Loading...
10/10/1991 (2) DCAB DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARO topO/'11 027-,75/)/ " DATE i,1 f."~ I , "~ ' -- ACTION AGENDA DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Thursday, October 10, 1991 - 1:00 p.m. - Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida To consider requests for variances of the Land Development Code: I. Public Hearings Item A - (continued from 9/12/91) 440 West Condominium Assoc, Inc, for variances of (1) 24 ft to permit swimming pool seaward of Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCl): and (2) 50 ft 6 in to permit swimming pool construction 6 in seaward of the Gulf of Mexico mean high water line and of 32 ft to permit pool equipment room 18 ft from mean high water line at 450 S Gulfview Blvd, 440 West Condo, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 91-60 Item B - (continued from 9/26/91) Vision Cable of Pinellas, lnc, and Florida Power Corp for variances of (1) 42 in to permit 72 in high fence in setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way to which property is addressed: and (2) 24 in to permit a 72 in high fence in setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed at 2530 Drew St, Sec 7-29-16, M&B 44.02 and 41.02, zoned CH (highway commerc i a 1) and P /SP (pub 1 i c/ semi- public). V 91-62 Item C ~ (continued from 9/26/91) Everybody1s Tabernacle Inc for variances (1) of 42 in to permit a 72 in high fence in a setback area adjo i n i ng a 5 treet right-of-way to which property is addressed; (2) of 24 in to permit a 72 in high fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed; (3) of 5 ft to permit DeAB 1. Public Hearings Item A - Granted subject to the following conditions: 1) the swimming pool shall be constructed as indicated on the site plan; 2) all necessary permits shall be obtained by the applicant from other applicable State and City review agencies and boards and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within one (1) year from the date of this public hearing. Item B - Withdrawn by applicant. Item C - Granted subject to the fo l10wing conditions: 1) the fence materia 1 shall be of open wrought iron design as proposed by the applicant: 2) the nonconforming sign shall be replaced ,with a conformin9 sign to improve traffic safety; 3) the fence location shall be modified as deemed necessary by the Traffic Engineer to facilitate traffic 1 10/10/91 '.~'.'.., ~.. "..\. .'.~". ~" ,. . :.....::':r..I:r.;,..~.~~14.~.:,:I:., "t'!" ,,"',' I: '. I, ....,:..... ,'. .',,~. .':' '_.' '....J. :', . .' .', .,... :, ,,{I ..'.,~ ji:'.; r' "'.c fence zero ft from a street right-of- way; and (4) to permit zero landscaping on right-of-way side of fence at 1120 N Betty Ln. Fairburn Add, Blk F, Lots 1 thru 14. zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-68 1. Karl and Christiane Jirkovsky for variances of (1) 95.75 ft to permit construction on a 54.25 ft wide lot; (2) 5 ft to permit pool 5 ft from a side property line; and (3) 1% open space for the lot to allow 24% open space at 170 Brightwater Dr, Bayside Sub No 2, Lot 40, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 91-69 ,2. Betsy K and Rayford Hixon, Jr, for variances of (1) 2.5 ft to permit construction on a 67.5 ft wide corner lot: (2) 13 ft to permit additions 12 ft from Bay Esplanade Dr right-of- way: (3) 24 ft to permit garage addition 1 ft from Verbena St right- of-way: and (4) 3 ft to permit addition 2 ft from a (north) side property line at 821 Bay Esplanade. Manda1ay Sub, Blk 39, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-70 II. Board and Staff Discussion III. Approval of Minutes of September 12, 1991 and September 26. 1991 IV. Adjournment OCAB safety; 4) the tree planting requirement of the perimeter landscaping requirements of Section 136.023 shall be met on the inside of the fence and the planting requirements for fences under Section 136.016 shall apply on the inside of the fence and 5) the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the fence construction and pay the triple permit fee penalty within one (1) month of the date of this public hearing. 1. Granted subject to the following conditions: 1) the swimming pool shall be constructed as per the site plan and 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. 2. Continued to the meeting of October 24, 1991. II. Consensus to have one meeting in November and to cancel the meeting scheduled for December 26, 1991. Discussed the Issue/Response Schedule and the new format for variance applications. III. Approved as submitted. IV. Adjourned at 3:20 p.m. 2 10/10/91 , ,.~,~::,..'...':"'ii'.' ,..... ..11...:....: >.~.....L.:..:;.~,.. .:~: II......~. J", ,...1 .'I..,...'.,.,\~.. . ", " \' ,: ',' '.I! ;'.j:, '...1': ...... .....:..:, DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD October 10, 1991 ( '~'''' :,' Members present: Thomas J. Graham, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman John W. Homer Alex Pliska Absent: (excused) Emma C. Whitney Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Sandra Glatthorn, Senior Planner Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk 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 Ha 11. He outl ined 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 9/12/91) 440 West Condominium Assoc, Inc, for variances of (1) 24 ft to permit swimming pool seaward of Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL)i and (2) 50 ft 6 in to permit swimming pool construction 6 in seaward of the Gulf of Mexico mean high water line and of 32 ft to permit pool equipment room 18 ft from mean high water line at 450 S Gulfview Blvd, 440 West Condo, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 91-60 Sen ior Planner Glatthorn stated this app 1 icat ion was continued from September 12, 1991 due to a revised application to submit design modifications. The proposed swimming pool will replace an existing pool due to its poor condition. An enlarged filter building will also be constructed. Ms. Glatthorn stated the Flood Board approved a previous variance, but not for the revised application. Ms. Glatthorn distributed copies of a revised site plan to the Board. DCAB 1 10/10/91 . r" '~ , ,:' : ,', + ' . ' '. '., I. ':,' ~ I , . .' " . . . Gardner Collins, consulting engineer representing the applicant, stated he spoke with the City Building Director regarding the design modifications. He said the new changes will come before the Flood Board within a week and will still need approval from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Mr. Collins explained the revised site plan to the Board and in response to questions, he indicated the new dimensions and handrail location are reflected on the revi sed app 1 i cat i on. He sa i d the handra il was moved to a pas it i on directly above the seawall and the new filter tank will not be located beneath the existing building, but will be located outside and will be enclosed. Mr. Collins requested 12 months to obtain a building permit due to the length of time required for the application to be considered by the DNR and the Flood Board. The cost of the proposed project is estimated to be over $100,000. 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 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically because. the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the location of the pool and the pool facilities subject to the conditions: 1) the swimming pool shall be constructed as indicated on the site plan; 2) all necessary permits shall be obtained by the applicant from other applicable State and City review agencies and boards and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within one (1) year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ReQuest Qranted. Item B - (continued from 9/26/91) Vision Cable of Pinel1as. Inc, and Florida Power Corp for variances of (1) 42 in to permit 72 in high fence in setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way to which property is addressed; and (2) 24 in to permit a 72 in high fence in setback area adjacent to a street right-af-way to which property is not addressed at 2530 Drew St, Sec 7-29-16, M&B 44.02 and 41.02, zoned CH (highway commercial) and P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91- 62 A letter was received on October 10, 1991 from Steve Seibert, attorney representing the applicant, requesting this item be withdrawn as the applicant decided not to pursue the proposed fence. Mr. Homer moved to withdraw this item. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request withdrawn. Item C - (continued from 9/26/91) Everybody's Tabernacle lnc for variances (1) of 42 in to permit a 72 in high fence in a setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is addressed; (2) of 24 in to permit a 72 in high fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed; (3) of 5 ft to permit fence zero ft from a street right-of-way; and (4) to permit zero landscaping on right-of-way side of fence at 1120 N Betty Ln, Fairburn Add, Blk F, Lots 1 thru 14/ zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-68 DCAB 2 10/10/91 1"41'.:,"~lr'; ~~... .c.".~,'+(. .,:"',0;.,",": ,7.:,<' I.':,..,::..:...f.;,.t:..;~..,'r~~' :'~::'..,"."~ ...:.}:~t~'l :..~.', Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a fence surrounding the subject property to replace existing deteriorated wooden and chain link fences. She stated the City's Traffic Engineering Department expressed concern the proposed location of the fence will pose a traffic hazard by obstructing drivers' views of oncoming vehicles, especially at intersections. Discussion ensued regarding the landscaping requirements and it was indicated only tree plantings are required. Barbara Green f the app 1 i cant, stated she spoke with a member of the City 's Traffic Engineering Department and agreed to place the columns at a 45 degree angle at the corner of Cedar and Betty Lane on the south side of the church. Ms. Green indicated the fence is needed to provide security and to deter trespassers such as intoxicated patrons of the alcoholic beverage establishment nearby who frequently sleep on the church porch and peeping ~tomsU found around the living quarters. In-house security has not been able to control the numbers of vandals and trespassers on the grounds at a11 hauy's of the night. She stated she has lived in the North Greenwood area for twenty years and the problems are generated by outsiders, not residents of the area, Ms. Green submitted a letter from the Clearwater Chief of Police supporting the fence for security reasons, copies of police reports detailing incidents in the vicinity and photographs of existing fences, the proposed fence and fences in the immediate neighborhood. She indicated the existing wood slat and chain link fence continues to deteriorate and is proposed to be replaced by a concrete block and wrought iron design which will improve the appearance of the neighborhood. The cost is approximately $10,000.00. Discussion ensued in regard to the number of driveways and gates being proposed. Ms. Green indicated the large number of gates will allow access to the property by groundskeepers and numerous delivery trucks and will be padlocked. Two letters were submitted in support of the application (includes the letter from the Police Chief). Mark Kulig, construction superintendent for the applicantt stated he was not aware a permit was required to replace the existing fence. A question was raised as to whether or not the existing fence was legal. Concern \~as expressed in regard to a zero setback and no landscaping being provided. There was discussion regarding the landscaping requirement in regard to decorative fences and it was felt placing landscaping in front of the fence would destroy its style, pose maintenance and security problems and would not nffectively grow in the narrow space between the fence and sidewalk. It was believed providing a landscape barrier behind the fence would be better in this neighborhood. There was discuss'ion regarding the existing trees on the site presenting a hardship for the applicant. OCAB 3 10/10/91 ;'"' Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Pliska moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approva1 as 1isted in Section 137.012(d) of the land Development Code more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant; particular physical surroundings, shape, conditions of the property involved and the strict app1ication of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of existing trees and the existing conditions of the property subject to the conditions: 1) the fence material shall be of open wrought iron design as proposed by the applicant; 2) the nonconforminp sign shall be replaced with a conforming sign to improve traffic safety; 3) the fence locat ion sha 11 be modified as deemed necessary by the Traffic Engineer to facil itate traffic safety; 4) the tree planti'1g requirement of the perimeter landscaping requirements of Section 136.023 snall be met on the inside of the fence and the planting requirements for fences under Section 136.016 shall apply on the inside of the fence and 5) the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the fence construction and pay the triple permit fee penalty within one (1) month of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Homer voted Unay". Motion carried. Request Qranted. 1. Karl and Christiane Jirkovsky for variances of (1) 95.75 ft to permit construction on a 54.25 ft wide lot; (2) 5 ft to permit pool 5 ft from a side property line; and (3) 1% open space for the lot to allow 24% open space at 170 Brightwater Dr, Bayside Sub No 2, Lot 40, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 91-69 Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct an in~ground swimming pool for guest recreation on a substandard lot of an existing five-unit motel building built in the 1960's. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant. stated in response to questions, the proposed pool will be 26 feet long and he built a similar pool across the street. He said the request is the minimuln as a smaller pool would not adequately serve the guests and may pose a safety hazard. He felt it essential for a motel to have a swimming pool. 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 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or applicant, the particular shape of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and the variances a the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size subject to the conditions: 1) the swimming pool shall be constructed as per the submitted site plan 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. Request Qranted. DCAB 4 10/10/91 2. Betsy K and Rayford Hixant Jrt for variances of (1) 2.5 ft to permit construction on a 67.5 ft wide corner lot; (2) 13 ft to permit additions 12 ft from Bay Esplanade Dr right-of-way; (3) 24 ft to permit garage addition 1 ft from Verbena St right-of-way; and (4) 3 ft to permit addition 2 ft from a (north) side property line at 821 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Subt Blk 39, Lot It zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-70 Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to add a two-car garage to an existing house and convert an existing one-car garage to living space. The additions will be one-story. Ray Hixon, the applicant, stated he wishes to extend an existing one-car garage to the front of the house for aesthetic reasons and to use it as additional living space. Converting the existing one-car garage to a two-car would block a doorway and require removal of landscaping. In response to questionst Mr. Hixon stated he has resided in his present location for approximately seven years, he wishes to enlarge the bathroom and add more storage and living space. The garage, built 47 years ago, is not large enough to house his station wagon. He stated an addition to the rear of the house was not finished due to his decision to extend the addition all the way across the back of the house which required additional permits. Mr. Hixon indicated he wishes to expand closet and kitchen space and provide a functional utility room in the space to the east. He said the proposed construction is within the 50 percent cumulative rule, there is no FEMA involvement and the catamaran parked in the public right-of-way belongs to him. . , Concern was expressed regarding increasing non-conformities for footprints on Clearwater Beach with it being indicated other neighborhood garage additions were built before the change in the Code with the exception of one addition which does not appear to have been permitted. Mr. Hixon stated he feels he is being penalized and deterred from enhancing his property in trying to renovate rather than rebuild. ~' , f . '1 Discussion ensued regarding whether or not other options were available which would stay within existing parameters. Mr. Hixon requested a continuance to explore other options. He indicated a need to proceed vdth construction as soon as possible due to his ceil ing needing repair. Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of October 24, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued to October 24, 1991. II. Board and Staff Discussion Discussion ensued regarding the holiday meeting schedule and consensus was to have one meeting in November and to cancel the meeting scheduled for December 26t 1991. DCAB 10/10/91 5 : ~,~ '.. "", .:,', " PI' : ,...,....~, ;: . .' ~ I:'. ~\... ' ..,. I','".. '. .... .'T . " . .' '..' L. , ' +....., .... i' I:' . ': '. . ': F~ I: ~ " ......." ~ ~~/ Staff was requested to check on permits for the addition at 821 Bay Esplanade. A suggestion was made to announce the public input part of the public hearings "closed" before going to the Board's discussion. Approval of the minutes indicates the facts contained are correct; however, only the motion made by the Board is binding. Ms. Glatthorn reported a contract for a 59 space parking lot on Pierce Street for Police Department employees will be going before the City Commission on October 17, 1991. The Board discussed the Issue/Response Schedule. Assistant City Attorney Lance said a ticket writing ordinance is underway. There was discussion regarding the new format for variance applications and there was objection to the applicant having to provide 14 copies of the application and to the $450.00 fee. III. Approval of Minutes Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of September 12, 1991 and September 26, 1991 in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Approved as submitted. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. ATTEST: rL- "-__ )? DCAB 6 10/10/91