05/22/1997
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
May 22, 1997
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwob
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Ron Stuart
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Gwen Legters
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, meeting procedures and explanation of the appeal process.
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items
B1. (cont. from 5/8/97) Thomas & Evangelia G. Dushas for a height variance of 8 ft to allow a concrete block wall 14 ft high along the southerly property line where a maximum height
of 6 ft is required at 1100 Mandalay Point Rd, Mandalay Point Sub, Lots 1 & 1A and land E of Lot 1A to the existing seawall, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential) and OS/R (Recreational/Open
Space.) VR 97 26
In a letter dated May 9, 1997, applicants’ architect, Thomas J. Graham, withdrew the above variance application.
Member Schwob moved to withdraw Item B1, VR 97-26. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. New Variance Requests
C1. David & Kathleen Clausen for the following variances: (1) to allow a screen enclosed pool within the rear yard setback; and (2) fence height at 1867 Oak Forest Dr. S, Forest Woods
Estates, Lot 12, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential.) VR 97 34
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicants wish to construct a swimming pool and pool enclosure in the rear yard of the home
which backs up to a large church parking lot. The applicants wish to replace an existing fence along the rear property line with a higher fence to provide privacy, as the ground elevation
of the fence is low in relation to the grade of the church parking lot and nearby McMullen Booth Road.
Mr. Richter detailed setback and fence height requirements in relation to site constraints and surrounding conditions. Staff supported granting variance #1, as the proposal meets the
standards for approval, and will have no adverse effect on any other property. If the applicant successfully secures title to a unowned 14-foot swath of land located inside the existing
fence, the setback variance would no longer be necessary. Staff did not support variance #2, as an eight foot privacy fence does not meet the standards for approval, and is not consistent
with the established character of the neighborhood. It was felt a landscaping buffer of the desired height would provide the necessary privacy in a better and more appropriate manner,
without setting a precedent for eight-foot fences.
One member suggested the applicant consider donating landscaping materials to the adjacent church for planting outside the fence line, to continue an existing line of shrubbery that
stops short of the applicants’ property.
David Clausen, the owner/applicant, stated he bought the house contingent to being able to build a pool. He explained the site constraints and difficulties he has encountered with
the project. He said the site was torn up by the pool company, who tried to start building without a permit. He has planned landscaping along the rear fence line, but the low-lying
area is very moist, especially after a rain. Everything he has planted has died from drowning. He will try to build up the grade when the pool is built. He said he can live with the
noise from McMullen Booth Road, and of church patrons parking up to the property line, but he wants a privacy screen for the pool.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Schwob moved to grant Variance #1 as requested, because the applicant has substantially met all the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development
Code, 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; and 2) the requisite building permit(s)
shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued regarding alternative solutions to Variance #2. It was indicated filling the area to raise the grade, and planting landscaping, were preferable to building an eight-foot
fence.
Member Schwob moved to deny Variance #2, for fence height, as the applicant has not met all the standards for approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Minutes Approval -- May 8, 1997
Member Gans requested addition of the following text on page 5, before the motion to deny VR 97 30 (LOM, Inc., Legends Steakhouse & Surfwest Retail): “One member suggested the City’s
decision to relocate the dumpster to its present location had been one-sided by not taking into account the impact of the dumpster on the adjacent homeowner.
The board strongly recommended that the City investigate moving the dumpster to another location satisfactory to all concerned.”
Member Schwob moved to approve the May 8 minutes as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
In response to questions from Mr. Gans, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the appeal of the Carlouel Yacht Club approval was withdrawn. The two parties had worked out a satisfactory arrangement.
The final order in the Britt’s Café appeal is expected in about a week.
Member Jonnatti questioned whether dumpster enclosures are classified as structures, or fences, with regard to setback calculations. Mr. Richter said the City zoning section has been
allowing dumpster enclosures within setbacks. Mr. Gans complained of the smell from dumpsters along the beach. Mr. Jonnatti noted setbacks are generally waived when commercial properties
abut each other; the problems arise with commercial property next to residential. He will raise the question again during discussion of the new Land Development Code.
Member Schwob raised a question about a fence along Landmark Drive. Mr. Richter said the fence was moved back, but the property owners have requested more time to install required
landscaping. Environmental Management has been working with them, but a notice of violation will be issued if the landscaping is not installed reasonably soon.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 1:42 p.m.