08/13/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
August 13, 1992
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman (arrived at 1:04)
Thomas J. Graham
Otto Gans
Members Absent:
John W. Homer (excused)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:03 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 6/25/92) Lowell W Paxson (Paxson Broadcasting, Inc) for variances (to allow construction of car ports) of (1) 3.54 acres to per mit construction on a 0.46 acre
lot; (2) 179.5 ft to permit con struction on a lot 120.5 ft in width; (3) 135.6 ft to permit construc tion on a lot 164.4 ft in depth; (4) 41.5 ft to permit construc tion 8.5 ft from
rear property line; (5) 2.1 ft to permit con struction 47.9 ft from south property line; and (6) 20 ft to permit construction 30 ft from north property line at 18401 U.S. 19 N, Sec 20-29-16,
M&B 33.06, zoned CC (commercial cen ter). V 92-33
Planning Manager Shuford stated this application was continued from June 25, 1992, when it was determined the division of this parcel from the shopping center property is not recognized
by the City. Staff suggested the applicant have the parcel subdivided, thereby creating two lots, or obtain the shopping center owner's
signature on the variance application.
Mark Madison, aluminum contractor representing the applicant, stated the applicant purchased the lot from Fortune Federal Bank without the knowledge it was substandard in size and not
recognized as a lot by the City. The applicant's ability to improve the property is seriously restricted as he cannot obtain a permit for external improvements. He can only repair
the structure or make interior improvements. Mr. Madison stated the center owner, Home Shopping Realty, has refused to sign off on the application and will not cooperate with the applicant's
efforts to subdivide. He stated the applicant does not wish to pursue subdivi sion any further.
Discussion ensued regarding the application being improper since it was not signed by the owners.
Mr. Madison withdrew the application and requested the variance application fees be refunded to the applicant as he filed the variance request under staff's direction. Mr. Shuford advised
the applicant to submit a written request and staff will investigate issuing a refund of the filing fees.
Item B - (continued from 7/23/92) Robert H Chapman and Marjorie E Madigan, Trustees, for a variance of 16.5 ft to permit a building addition 8.5 ft from street right-of-way at 712 Eldorado
Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 2, Lot 4 and portion of va cated street, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 92-40
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to attach a covered front porch to an existing two story residential structure which will encroach
into the front setback. He stated the applicant wishes to improve the appearance of the house and add a covered porch entrance using a Florida Cracker/Key West style for aesthetic reasons.
Bob Ray, architect representing the applicant, presented a drawing showing what is proposed for the site. He stated the proposed deck would replace an existing wood fence in the front
of the property and would not extend as far into the setback as the existing garage.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the applicant would object to a condition that the front porch not be enclosed at a later date and used for living space. A question was raised
regarding the need for an open space variance.
Mr. Ray indicated he did not consider the need for an open space variance because the open decking is a permeable surface. It was recommended the request be continued in order to calculate
the required amount of open space and request an additional variance.
Linda Rosenfeld, representing the applicant, requested clarifica tion and open space requirements were explained. It was recommend ed the applicant request a continuance to calculate
whether an open space variance is needed, and if so, request the additional variance in order to consider both variances at the same time.
Mr. Ray requested the application be continued.
Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 10, 1992, to allow sufficient time to readvertise. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearing - To consid er an application for the fol lowing Land Develop ment Code Text Amendment:
1. Ordinance No. 5264-92 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending section 136.004, Code of Ordinances, relating to height limitations, to
eliminate a height bonus provision for properties having required mini mum floor elevations, and to allow parapet walls to extend above maximum height limita tions; amending section
137.005, Code of Ordinanc es, to revise the definition of "height"; pro viding an effective date. (LDCA 92-12)
A question was raised with regard to the definition of the term "average peak and eave heights". Concern was expressed the word "average" could be misconstrued and it was felt the term
"midpoint" should be used.
Discussion ensued regarding the Beach Task Force recommendation to use Key West Style tin roofs. Staff was requested to clarify the rules relating to dormers.
It was felt the proposed ordinance is a positive step toward reducing the number of repetitive variances being requested and allowing homeowners more flexibility in roof designs.
Mr. Graham moved to recommend approval with the following revision being recommen ded: change language in Section 2(a) from "average peak and eave heights" to "mid point of the peak
and eave heights of the main roof struc ture". The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Approval of Minutes of July 23, 1992
Mr. Graham moved to approve the minutes of July 23, 1992, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
Discussion ensued with regard to the sign ordinance and the fact that many businesses have modified and improved their signs.
It was suggested responsibility for following Code should be placed on sign companies; however, this would be difficult to enforce. It was indicated it is the property owner's responsibil ity
to conform to code.
In response to questions, Mr. Shuford indicated an ordinance is being drafted relating to parking vehicles in front yards. The index and language in the new City Code book will be easier
to understand.
Mr. Shuford distributed copies of a new staff report format including a standard condition, recommended by Assistant City Attorney Lance, relating to deviation from any documents submitted
in support of a variance request. It was indicated, for records retention purposes, the condition would have to either be read into the record, or typed verbatim into the motion.
Copies of a booklet clarifying floodplain management were provided for the Board by Mr. Shuford.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 1:58 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk