09/12/1991 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
September 12, 1991
Members present:
Thomas J. Graham, Chairman
Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman
John W. Homer
Alex Plisko
Emma C. Whitney
Also present:
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. Public Hearings
1. Jacqueline S Latimer for variances (1) of 38 ft lot depth to permit construction on a lot 72 ft deep; (2) of 9 ft to permit second floor additions 16 ft and 23 ft from street rights-of-way;
(3) of 4 ft to permit addition 6 ft from a rear property line; (4) of 6 ft 8 in to permit second floor addition height of 31 ft 8 in; (5) of 20 ft to permit swimming pool 5 ft from a
street right-of-way; (6) of 3 ft to permit 4 ft high wall to be located zero ft from street right-of-way; and (7) to permit zero landscaping on right-of-way side of wall at 1050 Bay
Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 68, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (residential single family). V 91-58
Planning Manager Scott Shuford explained the application in detail stating this is an irregularly shaped lot.
Patricia Stough, architect representing the applicant, stated the applicant purchased this property to utilize as a retirement home and still have sufficient space to accommodate visiting
family. The existing structure was originally built in 1957 prior to FEMA and current zoning requirements. The applicant wishes to modify the existing house to include new windows,
tile floors, wood cabinets and upscale appliances. The property is located in a flood zone and the final plan was costed out to exceed the 50 percent rule. The applicant desires to
utilize the existing block walls, abandon the first floor and do the improvements on the second level. She discussed the difficulty in determining the front and side property lines
due to the property being a triple frontage lot. She said the applicant's needs and whether building over the existing foundations would be more economical or raising up the entire
building were considered before generating the proposed footprint. Ms. Stough stated Ms. Latimer has severe back problems and is undergoing a stringent program of physical therapy,
thus the need for the lap pool. However, the irregular shape of the lot and street frontages reduce the usable area of the site. She discussed the variance requests indicating in April
of 1957 the City Commission granted a variance for the front yard setback to be
reduced to 15 feet. She said the garage is 16 feet back from the property line and there are no plans to add a second story to this structure. Photographs of the existing house were
submitted at this time. There is an existing 8-foot concrete block wall and patio area at the back. The applicant wishes 10-foot high ceilings within the living area and an 8-foot
high ceiling in the loft area. A height bonus is allowed for being located in a flood zone and she indicated the side yard setbacks meet code. The applicant has agreed to eliminate
the existing patio and rear sidewalk which will increase onsite open space. The owners would like to erect a wall for privacy around the pool which will be within approximately one
foot of the property line and intend to provide landscaping to the sidewalk. The height variance would apply to only one third of the building.
In response to a question, it was indicated the ground floor would be used for stair access, storage and a garage and the proposed first floor living area will have 10 foot ceilings.
It was pointed out code requires that landscaping be provided 3 feet from the property line not from the sidewalk.
One area resident, representing three of the neighbors, spoke in opposition stating the hardship is self imposed and expressed concern that the proposed structure was not in keeping
with the character of Clearwater Beach. He found the proposed height of the structure to be overpowering and opposed a house of this magnitude.
There was discussion regarding the need to recognize that the beach is undergoing a change as many of the homes are being renovated, the uses are becoming more intense while more attractive
at the same time, and it was indicated the shape of the lot hinders renovation of the subject property.
A licensed contractor and building inspector, representing the neighbor directly to the south of the subject property, spoke in opposition to the application stating the hardship is
self imposed. He said he is familiar with the lot sizes in the area. He expressed concern to the proposed height and felt seven variances were excessive. He submitted photographs
of the Latimers' house depicting its relationship to the neighbor's house to the south. He said there are very few two story houses in the immediate area. He said FEMA regulations
have presented problems regarding renovations in the City of Clearwater.
It was pointed out that it is becoming necessary to elevate structures to conform with FEMA requirements.
The contractor felt the City of Clearwater was more stringent than other cities in the county in the interpretation of the FEMA rules. He said there would be no objection if the applicant
built on the footprint of the existing structure. He expressed concern due to the closeness of the buildings, the wall along the property line obstructing the view, the peak height
of the roof, the resale values of other area properties being affected, possible noise problems due to the pool being too close, the possibility of screening the pool in the future and
water problems due to the nearness of the wall to the neighbor's roof overhang. He felt this was overbuilding the site.
Ms. Stough said there are existing two-story homes in the area, the applicant will stipulate the pool will not be enclosed, the lot is larger than most in the area, gutters will be installed
on the roof, landscaping will be provided to keep in character with houses along Eldorado.
In response to questions, Ms. Stough indicated the applicant is proposing a 3,030 square foot structure which includes 500 feet of open porch area and following the existing footprint
would not allow for the loft area. She felt the pool would not be objectionable.
Discussion ensued regarding a proposed ordinance being considered by staff which will increase the allowable height of a structure to 30 feet from flood plain.
Concern was expressed in regard to the proposed addition being too close to the house next door blocking the flow of air and light, that locating the pool in what would be a normal front
yard setback being a detriment to the neighbors and devaluing their property. Again, it was felt this site was being overbuilt.
There was discussion regarding it not being uncommon for new construction and/or renovation on Clearwater Beach requiring at least one or more variances.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant variances #1, #2 and #4 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 variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused
by the applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot configuration subject to the conditions: 1) the elevation of the structure shall
meet the original submission by the applicant as part of the original application packet; 2) any water problems caused by the addition shall be controlled on the applicant's site and
3) the requisite (building, fence) permit shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to deny variance #3 as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated all of the standards for approval
have been met 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 hardship
was caused by the applicant; the variance is not the minimum; the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental and impair an adequate supply of light and ventilation to the
property owner to the south; substantially detract from the appearance of the community and violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005
and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and
upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko and Gans and voted "aye"; Messrs Homer and Graham voted "nay". Motion carried. Request denied.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to deny variances # 5, #6, and #7 as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated all of the standards
for approval have been met 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 variances are not the minimum; the granting of the variances 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 and carried unanimously. Request denied.
2. Earl M and Elizabeth L Hoaglin for variance of 6 ft to permit dock to be positioned 14 ft from a side (extended) property line at 30 Midway Island, Island Estates of Clwr Unit 3,
Lot 10, zoned RS 8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 91-59
The Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the existing dock is in a state of disrepair and may require total replacement.
Robert Ress, Ress Marine representing the applicant, stated it is not necessary to totally replace the dock but substantial repairs are needed, some pilings will be removed and only
a small percentage of the deck needs replacement. He indicated this is the minimum variance necessary to adequately moor two vessels and the adjacent property owners' signatures have
been obtained on the county dock application. Photographs of the existing dock were presented for the record.
In response to a question, Mr. Ress indicated the cradle lift on the north side will accommodate a 26-foot boat, a 46-foot boat will be moored on the opposite side of the dock and reversing
the positions would inhibit access to the neighbor's dock.
Mr. Ress indicated a great deal of expense and effort were required to repair the dock previously.
Mr. Shuford viewed the photographs submitted and stated there did not appear to be extensive deterioration of the dock as had been previously indicated.
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 subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
3. 440 West Condominium Assoc, Inc, for variances of (1) 15 ft to permit swimming pool seaward of Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL); and (2) 40 ft to permit swimming pool 10
ft from Gulf of Mexico mean high tide at 450 S Gulfview Blvd, 440 West Condo, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 91-60
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to expand and remodel an existing swimming pool seaward of the Coastal Construction Control
Line (CCCL).
Gardner Collins, consulting engineer representing the applicant, presented photographs of the subject pool stating a 2-lap lane, 25 yard pool with a play area is desired. He indicated
the flood board approved reconstruction closer to the seawall based on the location of the tiebacks.
Concern was expressed regarding the amount of storm surge with seawall ties. Mr. Collins requested this item be continued to address this concern and indicated the flood board had approved
tie backs within 18 feet seaward of the CCCL.
Mr. Homer moved to continue the request to the meeting of October 10, 1991 to allow sufficient time for staff to review the application and readvertise, if necessary. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued to October 10, 1991.
4. Patricia A Jones (Bishop) for variances of (1) 8.41 ft to permit screen room 16.59 ft from a street right-of-way; (2) 758 sq ft to permit construction on an 8242 sq ft lot; (3)
4.1 ft to permit construction on a lot 105.9 ft wide; and (4) 20 ft to permit construction on a lot 80 ft deep at 1401 Flagler Dr, Highland Pines 6th Add, Blk 39, Lot 5, zoned RM 8 (multiple
family residential). V 91-61
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to rebuild a screen enclosure destroyed by a storm on an existing slab. He indicated the substandard lot is non-conforming. A doorway on the east side will provide
access to the screen room.
Michael Myrick, representing the applicant, stated the request is the minimum to allow for a functional room, it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and the substandard corner
lot restricts reasonable use of the property.
In response to questions, Mr. Myrick indicated the house is a duplex, there is no screen enclosure on the other side of the unit, the existing slab is not new and the recreational vehicle
parked nearby belongs to an adjacent property owner.
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 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner
or applicant because a storm demolished the previous screen room and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size subject to the conditions:
1) the proposed screen room shall be constructed as per the submitted site plan and 2) 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 granted.
5. 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, Sec 7-29-16, M&B 44.02 and
41.02, zoned CH (highway commercial) and P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-62
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 26, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
6. John A.S. Fornara, Carmen F MacDonald, Margaret F Bartholomew, and Delores F Borkenhagen, as Trustees, for variances of (1) 6 ft to permit dock length of 36 ft; and (2) 2 ft to
allow dock to be positioned 18 ft from a side (extended) property line at 859 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 40, Lot 5, zoned RS 8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal).
V 91-63
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to replace a privately owned recreational dock in the same location as an existing dilapidated
concrete dock. He said the City's Harbormaster sees no navigational hazards. Concerns had been expressed by some of the neighbors regarding police calls and Mr. Shuford submitted a
police report showing no charges had been filed.
Richard Newman, representing the applicant, stated the existing dock is a hazard due to deteriorating concrete in the dock and supporting columns and the owners wish to rebuild it.
In response to a question, Mr. Newman indicated extra dock length is necessary to launch his boat at mean low water.
Two letters in opposition were submitted for the record.
Discussion ensued regarding there being sufficient water depth at this location
since larger boats are frequently moored in the area and the existing dock not being deteriorated to the point of requiring complete demolition.
In response to questions, Mr. Newman indicated not all pilings are being replaced, there is no plan to increase the dock size, only to repair what is already there, the property is in
trust and is presently being rented.
It was restated, for the record, the owner wishes to merely replace the existing facilities with no additional size and no extensions.
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(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the change in the
Code from what was allowed to be built as the original dock and what the current code requires subject to the following conditions: 1) the requested dock and appurtenances shall be
for the exclusive use of the property owners; 2) liveaboards shall be restricted from subject dock use; 3) the variances are for replacement of the existing dock only, not for addition
in length or width and 4) 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 granted.
7. Robert W and Loretta M Leclerc for variances of (1) 18.4% front yard open space to allow 31.6%; (2) 18 ft to permit 2 ft building separation; and (3) 16 ft to permit construction
on a lot 134 ft wide at setback line at 181 Brightwater Dr, Bayside Sub No 2, Lots 20 and 21, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 91-64
Mr. Graham declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case at which time Vice-Chairman Gans took over chairing the meeting for this case.
Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail stating the variances are to allow the new construction of a motel/hotel building to combine with an existing five-unit motel.
Robert Resch III, architect representing the applicant, referring to the site plan explained the application stating this is the most reasonable location for the new construction due
to the previous building patterns and lot width. A Unity of Title combining the two properties is proposed to be recorded. He indicated the owner is proposing to provide a sidewalk
and a 24-foot wide driveway. He said there is adequate parking for six units.
Discussion ensued regarding the dumpster area and it was indicated the owners are interested in providing a less visible screening. It was noted any screening over 30 inches in height
would require a variance. It was felt a roll-out dumpster could be an option if approved by the City Sanitation Department.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko 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(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically because the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot configuration
and the location of the existing building and pool subject to the conditions: 1) prior to issuance of a building permit, a Unity of Title shall be recorded by the
applicant; 2) a landscape plan in compliance with the Land Development Code requirement shall be submitted for approval by the Environmental Management Group prior to the issuance of
a building permit and 3) 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, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Plisko and Gans voted "aye"; Mr. Graham abstained. Motion carried. Request granted.
II. "Rules of Procedure and Policies" - (continued from 8/22/91)
The Board reviewed this item and it was recommended on page 2, fourth paragraph, the words "either," "certified," and "or a scaled drawing" be deleted; on page 4, paragraph two "a $25
fee" be changed to "an applicable fee."
Mr. Homer moved to approve the "Rules of Procedure and Policies" of the Development Code Adjustment Board as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Approved
as amended.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
The Board discussed the "Issue/Response Schedule" dated August 26, 1991. Staff was requested to investigate public parking in rights-of-way, parking spaces being rented for profit
on the weekends at the Pelican Restaurant and the BP Gas Station change in use without reconfiguring parking requirements.
Concern was expressed regarding locations of dumpsters in Clearwater and the negative visual impact these create. Staff was requested to prepare a memo to be sent to the City's Sanitation
Department with a copy to the City Commission expressing the Board's concern. Mr. Shuford indicated a code revision is forthcoming in this regard.
There was also concern expressed regarding roof heights and use of roof area. It was felt the code was not clear in this regard. A recommendation was made by staff that site plans
accompany building plans.
Staff was requested to address dock lengths and it was indicated an ordinance is being proposed.
Concerns were expressed regarding boats and RVs being parked in front yards on Clearwater Beach.
IV. Approval of Minutes for the Meetings of July 25, 1991, and August 8, 1991 - this item had been continued from 8/22/91 as the Board did not review.
Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of July 25, 1991, and August 8, 1991 in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and upon
the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Gans and Graham voted "aye"; Messrs. Homer and Plisko abstained. Motion carried. Approved as submitted.
Messrs. Homer and Plisko abstained from voting as they had not read the minutes.
V. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk