07/14/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 14, 1994
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chair
Otto Gans
Joyce E. Martin
Absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair (excused)
John B. Johnson (excused)
Also present:
Scott Shuford, Director, Central Permitting Department
John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department
Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk
Patricia Sullivan, Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. Ms. Martin lead the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation. Mr. Plisko outlined procedures
and advised 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.
Item A - (cont. from 6/23/94) Alan H. Tralins for a variance of 5 ft to permit construction of home 20 ft from a street right-of-way (Eldorado Ave) at 1010 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub,
Blk 69, Lots 8 & 9, land fronting the gulf and riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-33
Senior Planner John Richter stated this item was continued from June 23, 1994. In his July 5, 1994 letter, the applicant indicated his choice of a new representative and requested this
item be continued to August 1994, for his representative to review the request. Staff recommended continuing the item.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item until August 11, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
1. Rory L. & Teresa A. Westlund for variances of (1) 2 ft to permit a fence of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback from a street right-of-way (Summerlin
Dr) where the property is not addressed from; (2) 15 ft to permit a storage shed 10 ft from a street right-of-way (Summerlin Dr) where 25 ft is required at 2453 Glennann Dr, Morningside
Estates Unit 6B, Lot 516, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 94-36
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants request approval of a two foot height variance to erect a six foot high fence and a 15 foot setback
variance to construct a shed by their single family residence in the Morningside subdivision in the side yard that adjoins a street right-of-way (Summerlin Drive) where the property
is not addressed. The shed will be used for storing lawn and swimming pool equipment.
A permit was granted in January 1994, to construct a four foot high fence that maintained a three foot setback from the Summerlin Drive property line. The applicants have indicated
they wish to increase the fence's height for privacy and safety and propose to landscape the buffer outside the fence.
Staff feels a six foot high fence would be in character with adjoining fenced properties along Summerlin Drive and the proposed buffer landscape along the right-of-way will soften the
public's view of the fence. The variance requested is minimal to allow the applicants reasonable use of this land.
Staff feels the variance for the shed is not minimal and the applicants have not provided evidence to indicate they are experiencing hardships with the construction of the proposed shed.
To minimize the variance request, the shed could be located closer to the pool on the east or on the property's southwest side. The need for the variance arises from the action of
the applicants.
Rory Westlund, the applicant, stated he sought a permit to erect a six foot fence for the privacy and safety of his three children after his family moved into their house in January
1994. He indicated he was unable to apply for a variance at that time and accepted a permit to construct a four foot fence. After further consideration, he felt his family's need for
safety warranted a six foot fence height. He said he included a request to build a shed within the setback area in his application for convenience.
In answer to a question, Mr. Westlund indicated his family's need for a secured playground would not be met by a four foot high fence. He noted deed restrictions require utilities to
be hidden from the road. It was suggested a four foot fence would be inadequate to shield the view of the subject property's heat pump from Summerlin Drive. Mr. Westlund stated he
wants his property to be aesthetically pleasing and will plant shrubs between the fence and sidewalk.
Two letters in opposition were read into the record. One letter objected to the installation of a six foot fence and both letters expressed opposition to building a storage shed and
pointed out sheds
were not permitted by Morningside/Meadows deed restrictions.
Concerns were expressed that permitting the construction of a shed would change the neighborhood. Mr. Westlund stated he was not aware that sheds were forbidden by deed restrictions.
In answer to a question, Mr. Westlund indicated he is trying to sell the 20 foot boat he has parked next to his house. It was recommended he contact Mr. Richter regarding applicable
neighborhood deed restrictions.
Discussion ensued regarding the more restrictive fencing regulations that face owners of corner lots. It was noted no variance would be needed to erect a six foot fence on the property
line if the property were not on a corner.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance number one for a fence 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 variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was
not caused by the owner and is needed to bring the property into conformity with existing deed restrictions together with the safety of the children and the variance is the minimum necessary
to overcome the hardship created by the family size and the limitation of the ground due to its location on the corner which does not allow for any protected play area, subject to the
following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted 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; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within
six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the fence shall be landscaped on the outside along Summerlin Drive right-of-way in accordance with the perimeter landscaping requirements
of Section 42.27. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny variance number two for a shed as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated they have met all
of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown; the granting of the variance would be injurious to other
properties in the neighborhood; and the granting of the variance would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05 (general).
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Eric & Mary A. Hagbartsen for a variance of 3.3 ft to permit a pool enclosure 6.7 ft from a side property line where 10 ft is required at 3255 San Pedro St, Del Oro Groves, Lots
326, 327 and 328, zoned RS 4 (single family residential). V 94-38
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants request approval of a 3.3 foot variance from the west side property line to replace a deteriorating
screen pool enclosure. The subject property in a less concentrated zoning district was developed with a single family residence in 1957. The enclosure connects the garage with the
house. No enlargement or location change to the original enclosure is proposed.
Staff feels this replacement will enhance the aesthetics of the area. The variance requested is minimal and should have no adverse impact on adjoining properties. Without the variance,
the deck would be outside the enclosure and egress to the pool would be effected. Dense landscaping along the west property line screens the enclosure from the property to the west.
Eric Hagbartsen, applicant, stated he wants to replace the existing screen enclosure which has deteriorated with a new structure of the same dimensions. In answer to a question, Mr.
Richter noted a variance would not have been required had only the screening been replaced.
In answer to a question, Mr. Hagbartsen indicated he recently had a new roof installed and is currently replacing gutters and aluminum. In answer to a question, he stated it would be
a hardship to remove the waterfall next to the swimming pool. It was noted that a neighbor's concern was based on a misunderstanding that the application was requesting an additional
three feet.
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 variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property existing because of the demolition
of the existing enclosure and the need for replacement thereof and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by an existing built-in waterfall and pool deck,
subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the replacement enclosure shall be in the same location as the one removed i.e. directly connected to/or adjacent to
the existing pool; 2) the existing landscaping shall not be removed; 3) the application for a variance and documents submitted 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 4) the requisite building permit(s)
shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Ronald C. Berger, Jr for variances of (1) 7 ft to permit a setback of 18 ft from a street right-of-way (Old Coachman Road) where 25 ft is required; (2) 0.5 ft to permit a setback
of 6.5 ft from a side property line where 7 ft is required to allow an inground swimming pool at 1845 Albright Dr, College Park, Lot 27, zoned RS 6 (single family residential). V 94-39
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants request approval of a rear and side yard variance to construct a modestly sized, inground swimming
pool at the subject property, a single family residence on a double frontage lot with a rear property line along Old Coachman Road. The proposed swimming pool will be angled to lessen
the variance requirements and enclosed by the existing 6 foot wood fence with a landscape buffer along Old Coachman Road.
The applicants expressed concerns about the safety of their two young children and do not wish to build the pool too close to their house. They have indicated their backyard is large
but they were constrained from building the size pool they desired due to the rear setback requirements. The applicants stated they require a reasonable amount of space to walk from
the house to the backyard and feel it would be difficult to construct the pool without benefit of a variance.
Staff feels hardship is due to the rear property line's location along Old Coachman Road. Upon site visit, staff observed swimming pools by existing structures on this side of Old Coachman
Road have varying rear property line setbacks. Some encroach further than this request. The variances requested are minimal. The proposed swimming pool is intended to follow the pattern
of existing development along Old Coachman Road, and will be consistent with other structures in the area.
Joe Hollowell of Skinee Dip Pools, representative for the applicant, stated the average pool is 400 square feet and this one will only be 282 square feet. He indicated pools behind
neighboring homes were built deeper into the setback. The applicant is not requesting a screen enclosure. The six foot fence will block view of the pool from Old Coachman Road.
In reply to a question, Mr. Hollowell indicated it would be difficult to move the pool due to the applicants' need to walk around it. He explained much of the backyard is not usable
due to its slope. He stated before a screen enclosure could be built, new decking would need to be poured.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter noted setbacks from Old Coachman Road for pools are not uniform. He stated there was nothing wrong with a lack of uniformity as long as they are
built in accordance with code.
Concern was expressed regarding the seven foot setback request. It was explained when developers build homes with roads running in front and behind them, rear yards are often affected
by unusually large easements, like the one associated with Old Coachman Road. It was not felt this variance would be noticed. It was suggested that few alternatives exist due to the
pool's small size and the efforts to design the pool to limit the length of span requiring a variance.
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 variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the owner
or applicant, the particular physical surroundings of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in n unnecessary hardship
upon the applicant, the variance is
the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size combined with the streets in front and back, subject to the following conditions: 1) The replacement enclosure
shall be in the same location as the one removed i.e. directly connected to/or adjacent to the existing pool; 2) the existing landscaping shall not be removed; 3) This variance is based
on the application for a variance and documents submitted 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 4) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
Ordinance 5654-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land development code; amending Section 45.23, Code of Ordinances, to delete the authorization for minor variances
from dock width and setback requirements, and to authorize minor variances from parking space requirements; providing an effective date.
Senior Planner Richter explained the ordinance in detail stating it will eliminate the City's dock regulations and turn their oversight to the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Authority
that has standards similar to the City. The change should streamline the process with one authority handling dock variances. This action should reduce the Development Code Adjustment
Board's (DCAB) workload. Currently, variances must be secured from both the City and County.
Concern was expressed regarding the involvement of the Harbormaster. It was indicated the Harbormaster would typically not be involved unless there is a dock variance application concern
regarding navigation.
Mr. Richter explained Ordinance 5655-94 is the other half of this proposal. Two items in that code address minor variances for docks. If the City no longer hears dock variance requests,
it is proposed that these items be deleted.
Ordinance 5655-94 also contains a proposal to allow staff to grant minor parking variances up to 10% of the applicable parking requirements based on the same standards of approval used
by DCAB. Concern was expressed that staff could grant approval of 50 or more parking spaces. It was recommended a maximum limit be established.
Concern was expressed regarding a business paying a large fee to request a one-space variance. It was suggested a business pay $50 for staff review. If staff denies the request, the
applicant could pay the higher fee and appear before DCAB.
Mr. Gans recommended approval of Ordinance 5654-94 and Ordinance 5655-94 to the Commission with a condition limiting the number of parking spaces that staff can approve to 10% or ten
spaces, whichever is less. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance 5656-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land development code; amending Chapter 40 creating new Division 23A to establish a Downtown/Mixed Use District;
amending Section 41.035, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplementary conditional use standards for conditional uses provided in the Downtown/Mixed Use District; providing an effective
date.
Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford explained the amendment in detail and stated part of the City's Downtown Plan included adding areas outside the existing Community Redevelopment
Agency's (CRA) boundaries for inclusion in the Downtown Urban Center District. The Commission requested staff focus on a performance zoning district to encourage property acquisition,
redevelopment, and increased density. For example, motels developed on more than two acres would be permitted 80 motel units per acre.
Mr. Shuford reported staff is now concentrating on the N Ft. Harrison area with the unsafe structure ordinance and razing unsafe structures.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5656-94 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance 5657-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land development code; amending Section 40.286, Code of Ordinances, to increase the maximum allowable height for
the Limited Office District; providing an effective date.
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the amendment in detail stating its purpose is to bring Limited Office District into conformance with the 30-foot height limit established
for lower density multi-family districts and establish consistency for multi-family zoning included in the OL district.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5657-94 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance 5658-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land development code; amending Section 35.11, Code of Ordinances, to establish definitions for "outdoor cafe,"
"sidewalk vendor," and "vendor stand;" amending Chapter 41, Code of Ordinances; creating a new Division 12 to establish requirements for locating and operating outdoor cafes and sidewalk
vendor operations; providing an effective date.
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the amendment in detail stating the Commission wished to encourage more activities in the streetscape of the pedestrian oriented districts
Downtown and on the beach. This amendment attempts to establish standards and define the terms "outdoor
cafe," "sidewalk vendor," and "vendor stand."
The amendment would permit outdoor cafes in other than required open spaces, landscape areas, or vehicular access areas. Cafes will be permitted in front setbacks. Concern was expressed
regarding tables, canopies and umbrellas blocking public sidewalks. Mr. Shuford noted they must be moveable, not permanent, and a minimum of five feet must be maintained for pedestrians.
Cafes next to sidewalks or streets will require a 42-inch high wall or fence to separate the use. Concern was expressed that no maximum was stated. A recommendation was made that
42-inches should be the maximum height and 30-inches the minimum.
Concern was expressed about injuries occurring on City-owned sidewalks. Mr. Shuford noted the need for cafes to provide proof of insurance.
Mr. Shuford reported a comment on this ordinance was received from Todd Pressman, representative for McDonald's, expressing opposition to the provision that outdoor seating shall constitute
not more than 25% of the total seating capacity in the restaurant. Mr. Shuford indicated a compromise could include a requirement for cafes to meet the parking requirements for the
percentage exceeding 25%. Consensus agreed with the 25% provision as stated. Concern was expressed regarding a sufficient number of restrooms.
Concerns were expressed regarding the idea that outdoor cafes are more oriented to walk-in traffic than other restaurants and the limited parking on the beach. Mr. Shuford indicated
the location of outdoor cafes in the pedestrian areas was a desired amenity to the streetscape. He agreed people will drive to the beach to sit outside and eat. He noted the desire
to permit existing restaurants to take advantage of the new policy though most cannot provide additional parking.
Concern was expressed regarding the definition of "accessible to a public sidewalk." Mr. Shuford stated outdoor seating behind a restaurant would not provide public benefit nor create
the atmosphere the City wishes to establish.
Concern was expressed regarding live entertainment next to motels. Mr. Shuford suggested eliminating CR 24 would address this matter.
Concerns were expressed that anyone could have a garage sale or sell t-shirts off a card table on Mandalay Avenue. Mr. Shuford explained by vendors meeting the standards listed on pages
three and four, the City can control hazards and separate vendor businesses. He indicated vendors will only be permitted on eight-foot wide sidewalks and will need to setup against
a wall to provide the required five-foot passage. Sidewalk vendors with approval would be permitted anyplace on the beach except on the north end and tip of the southern end.
Concern was expressed regarding enforcement, limiting sales to certain items, separating vendor sales of similar items, and ensuring that vendors and stands reflect the tropical seascape
theme. Concern was expressed regarding locating a licensed food vendor within 2,000 feet of the restaurant
and a more practical limit was recommended. Mr. Shuford indicated the charge for street vendors was higher than the cost for an occupational license.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of Ordinance 5658-94 with conditions: the height of fences separating sidewalk cafes be 30 to 42-inches; drop resort-commercial
24 from the ordinance; limit sidewalk vendors to food, refreshments and restricted permitted uses; modify the distance vendors can sell from their restaurants to 600 feet; promote the
incorporation of the design theme; and limit live entertainment on sidewalk cafes next to motels. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of June 9, 1994, and June 23, 1994, as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
Senior Planner Richter distributed copies of the memorandum from the Interim City Attorney regarding the Sunshine Law.
Mr. Plisko requested his information packet be delivered to his office. It was indicated a copy of the agenda and notice of public hearing are included.
Senior Planner Richter noted hardship is no longer specifically part of the standard approval. Standards for approval are special conditions.
Concerns were expressed regarding seawalls destroyed by a 1993 storm have created an eyesore. Four seawalls plus the wall behind them on Druid Road South were destroyed. Severe erosion
of one yard was noted. The City currently cannot reinforce their rebuilding.
It was reported the fence maintenance ordinance needs to be enforced for one property south and three properties north of Magnolia Dock as they present an eyesore from the water.
Central Permitting Director Shuford displayed a slide presentation of the S Mandalay redevelopment area. Goals include improving the pedestrian connection between bayside properties
and the beach, improving the pedestrian environment, increasing parking opportunities, improving public access to Clearwater Harbor, creating an environment that spurs development, creating
an identity for the area, and a logo. Slides included a view of Papaya Street as a pedestrian mall with vendors, outdoor cafes, and special events linking the beach to the harbor.
A wide sidewalk also could be built on Baymont.
The pedestrian environment would be enhanced by improving the public infrastructure and providing a park. Development could include parking garages with ground floor retail stores.
Mr. Shuford noted eliminating back-out parking will cause problems for motels, residential
development and some service industries and angle parking will not replace all spaces lost. Slides of Mandalay Avenue compared parking design possibilities. Staff suggested replacing
crosswalks with textured materials so drivers could feel the bumps, slow down, and be more conscious of pedestrians.
Mr. Shuford noted obstacles that impede a harbor walk include property owners' docks and resistance to providing public access. He suggested a public park could be created near the
Papaya Street promenade and the harbor walk could be expanded with a water feature that opens the harbor view for the public. He noted water access grants are available from the State.
Mr. Shuford indicated this action would address the blight of poorly maintained, bayfront cottages.
Mr. Shuford indicated a second option includes moving a public facility, like the Civic Center or a conference center, to the study area. If the Civic Center were moved, the beauty
of Memorial Causeway could extend into the heart of Clearwater Beach.
Mr. Shuford noted there is no green area in the study area and most land is utilized by a street network. He suggested a way to open land for development is to remove some streets.
Properties could be interconnected into a large, harbor-front, upscale hotel property with 400 rooms and a conference center on 10 acres. Another version could include a mixed use
area with retail downstairs and residential above. The Civic Center or meeting center could be tied to a waterfront park.
A third option would remove East Shore and much of Poinsettia and include a mixed use of retail and residential with a large park. A hotel would include a conference center.
Support was expressed regarding the streetscape of Mandalay Avenue. The second and third options were deemed too expensive. Support was expressed for diagonal parking.
Concern was expressed regarding the beach's dumpster system. The foul smell from dumpsters on East Shore was noted. Mr. Shuford indicated a dumpster ordinance is being reviewed by
the City Attorney for consideration.
It was recommended that building inspections be done on rundown properties in the area. Mr. Shuford indicated that area will be targeted by the City's unsafe structures' program.
Concern was expressed regarding improvements needed for the pedestrian connection between Downtown and Clearwater Beach. It was recommended that the redevelopment take advantage of
the rehabilitated Beach recreation center with its tennis courts and park. Many tourists like to walk and it was suggested a walkway be built along the bayou from the recreation center
to the park across Mandalay to tie it with the beach parking lot. The streetscape down Mandalay Avenue could continue the pathway to the marina renovations and link it across the Causeway.
This linear development would be an inexpensive way to begin the project. Bicycles could find alternate routes from Mandalay. Once the theme is apparent, future development would
be encouraged. It was recommended the City use practical solutions.
Mr. Shuford distributed drawings of the options. It was noted that saving Downtown was as important as saving the beach.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p.m.
Chairman