10/10/1991
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
October 10, 1991
Members present:
Thomas J. Graham, Chairman
Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman
John W. Homer
Alex Plisko
Absent: (excused)
Emma C. Whitney
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sandra Glatthorn, Senior Planner
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
Item A - (continued from 9/12/91) 440 West Condominium Assoc, Inc, for variances of (1) 24 ft to permit swimming pool seaward of Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL); and (2) 50
ft 6 in to permit swimming pool construction 6 in seaward of the Gulf of Mexico mean high water line and of 32 ft to permit pool equipment room 18 ft from mean high water line at 450
S Gulfview Blvd, 440 West Condo, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 91-60
Senior Planner Glatthorn stated this application was continued from September 12, 1991 due to a revised application to submit design modifications. The proposed swimming pool will replace
an existing pool due to its poor condition. An enlarged filter building will also be constructed. Ms. Glatthorn stated the Flood Board approved a previous variance, but not for the
revised application.
Ms. Glatthorn distributed copies of a revised site plan to the Board.
Gardner Collins, consulting engineer representing the applicant, stated he spoke with the City Building Director regarding the design modifications. He said the new changes will come
before the Flood Board within a week and will still need approval from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Mr. Collins explained the revised site plan to the Board and in response to questions, he indicated the new dimensions and handrail location are reflected on the revised application.
He said the handrail was moved to a position
directly above the seawall and the new filter tank will not be located beneath the existing building, but will be located outside and will be enclosed.
Mr. Collins requested 12 months to obtain a building permit due to the length of time required for the application to be considered by the DNR and the Flood Board. The cost of the proposed
project is estimated to be over $100,000.
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 applicant
and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the location of the pool and the pool facilities subject to the conditions: 1) the swimming pool shall
be constructed as indicated on the site plan; 2) all necessary permits shall be obtained by the applicant from other applicable State and City review agencies and boards and 3) the requisite
building permit shall be obtained within one (1) year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
Item B - (continued from 9/26/91) Vision Cable of Pinellas, Inc, and Florida Power Corp for variances of (1) 42 in to permit 72 in high fence in setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way
to which property is addressed; and (2) 24 in to permit a 72 in high fence in setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed at 2530 Drew St, Sec 7-29-16,
M&B 44.02 and 41.02, zoned CH (highway commercial) and P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-62
A letter was received on October 10, 1991 from Steve Seibert, attorney representing the applicant, requesting this item be withdrawn as the applicant decided not to pursue the proposed
fence.
Mr. Homer moved to withdraw this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request withdrawn.
Item C - (continued from 9/26/91) Everybody's Tabernacle Inc for variances (1) of 42 in to permit a 72 in high fence in a setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property
is addressed; (2) of 24 in to permit a 72 in high fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed; (3) of 5 ft to permit fence zero ft from a
street right-of-way; and (4) to permit zero landscaping on right-of-way side of fence at 1120 N Betty Ln, Fairburn Add, Blk F, Lots 1 thru 14, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-68
Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a fence surrounding the subject property to replace existing deteriorated wooden and chain
link fences. She stated the City's Traffic Engineering Department expressed concern the proposed location of the fence will pose a traffic hazard by obstructing drivers' views of oncoming
vehicles, especially at intersections.
Discussion ensued regarding the landscaping requirements and it was indicated only tree plantings are required.
Barbara Green, the applicant, stated she spoke with a member of the City's Traffic Engineering Department and agreed to place the columns at a 45 degree angle at the corner of Cedar
and Betty Lane on the south side of the church. Ms. Green indicated the fence is needed to provide security and to deter trespassers such as intoxicated patrons of the alcoholic beverage
establishment nearby who frequently sleep on the church porch and peeping "toms" found around the living quarters. In-house security has not been able to control the
numbers of vandals and trespassers on the grounds at all hours of the night. She stated she has lived in the North Greenwood area for twenty years and the problems are generated by
outsiders, not residents of the area.
Ms. Green submitted a letter from the Clearwater Chief of Police supporting the fence for security reasons, copies of police reports detailing incidents in the vicinity and photographs
of existing fences, the proposed fence and fences in the immediate neighborhood. She indicated the existing wood slat and chain link fence continues to deteriorate and is proposed to
be replaced by a concrete block and wrought iron design which will improve the appearance of the neighborhood. The cost is approximately $10,000.00.
Discussion ensued in regard to the number of driveways and gates being proposed. Ms. Green indicated the large number of gates will allow access to the property by groundskeepers and
numerous delivery trucks and will be padlocked.
Two letters were submitted in support of the application (includes the letter from the Police Chief).
Mark Kulig, construction superintendent for the applicant, stated he was not aware a permit was required to replace the existing fence. A question was raised as to whether or not the
existing fence was legal.
Concern was expressed in regard to a zero setback and no landscaping being provided. There was discussion regarding the landscaping requirement in regard to decorative fences and it
was felt placing landscaping in front of the fence would destroy its style, pose maintenance and security problems and would not effectively grow in the narrow space between the fence
and sidewalk. It was believed providing a landscape barrier behind the fence would be better in this neighborhood.
There was discussion regarding the existing trees on the site presenting a hardship for the applicant.
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 arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant;
particular physical surroundings, shape, 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 and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of existing trees and the existing conditions of the property subject to the conditions: 1) the
fence material shall be of open wrought iron design as proposed by the applicant; 2) the nonconforming sign shall be replaced with a conforming sign to improve traffic safety; 3) the
fence location shall be modified as deemed necessary by the Traffic Engineer to facilitate traffic safety; 4) the tree planting requirement of the perimeter landscaping requirements
of Section 136.023 shall be met on the inside of the fence and the planting requirements for fences under Section 136.016 shall apply on the inside of the fence and 5) the applicant
shall obtain a building permit for the fence construction and pay the triple permit fee penalty within one (1) month of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded
and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Homer voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted.
1. Karl and Christiane Jirkovsky for variances of (1) 95.75 ft to permit construction on a 54.25 ft wide lot; (2) 5 ft to permit pool 5 ft from a side property line; and (3) 1% open
space for the lot to allow 24% open space at 170 Brightwater Dr, Bayside Sub No 2, Lot 40, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 91-69
Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct an in-ground swimming pool for guest recreation on a substandard lot of an existing five-unit
motel building built in the 1960's.
Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, stated in response to questions, the proposed pool will be 26 feet long and he built a similar pool across the street. He said the request
is the minimum as a smaller pool would not adequately serve the guests and may pose a safety hazard. He felt it essential for a motel to have a swimming pool.
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, the particular shape of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant
and the variances a the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size subject to the conditions: 1) the swimming pool 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.
2. Betsy K and Rayford Hixon, Jr, for variances of (1) 2.5 ft to permit construction on a 67.5 ft wide corner lot; (2) 13 ft to permit additions 12 ft from Bay Esplanade Dr right-of-way;
(3) 24 ft to permit garage addition 1 ft from Verbena St right-of-way; and (4) 3 ft to permit addition 2 ft from a (north) side property line at 821 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk
39, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-70
Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to add a two-car garage to an existing house and convert an existing one-car garage to living space. The
additions will be one-story.
Ray Hixon, the applicant, stated he wishes to extend an existing one-car garage to the front of the house for aesthetic reasons and to use it as additional living space. Converting
the existing one-car garage to a two-car would block a doorway and require removal of landscaping.
In response to questions, Mr. Hixon stated he has resided in his present location for approximately seven years, he wishes to enlarge the bathroom and add more storage and living space.
The garage, built 47 years ago, is not large enough to house his station wagon. He stated an addition to the rear of the house was not finished due to his decision to extend the addition
all the way across the back of the house which required additional permits. Mr. Hixon indicated he wishes to expand closet and kitchen space and provide a functional utility room in
the space to the east. He said the proposed construction is within the 50 percent cumulative rule, there is no FEMA involvement and the catamaran parked in the public right-of-way belongs
to him.
Concern was expressed regarding increasing non-conformities for footprints on Clearwater Beach with it being indicated other neighborhood garage additions were built before the change
in the Code with the exception of one addition which does not appear to have been permitted. Mr. Hixon stated he feels he is being penalized and deterred from enhancing his property
in trying to renovate rather than rebuild.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not other options were available which would stay within existing parameters.
Mr. Hixon requested a continuance to explore other options. He indicated a need to proceed with construction as soon as possible due to his ceiling needing repair.
Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of October 24, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued to October 24, 1991.
II. Board and Staff Discussion
Discussion ensued regarding the holiday meeting schedule and consensus was to have one meeting in November and to cancel the meeting scheduled for December 26, 1991.
Staff was requested to check on permits for the addition at 821 Bay Esplanade.
A suggestion was made to announce the public input part of the public hearings "closed" before going to the Board's discussion.
Approval of the minutes indicates the facts contained are correct; however, only the motion made by the Board is binding.
Ms. Glatthorn reported a contract for a 59 space parking lot on Pierce Street
for Police Department employees will be going before the City Commission on October 17, 1991.
The Board discussed the Issue/Response Schedule. Assistant City Attorney Lance said a ticket writing ordinance is underway.
There was discussion regarding the new format for variance applications and there was objection to the applicant having to provide 14 copies of the application and to the $450.00 fee.
III. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of September 12, 1991 and September 26, 1991 in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Approved as submitted.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk