09/23/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
September 23, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Members absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman (excused)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commis sion Chambers of City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision
of the Development Code Adjust ment 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. Time Extensions
1. William A Day Trustee, for variances of (1) 21.5 ft to permit stairs 2.5 ft from side (south) property line where 24.0 ft is required; and (2) 15.6 ft to permit a building addition
9.4 ft from Clearwater Harbor where 25 ft is required at 473 East Shore Dr, Replat of Clearwater Beach Park First Addn, Blk C, Lots 6 and 7, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 93-22
The applicant requested a time extension for variances granted on April 8, 1993 due to delays in engineering and design.
Mr. Gans moved to grant a six-month time extension to April 8, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (continued from 9/9/93) Jacqueline S Latimer for vari ances of (1) 10 ft to allow an inground pool 15 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 10 ft to
allow an addition 15 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1050 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 68, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) V 93-64
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct an in-ground pool and an addition to the house for associated pool equipment primarily
in the side yard on the north end of this irregularly shaped lot. An application for seven variances was heard in 1991; three variances were granted and four were denied. She noted,
if a fence is required for insurance purposes, only 30 inches in height is allowed off Bay Esplanade Avenue.
Patty Stough, architect representing the applicants, stating a variance was granted September 12, 1991 to allow an addition to be built over an existing garage. The addition was not
built and they are requesting to use that variance to put in the pool and equipment. She said a therapeutic lap pool is needed for Mrs. Latimer's recovery and rehabilitation. She
stated the pool will be totally buffered by a berm, extensive landscaping and a fence which will meet fence requirements. Ms. Stough indicated a hardship exists in meeting the setbacks
for the three street rights-of-way, the configuration of the property and Mrs. Latimer's need for physical therapy.
Ms. Glatthorn stated, for the record, the written staff report was incorrect as it should have stated the request appears to support the standards for approval Therefore, the correct
staff recommendation is for approval.
It was noted a redevelopment plan for Clearwater Beach is being proposed for this zone, reducing the setbacks from street rights-of-way from 25 feet to 15 feet. If it goes into effect,
Case #1 and part of Case #2 would not be necessary.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. It was indicated there was some discussion, at the previous hearing for this property, to put the pool in its presently proposed location.
Concern was expressed with the pool appearing to be in the front yard, although the property is addressed to Bay Esplanade.
Deborah B. Arnold, the adjacent property owner across Bay Esplanade, spoke in support of the application, as long as it is properly landscaped.
Discussion ensued regarding future plans to relocate the driveway and the status of the purchase of the property for the driveway was questioned.
It was indicated the proposal does not impair sight lines, nor impact the neighbors. The low landscaped wall would have the appearance of a sculp ture, more than a fence and there is
an abundance of green space. However, concern was expressed that adding the pool overdevelops the property. It was noted there are no visible pools of this size in the vicinity.
Denial was recommended until such time as the City reduces the setback requirements in this area and the requested improve ments can be made without a variance.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicant has not demon strated she has met all of the standards
for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because the variances is not the minimum; the granting of the variances would be materially detrimental or injurious
to other property in the neighborhood and would violate the general spirit and intent of this development
code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko, voted "nay".
Motion carried.
ITEM B - (continued from 8/26 & 9/9/93) Georgia A. Miller for variances (1) of 5 ft to allow a wooden fence 0 ft from property line where 5 ft is required; (2) of 5 ft to allow 0 landscaping
where 5 ft is required; (3) to the requirement for a gate at intersection of Carlton Street east of Green wood Avenue, Fairmont Sub, Blk G, Lot 9, zoned RM 12 (Multiple Family Resi dential).
V 93-60
Neither the applicant nor a representative were present and a question was raised whether or not she had been contacted by staff.
Ms. Glatthorn stated several attempts were made to contact the applicant to inform her of the need to be present.
Discussion ensued regarding the circumstances involved with this applicant and the State Code of Ethics regarding the Sunshine Law.
Mr. Johnson moved to send a certified letter to the applicant, giving her ten days to respond whether or not she intends to proceed with this application. If she chooses to proceed,
a public hearing will be resched uled. If she withdraws the request, the application fee will be refunded. If she does not respond, the application will be considered to be withdrawn
and the application fee will not be refunded. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
1. Lee E. & Deborah B. Arnold Jr for variances of (1) 0.15 ft to allow a non-conforming structure to be elevated 4.85 ft from a side property line; (2) 7.56 ft to allow a non-conforming
struc ture to be elevated 17.44 ft from a street right-of-way from where property is addressed at 1049 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub, Blk 271, Lots 2 & 3, Part of Water Lot "A", zoned
RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-57
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to elevate an existing single-family residence to a 12-foot base elevation.
Bob Ray, architect representing the applicant, detailed the application, stating the proposal will meet FEMA requirements and will avoid future flooding of the living spaces of the home.
An existing masonry garage will remain at ground level. He responded to questions, stating the transition al space between the house and garage is to remain open and the applicants
have plans for a deck and a pool in the back yard.
The applicant was commended for elevating without increasing the foot print.
Patty Stough, architect representing the adjacent property owner across Bay Esplanade, spoke in support of the application. She raised a question regarding the proposed height of the
structure. It was indicated the proposal will remain within the 30-foot height limit.
Mr. Ray clarified details regarding the proposed entry pavilion elevation.
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 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because, the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the elevation of the house
to eliminate flooding dangers subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submit ted 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 and of no effect 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.
The following Land Development Code amendments will also be considered:
1. Ordinance No. 5460-93 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending sections 44.08 and 44.54, Code of Ordinances, to allow temporary signs
under certain circumstances; provid ing an effective date.
Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Supervisor, gave an overview of economic development issues associated with this item, stating it would allow new businesses to display banners and
balloons during their critical starting up period. Also, a business which is damaged and does not qualify under the storm damage provision, could have a temporary window sign. He stated
the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the amendment with the exception of the balloons.
Discussion ensued and it was indicated balloons are not aesthetically pleasing and have been found to be environmentally harmful to sea life, birds and small animals. However, there
was no objection to having one large balloon.
Mr. Shuford responded to questions regarding the maximum allowable area allow for freestanding and attached banners. Concern was expressed with the 90-day time limit for allowing banners
because they could deteriorate during that length of time. It was felt the City should be allowed to remove damaged or improperly maintained banners.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of the amendment with the following changes: 1) eliminate "20 small balloons" (intent is to permit one large balloon) and 2) banners or temporary
signs shall be properly maintained or subject to removal by the City. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Ordinance No. 5463-93 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending section 42.21, Code of Ordinanc es, to revise the requirements for nonconform ing
uses on barrier islands to encourage compliance with devel opment and building regula tions including flood damage
preven tion regulations; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford explained the purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow rebuilding on Clearwater Beach to the previously existing density as long as the new construction complies with
the Code.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 5463-93 relating to non-conforming densities as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Board and Staff Discussion
Concern was expressed with the proposal to decrease setbacks for pools on Clearwater Beach. Discussion ensued regarding averaging front setbacks for a whole neighborhood block.
The need for strong code enforcement was stressed. Mr. Shuford discussed the recent staff reorganization in the Code Enforcement Department, stating it will be under the direction of
Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice. He questioned how stringently the code should be enforced due to the different communities involved. It was indicated the codes affecting life safety
and health are the most important.
Mr. Shuford was congratulated for his recent promotion to Director of Central Permitting and for achieving certification from the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP).
Concern was expressed with having to make an appointment to speak with planners during certain hours. Mr. Shuford said that if someone needs to get in touch with planners during a time
when they are not taking telephone calls, that individual should let the secretary know so a planner can be available.
Discussion ensued regarding sign variances and whether or not the City Commission will continue to hear them. The excessive height of the new sign at Countryside Mall was questioned
and it was indicated a variance was granted by the City Commission. Mr. Shuford indicated FDOT also agreed to list the mall on a highway directional sign.
Discussion ensued regarding parking in front yards in residential areas. Mr. Shuford stated this issue was taken to the City Commission in 1992 as a discussion item and they decided
not to pursue it.
Staff is to investigate construction and variances granted for the property at Druid and Magnolia.
Concern was expressed that the main design direction of a house should be designated as the front yard, regardless of where the property is ad dressed.
In response to a question regarding having address numbers on buildings, Mr. Shuford stated a notice will be mailed with utility bills to see what kind of response can be generated for
residential properties. He stated the street number is allowed to be put on the curb in residential areas. Howev er, it was felt addresses should be at eye level, especially for commercial
properties.
III. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Chairman