
('<:'1,\
'\"t'l#
D2. Ordinance No. 5792-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land
Development Code; amending Section 42.26(6)(a), Code of Ordinances, to provide for
fences in waterfront setbacks up to 36 inches in height in single family zoning districts only;
providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford explained the proposed amendment deals with fences and single family residential
waterfront property setback areas. He noted an informal inspection revealed there are many fences
which have been installed without approval and offered a display board with 30 photographs
depicting various types of existing waterfront fences and walls. The Chairman expressed his
opposition to chain link fences and the placement of fences directly on the sea wall; there was
general agreement by the board. It was noted the proposed amendment will limit fence height to 36
inches above the grade of the ground. not the sea wall.
A motion was made by Mr. Gans to recommend endorsement to the City Commission, with the
following concerns: I) that chain link fences will not be permitted; and 2) the fence or fence
supports \vill not be affixed directly on the sea wall. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The following Chairman's items were considered:
, ~
Chaimlan Pliska said a eontlict in schedule will preclude his presentation afthe annual DCAB report
U to the City Commission, which was scheduled for March 16, 1995, and the presentation will be
ll1inDC03u.95
5
03/09/95
. """ II , . ':. ~
." , ."
d
i
~~.rt1"!t.7 ....'.~, :" ,;,.r '-; ., ..... I":" /. . ~ ',.'
\ ~. . , " ~.
-.', rescheduled. He requested the board members consider what they would prefcr for inclusion in the
Chairman's presentation.
The {ollowing Director's items were considered:
Mr. Shuford credited the board for its efforts in the saving of three trees as mentioned in an article
in Builder's Square.
The following are Board ~md Stuff comments:
Mr. Shuford and the board agreed that the City Commission's efforts at sign regulation have proven
extremely effective and have produced very positive results.
To enable the board members to identify sites, the importance of citing the location of major arteries
and/or landmarks on the maps accompanying requests was noted. Mr. Shuford said staff will ask
the applicants to more clearly identify map locations.
There being no further business, by motion duly seconded, the meeting adjourned at 3 :50 p.m.
...-.
()
e:9~f}
Alex Pliska, Chaimlan
!
I
i
. ,
u
minDC03a.95
6
03/09/95
FORM 8B fYlEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MlJf..jICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
""AMI:'. OF 1I0llRO.COUNCIL. C'OMMISSION. IIUHIOIHlY, OR COMMlnH
C
a COl/NTY a en HER 1.0elll. MiEN("\'
NAMI' Of, 1'01.111("111. Sl/IlI>tVISION.
U^TEONWHIr:ZO:O~U:;q r
M\' I'O~1110N IS
o tUTTlVE ~ AI'I'OIt>;TJVr:
WHO MUST FILE FORM 68
This form is for use by nny person serving at the cOUllty, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, outhorit)', or committee. 11 applies equnlly 10 members of advisory ,Illd non-advisory bodies who arc prcscnted
with a voting connict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes,
Your rcsponsibilities under the low whcn faced with a measurc in which you have a connicl of imcrcst will vary greatly depending
on whether )'oU hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, plc:lse pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
~.-""'"
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding ekctive or appointive county, municipal, or other [oc:lI public office MUST ^ UST A I N from vOling on a measure:
which inures to his special private I.win. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingl)' vOling on a measure
which inures to the special gain of a principal (othe( than a government a!lency) by whom he is retained (including the pment
organimtion or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he is rctuined): to the special private gain of a reT:ltive: or to the special
private gain of n business associate. Commissioners of communit)' redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and
officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acrc, onc-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law. a "relative" includes only the officer's falher, mother. son. daughter, husband. wife. father-in-law, mother-in-
law, son-ill-law, and datighter-iri-Iuw. A ~business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a businr.ss
enterprise with the officcr as a partner, joint venturer. coowner of properly, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the
corporation are not listed on ;lny national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from vOling in the situations described above, you must disclose the connict:
PRIOR TO TH E VOTE BEl NG T AK EN by publicly stating to the assembly th~ nalllrc of your inlerest in thc measure on
which you arc abstaining from voting~ and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by complcting and tiling this form with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporatc the form in the minutes.
APllOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described abovc, you otherwise m:l)' participate in these mailers. However.
you must disclose Ihe nature of the connict before making :lny allcmpt 10 innuence the decision, whether orally or in writing and
whether made by you or at your direction. '
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE AI')' ATrEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WLL!:IE TAKEN:
.. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to innucnce the decision) with the person responsible Cor
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
· A copy of Ihe form milS! be provided immedialely to the other members of the agency.
· The form mllsl be re~IJ publicly allhc ncxl meeting ufter the form is filed.
cr: FOH M ~II . 10.'11 ""'I" ,
~~tf..J;"f~'. c'.:
,~;Il~ ~'. .' ' .
IF YOU MAKE NO A1TEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECIsION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You mus't di!>c1ose orally the nature o()'our conflict in tbe mci1surc before p.1rtieipating. ~...;
\...r_ .
. You must complclc lhe form <lnd file il within 15 day!> after the vole occurs with the person responsible for recordin~ the minutc~ or
the mccting. who must incorpol1lle the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediaudy \0 .h... ~., ,
members of the agcncy, and the form must be read publicly al the next meclingufler the form is filed .
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I. ~41{ 0. ~1~/1
i
I
II
.lftE!
. hereby disclose that on
3-q
(a) A measure camc or will come before my ugeney which (check one)
_ inured to my special privatc gain:
_ inured 10 the special gain of my business associnlc.
_ inured to the special gain of my relative,
_ inured to the special gllln of
whom I am rCluined; or
_ inured to the special gain of
is thc parent organi711tion or subsidiary ofa principal .....hich has rctained mc.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my connicling interest in the measure is as follows:
. b~'
. which
tI',4el If Vc c-
'.......--
!\/~ ~blL ~ vi;
~.s ~NSIJL. mNJ
CJ Jf HI ~ ~ I/J tVtR.
?~-rIT7"Nt:R- . I~
A-ls6 h-A-5' A~/$1!2 J1f
I ~ ~ yeA. NJ>I pjjt y :rt;F-
s--
'-'-
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES g1l2.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY HE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHME!':T. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN
SALAR Y. REPRIMAND. OR ^ CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED 55.000.