09/24/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
September 24, 1992
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Otto Gans
John W. Homer
John B. Johnson
Members absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman (excused)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk (arrived 1:04 p.m.)
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 8/27/92) Martin R and Paula D Cole for a variance to install a fence within the structural set back area adjoining the water at 726 Harbor Island, Is land Estates
of Clwr, Unit 7C, Lot 78, zoned RS 6 (single fami ly residential). V 92-43
Planning Manager Shuford explained this application was continued to allow time to readvertise the request, as the applicants would prefer to completely fence both sides of their yard
in addition to providing a fence along the seawall.
Paula Cole, owner and applicant, stated she wishes to install a three-foot-high fence to prevent accidental falls from the seawall onto the barnacles and into high water below.
In response to questions Ms. Cole stated she would prefer to keep the fence instead of having it removed after four years, as staff recommends. She stated her family has occupied the
house for eight months and her children are six and nine years old. She said it was an oversight that the fence variance was not included in an earlier application for variances to
renovate the house and add a pool and
screen enclosure. It was indicated staff recommends a minimal fence height of 36 to 42 inches.
Bruce Phillips, representing the applicant, displayed a model of the proposed aluminum picket fencing material, designed not to be visually intrusive and to provide a barrier without
having a stockade appearance.
Discussion ensued with regard to chain-link fencing. It was indicated aluminum was specified on the application.
Martin Cole, owner and applicant, indicated chain-link fencing is not appealing and would detract from the aesthetic appearance of the house. In response to questions, he stated the
fence is intended to protect anyone from inadvertently sliding or falling from the seawall. He said he is willing to remove the fence after four years, if that becomes a condi tion
of granting the variance.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. A question was raised whether or not the applicant would consider reducing the fence height to 30 inches. Ms. Cole expressed a preference
for the 36-inch height. She stated the demographics of the neighborhood are changing and felt the code should be modified to make safety a top priority due to the increasing number
of children living in Island Estates.
Discussion ensued regarding installing fencing less than ten feet of the seawall in order to have greater use of the back yard. It was felt, while protect ing the children is important,
the purpose of the code is to preserve the open space and view of the water.
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 more specifically because, the variance is the minimum necessary to provide safety and protection for the children and to
overcome the hardship created by the waterfront hazard subject to the conditions: 1) the vari ance is based on the appli cation for a variance and docu ments submitted by the appli cant,
including maps, plans, surveys and other documents sub mitted in support of the applic ant's re quest for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support
of the re quest for a variance re garding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physi cal structure located on the site, will result in this vari ance being null and of
no effect; 2) the fence shall be a three-foot-high aluminum picket fence con structed in accordance to stan dards regarding spacing be tween pickets and 3) the req ui site fence permit
shall be ob tained with in six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Homer, Plisko, and Johnson voted
"aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted.
Item B - (continued from 8/27/92) David J Gangelhoff
(Gulf Marine of Clwr, FL) to permit variances (1) to permit an un paved vehicle (boat) stor age area; and (2) of 2 ft to permit a fence 6 ft in height at 405 N Ft Harrison Ave, Sec 9-29-15,
M&B 44.02; Fort Har rison Sub, Lot 1; Hart's 2nd Add to Clwr, Blk 3, Lots 5 thru 10, part of Lot 3, and part of va cat ed al ley; and Jones' Sub of Nicholson's Add, Blk 3, Lots 6 thru
10, zoned CG (general com mercial). V 92-44
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application is to be continued to allow time to advertise an additional variance. Mr. Homer moved to continue this request to the meet ing of
October 22, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unani mous ly.
1. Claude Eugene and Myra Sue Stinson for a variance of 7.17 ft to permit construction of a stor age shed 2.83 ft from a rear pro perty line at 1387 Lemon St, Brookhill Unit 8, Blk
V, Lot 5, zoned RS 8 (single family resi dential). V 92-46
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to retain a 14 foot by 10 foot storage shed, construction for which was done without a permit.
The wooden shed is built on concrete blocks and encroaches into the rear setback and into a drainage and utility easement. The request was felt to be a self-imposed hardship and it
was suggested the applicant consider relocating the shed to a more suitable area on the subject property.
Claude Stinson, owner and applicant, stated he needs additional storage space for books and personal records and was told by a contractor that as long as a storage shed is temporary
and can be moved, there are no restric tions. Mr. Stinson submitted photo graphs of the shed, explaining it will be stuccoed to match the existing house and hurricane ties and anchors
are to be installed. He stated it would be difficult to relocate the shed as trees and shrubbery would have to be removed and the shed would interfere with existing landscaping and
a screen porch on the property. He said he did not intentionally violate the code and has worked hard to clear away debris and improve the property to make it as beautiful as possible.
Mr. Stinson indicated his neighbors have expressed no objection to the shed and praised his efforts to enhance his property.
In response to questions, Mr. Stinson indicated both he and the contractor have worked to build the shed and an existing aluminum shed on the property is deteriorated and will be removed.
Discussion ensued regarding other structures on the property.
Concerns were expressed the wooden shed is too massive to be moved and the back yard is overbuilt.
A representative of the First Lutheran Church spoke in opposition to the application, stating the pastor residing in the parsonage behind the subject property objects to the view of
looking directly onto the shed roof.
Two letters were submitted in opposition to the application, expressing concern the shed is unsightly, too close to the property line and within the utility easement.
Mr. Stinson explained the shed will not remain unfinished, but will be properly shingled and beautifully finished to match the house. He indicated the shed has a low-profile roof and
cannot be clearly seen from adjacent properties.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for
approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unneces sary hardship was shown; the variance
is not the minimum; the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to the other property in the neighborhood; the granting of the variance would detract from the appearance
of the community, endanger the public safety through the creation of a fire hazard, adversely affect the public health of the community and violate the general spirit and intent of this
develop ment code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Homer voted
"nay". Motion carried. Request denied.
2. Rondenan Realty, Inc (Impe rial Gardens Apts) for variances of (1) 56 in to permit a wall 86 inches in height; and (2) 3.5 ft to permit a wall 1.5 ft from prop erty line at 2100
Nursery Rd, Sec 24-29-15, M&B 41.01, zoned RM 20 (multiple family residen tial). V 92-48
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant is requesting the variances to permit the reconstruc tion and renovation of the entrance/signature
walls for the apartment complex. The walls will only form an entryway and will not extend the length of the property. He stated the height variance is necessary to provide an opening
for pedestrian access and for aesthetics.
Lamarr Bunn, landscape architect representing the applicant, indicated extensive landscaping is being installed. He presented photographs of the project, saying the renovation will
aesthetical ly bring the entryway into a 90's theme. He stated an archway will be added and a sidewalk extended to Nursery Road for pedestrian traffic.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal being a slight modifica tion of what is currently existing. In response to a question, Mr. Bunn stated the planter wall outside the wrought
iron fence is 24 inches high.
Discussion ensued regarding the existing signage on the subject property and Mr. Bunn indicated discussions are underway with the City as to what is allowed.
Concern was expressed the six-foot height of the arch will not allow safe passage by pedestrians. Discussion ensued regarding whether the proposed arch is necessary or whether it can
be eliminated.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the landscaping represent ed in the photographs is adequate. Mr. Bunn indicated additional palms and shrubs will be added and it was understood
the owner/applicant will maintain the landscaping.
One citizen residing on Anita Drive requested clarification with regard to the location of the proposed improvements. It was indicated this project deals only with the sections of wall
along Nursery Road.
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 subject to the conditions: 1) the vari ance is based on the application for a variance and documents sub mitted by the applicant,
includ ing maps, plans, surveys and oth er documents submitted in support of the applicant's re quest for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support
of the re quest for a var iance 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; 2) the landscaping between the fence and the Nursery Road right-of-way shall be pro vided in accordance with §136.016 and §136.023; 3) the archway be tween the columns along
Nursery Road shall be eliminated; 4) sim ilar column tops as used for the oth er columns shall be allowed in replacement of the arches and 5) the requisite building permit shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date of this pub lic hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
3. Louis J and Mary R D'Amico for variances of (1) 90 ft to permit minimum lot width of 60 ft; (2) 3.30 ft to permit a sec ond story building addition 8.70 ft from side property line;
and (3) 5 ft to permit an inground pool 5 ft from side property line at 410 Hamden Dr, Columbia Sub No 4, Lot 10, Zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 92-49
In a letter dated September 24, 1992, the applicant requested a continuance due to the applicant's representative being unable to attend.
Mr. Homer moved to continue this request to the meeting of October 8, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimous ly.
4. City of Clearwater (Island Estates Marina Station expan sion) to permit a variance of 26.6 ft to permit zero ft of clear space at 205 Windward Pas sage, Island Estates of Clwr Unit
5, Blk D, Lot 7, zoned CG (general commer cial) and AL/C (aquatic lands/costal). V 92-50
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the request relates to a proposed City-owned and operated public marina station parking facility.
Harbormaster Bill Held indicated the City wishes to expand an existing marina by constructing 76 wet slips on City-owned bottom land. The facility will be unstaffed, for private use
only, with no liveaboard tenants. He stated there will be a sewage pump-out station, but no fuel dock and the marina will not require dredging. No docking will be allowed on the east
side due to the shallow water and a four-foot-wide walkway is proposed from the marina to the parking lot. He said 38 parking spaces, which includes 2 handicapped spaces, will be provided
and will be available by parking permit only as no meters will be provided. The pie-shaped lot at the end of a cul-de-sac will be landscaped and have water reten tion, according to
code. No buildings or other structures will be placed on the site. He felt the parking lot will not be heavily used except during nights and weekends and does not envision the two
handicapped spaces will be used very often.
In response to a question, Mr. Held indicated an adjacent metered parking lot is available for use by visitors to the surround ing facilities.
Concern was expressed with regard to granting a variance to the clear space requirement. Discussion ensued regarding whether a request for a parking variance would be viewed differently
by the Board than the request for a clear space variance. Discussion ensued regarding other parking areas in the vicinity being used for overflow parking for the marina.
Discussion ensued regarding the desire to expand the marina station facilities. Mr. Held stated obtaining the required approval for an operation of this type is a lengthy process and,
if approved, requested 12 months be allowed for obtaining the requisite permits. He indicated other locations were considered, but cannot be developed due to environmental concerns.
He indicated there is a waiting list for marina boat slips with priority given to resi dents.
Discussion ensued regarding meeting interior landscaping, parking and clear space requirements for the project. Mr. Held requested a continuance to allow time to review the application.
Staff was requested to have a representative of the City's Traffic Engineer ing department present to explain the parking proposal.
Mr. Homer moved to continue this request to the meeting of October 22, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unani mously.
5. Maurice F Jr, Eleanor I, and Ralph I Dunne for a variance to allow two catwalk extensions and a cradle boat lift on a non con forming dock at 173 Harborage Court, Marina Del Rey
at Sand Key Unit B, Lot 37, zoned RM 16 (mul tiple family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coast al). V 92-51
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to extend two catwalks and replace a cradle boat lift on an existing privately owned dock.
He noted in 1980 the City Commission approved a blanket variance for three-foot dock widths and 38-foot dock lengths at Marina Del Rey (excluding lots 1 through 9). Cradle lifts were
added to this variance in 1989.
Ralph Dunne, applicant, stated he is one of the new owners of the property, which has required extensive renovations. He wishes to repair the dock to usable condition and reuse the
cradle lift from his previous residence.
Steve Brunner, contractor representing the applicant, stated the subject property is on the east end of the finger on open water. The owner is proposing to remove seven of the eastern
tie poles and extend the catwalks to be able to pull the boat straight in for easier and safer boarding.
In response to a question, Mr. Dunne stated he wishes to move one walkway ten inches in order to accommodate his cradle lift and leave a walkway at the rear of the boarding platform
to safely walk around the boat. He indicated he is trying to use what is existing with as little additional construc tion as possible.
Concern was expressed this is not a minimal request. However, it was stated the applicant is only asking to extend the dock ten feet when, under the blanket variance, the dock could
extend all the way to the property line. It was felt this relatively small addition would not significantly impact the view, given the large waterfront exposure of the adjacent property.
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 more specifically because, the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topograph
ical 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 due to a blanket
variance for much smaller lots granted by the City Commission in 1980, subject to the conditions: 1) the vari ance is based on the application for a variance and documents sub mitted
by the appli cant, includ ing maps, plans, surveys and oth er documents submitted in support of the applicant's re quest for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted
in support of the re quest for a var iance 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; 2) the applicant shall remove the easternmost pilings and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
Staff was requested to investigate if parking and retention require ments are being met for the second floor addition at the Sea Star Resort Hotel.
Concern was expressed with the lack of consistency in interpreting the FEMA 50 percent rule; determining what represents 50 percent of the property's value was discussed.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford explained the Planning and Development Department and Building Division organization, duties and responsi bilities.
Discussion ensued regarding the need for a code amendment allowing 36-inch fences of "open material" in rear yards along water fronts.
Discussion ensued with regard to standard condition #1 which deals with documents submitted at the time of application for a variance and whether it should be included in the motion
or made part of the application.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk