07/25/1996 (2)
4 ~ ~ ......_' ,. ., . ~. .
f~' rr
.~ .. '.'
c . " ,.'
'.); ;.,,\~
,. ',:J
~ ,1. J
:~;', :.
, .
'. .
,.,'
~~. ~ .' " .
" ,\
'," .'.
.r~: i,,'
~,;~ ': " ,
\', . ~,' ': ,
~~:::~;j:.:'; ~. ,.., ,:: ....'
i',..... > .' "
11~~: .... '
I~;'.' .
. 't'\ i ~, .
{,,~ .":,0
1'\'. ">' , , .' .
,............-;....'_' "...... .,,'~.. u. ,'.
c.,. .'. ." ". " ..,
,~, '. '.~ c '..hl~~~_
~
r: {-~~.'11
'" "
:..,'
.DCAB
Development Code Adjustment Board
. ~Minutes'
Date
':.'0
-t-66r
.t
,..:)
. " ' . I I ~ .'. ' . , ,,' - '. . I' '_
.j~r:('"
--
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD - ACTION AGENDA
Thursday, July 25, 1996
Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
C. New Variance Requests
C1. Derek H. & Rita F. Blair for a fence height variance of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence
in a setback area adjacent to a street to which the property is not addressed at
3253 Pine Haven Dr, Countryside Tract 5, lot 69, zoned RS 8 {Single Family
Residential}. VR 96-50
ACTION: Denied
ti-<;'.,
"'>1f~:'
C2. 440 West Condominium Association, Inc for a fence variance to permit 619 ft m.o.1.
of 4.5 ft high cable fence in a waterfront setback area where fences are prohibited at
450 S Gulfview Blvd, 440 West Condominium, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial).
VR 96-51
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based
on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps,
plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance
request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance
request regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the site, will result in these variances 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.
C3. John S. Ricciardi for a variance of 78 ft in distance to permit construction control line at
1192 Mandalay Point Rd, Mandalay Point Sub 1st Addition, lots 25 and 25A, and part of
Lot 24, 24A, 26 and 26A; together with unplatted land to West of said Lots, zoned RS 4
(Single Family Residential) and OS/R (Open Space/Recreation). VR 96-52
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on
the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans,
surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request.
Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request
regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the
site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building permit(s)
shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The applicant shall
obtain approval from the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
D. land Development Code Amendments
01. Ordinance 6068-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land Development
Code; amending Sections 35.11 and 42.34, Code of Ordinances, to specify that density
calculations for nursing homes shall be computed on the basis of three residents equals
one unit, and parking for nursing homes shall be required on the basis of one space per
three persons residing in the facility; providing an effective date.
ACTION: Recommended approval to the City Commission
\.....1
DCAB ACTION
1
07/25/96
, .: .t:.,'...;.~\
.:~.i' .
..
~; ~
,
,. I~
,',.
f'/,
": ~: .
, ~ l
: ~
'.' ","
Y,::.:,. ..
J~'\ .~",,'".,
,:('..>:',
>\"1, .
'~:~:~~;'/
C1..'
" ".'\. '.~ :....".~'.J, ',:l~ '."'~';.\::"'~.';"..' '[..~..", '.~
"lt~"~~'~f'>"'i!f'''1U'''1iYJ''l"~t' ""i'::"""" .',.... ..... H..:' ',.. "
,''''!:~'i'?'/l);~i~:Y;~:::~,':h~!{i:;~"i\. ,{;;::/;I;';/;c. <':;': r:~.':,';/: >. ,~:' '."",' :
. ::'~':J:~~: .'.
" . ,~ ' . .
". '. r ~',
'.
I ',,:.'; ~ '~" ;', '.,
, ~ ',f '
'i
l:.",i
, ,.r . ~
":::......,;.:..
. ~:~'." ,I' ';:~;~.~ ~..:)~l::,.:.;
>>" ''')''''I.\~i%
..~:c~::".~L~. .!~};~I~!
-
Minutes Approval -. July 11, 1996 -Approved as submitted
\' .',
Board and Staff Comments
Discussion
;,
Adjournment -- 2:21 p.m.
'.'
. "
"
~', '.
j "
;',
~; .
i'
i,...,
::0
"I
"
. "
I
.,
.:J
DCAB ACTION
2
07/25/96
, ' ,'.' :., '. '., H .., " ' . .
'~l' '""
.., .,It .'" .,
, '!.
~:.:f t~4, .'. .
.',,"'" "
,., ,
;'h' .
I~
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 25, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Leslie DougallMSides
John Richter
Gwen Legters
Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
Absent:
William Schwob
5th Seat Vacant
Vice Chair
Board Member
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1 :00 p.m, in City Hall, followed by the
Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal
process.
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
c. New Variance Requests
:P')
"-'
1. Derek H. & Rita F. Blair for a fence height variance of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence
in a setback area adjacent to a street to which the property is not addressed at
3253 Pine Haven Dr, Countryside Tract 5, Lot 69, zoned RS 8 (Single Family
Residential). VR 96-50
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to extend an existing six foot high rear yard fence to enclose a
side yard along Northside Drive where the fence height limit is four feet. Mr. Richter
reviewed fence heights in the surrounding neighborhood; indicating existing six foot fences
within the Northside Drive rjght-of~way do not conform to code. Staff did not recommend
approval, expressing concern the proposal would adversely affect the aesthetics of the
neighborhood's entry corridor.
In response to questions; Mr. Richter said he found no record of variances for the
existing non~conforming six foot fences, Discussion ensued regarding allowable fence
heights, proposed distance from the fence to the sidewalk, and 80 foot right~of-way width.
Derek Blair, the owner/applicant, complained a ten foot utility easement limits his back
yard gardening and leisure activity. Discussion ensued regarding configuration of his back
yard in relation to the easement, fencing and sidewalk, Mr. Blair described gardening and
restoration work he wishes to do in his back yard. Discussion ensued regarding allowable
uses of the drainage and utility easement area. Mr. Richter said construction of permanent
structures such as pools or decks is regulated within utility easements, but planting
materials are not generally prohibited.
J
!
'-v
mdc07b.96
1
07/25/96
. .,. ' '.., ~. . ' ~.' . ~ ' . , . ~ L
.i~;'::~.:;,' .
."""",,,
..
In response to questions, Mr. Blair said he wants the fence for security and did not
feel a four foot tall fence was sufficient to discourage intruders. He plans to seal the
wood to inhibit discoloration. He will extensively landscape outside the fence. coordinating
planting materials with the County extension service to xeriscape with labor- and water-
saving planting materials.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Edward Gantz, a member of
the neighborhood association and nearby property owner, informed Mr. Blair the requested
fence may violate the neighborhood association's fence deed restriction. Mr. Gantz read
the rule into the record and reviewed Mr. Blair's proposal. The applicant was informed
deed restrictions may be more restrictive than code. Ms. Dougall-Sides affirmed it is
passible for a property owner to act within the code and still be subject to separate action
by the neighborhood association. Mr. Richter indicated fences atop dirt mounds do not
comply when the overall height exceeds the limit. Mr. Blair complained many fences in the
vicinity are in violation. Surprise was expressed the neighborhood association has not
taken action to enforce their deed restrictions. Staff was requested to pursue code
enfarcement of nan-conforming fences in the subject neighborhood.
<:)
Member Jonnatti moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has
not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the
Land Development Code, more specifically, no special circumstances exist related to the
particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or
buildings, or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply
generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
2. 440 West Condominium Association. Inc for a fence variance to permit 619 ft m .a.l.
of 4.5 ft high cable fence in a waterfront setback area where fences are prohibited at
450 S Guifview Blvd, 440 West Condominium, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial).
VR 96~51
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant has begun construction of a fence-like barrier along the top of the
seawall in the setback area from Clearwater Pass. The structure will consist of concrete
posts spaced 30 feet apart, connected with cables. He said conditions support approval
because the barrier will protect the public from injury on the rock revetment at the foot of
the seawall and the open construction will not obscure any views.
David Tackney, a coastal engineer representing the applicants, stated the proposed
barrier will replace previously existing fences that were destroyed by storms. The design
will preserve the view, and eliminate maintenance problems caused by storms.
..J
In response to questions, Mr. Tackney said he is not the construction contractor, but
was hired by the condominium association. He described the proposal and responded to
questions regarding variations in grade and decking that require the height to ex.ceed 42
inches in some places. It was indicated certain posts are larger in diameter because they
bear more of the cable load.
mdc07b.96 2 07/25/96
,/
I
~;r :'::'.
\. ~.
l~
;
j
'-
, -..-I
Sam Vazquez, the property manager, provided clarification regarding column size,
placement and load bearing characteristics. He verified the posts are 14 and 18 inches in
diameter. The height sometimes exceeds 42 inches from grade to create a perfectly
horizontal tine reflecting the horizon while allowing for variations in ground and deck
height. He responded to questions about an extra column near the center of the property
and whether a gate is proposed. He said the association may seek the necessary
approvals to construct a fishing dock in the future. He displayed samples of two stainless
steel cables, stating the half-inch diameter will be used. The holes where the cables pass
through the posts will be protected from wear by PVC sleeves. He estimated the cost of
the project at approximately $60,000.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Strong concerns were expressed the posts are already in place without the benefit of
, permits. It was indicated a triple permit fee will be charged. Discussion ensued regarding
a contractor's obligation to follow code. Mr. Vazquez said the contractor had reported
being told by Central Permitting staff that a building permit was not necessary to replace
what previously existed.
While board members felt this design is a good alternative, strong concerns were
expressed a ticensed contractor would think to attempt a $60,000 project of this
magnitude without the appropriate permits. Staff was asked to investigate. Concern was
expressed with exceeding the 42-inch height limit.
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on
the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans,
surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicantts variance request.
Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request
regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on
the site, will result in these variances 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.
3. John S. Ricciardi for a variance of 78 ft in distance to permit construction control line
at 1192 Mandalay Point Rd, Mandalay Point Sub 1l1t Addition, Lots 25 and 25A, and
part of Lot 24, 24A, 26 and 26A; together with unplatted land to West of said Lots,
zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential) and OS/R (Open Space/Recreation). VR 96-52
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, He
stated the applicant wishes to construct an elev&ted swimming pool and deck seaward of
the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) behind an existing single family home. The
building official did not object to the proposal. Staff felt conditions support the request
and recommended approval with three conditions.
mdc07b.96
07/25/96
3
.' ~ ~ . \ " ,
. ," . , \ . . ....."'1...". '
!'?:,,,.. .
<C.-
"
.~
Tim Johnson, attorney representing the applicant, reviewed the site plan, an aerial
photograph of Clearwater Point, and an artist's rendering of the proposal. He
demonstrated the proposed pool location, and the slope down to the wide beach that has
accreted behind the home over the years. The applicants wish to elevate the pool to allow
the children using it to remain in view from the ground floor of the living quarters. The
pool will not obstruct any views and the neighbors do not object to the proposal. The
home to the north has an elevated pool, located approximately 150 feet away from the
subject property and separated by a vacant lot and vegetation.
Discussion ensued regarding history of land acquisition, public access and construction
on the Point in relation to the CCCL. It was not known if variances were granted for
construction of the home on the subject property.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Board members felt the pool will fit beautifully into the natural empty space. Brief
discussion ensued regarding other approvals needed.
.";,,,.,
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on
the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans,
surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicanfs variance request.
Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request
regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on
the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building
permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The
applicant shall obtain approval from the State of Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
\
I
,..,..,.......
D. Land Development Code Amendments
1. Ordinance 6068-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land Development
Code; amending Sections 35.11 and 42.34, Code of Ordinances, to specify that density
calculations for nursing homes shall be computed on the basis of three residents equals
one unit, and parking for nursing homes shall be required on the basis of one space per
three persons residing in the facility; providing an effective date,
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the ordinance proposes to change language with regard to nursing home density
calculations, referring to the number of residents instead of the number of beds, Brief
discussion ensued.
Member Jonnatti moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 6068-96 to the City
Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
J
mdc07b.96
4
07/25/96
, .... ". ( ~ , . ' . . ..- .'
,.
~1-:(:~:.'~:::"'," " .,:.:....
)' , ....
"I.:l<.~y:
,'1
Minutes Approval - July 11, 1996
Ms. legters noted the preliminary draft of the minutes sent to the board did not reflect
that Member Schwob had made the motion near the bottom of page two. This has been
corrected in the final version.
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes as corrected by the Board Reporter.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
Board members expressed concern the vacant seat has not been filled because
Member Johnson is scheduled for vacation during the next meeting. Ms. Dougall-Sides
said she has indicated the board's concerns to the City Attorney.
,"'.....)
~~.
Member Jonnatti questioned earlier comments regarding contractors being required to
adhere to code. Concerns were raised that property owners are held accountable when
contractors fail to obtain building permits. In the past, it had been proposed to take sign
contractors who violated the code before the PCClB (Pinellas County Construction
Licensing Board), which could place sanctions on the contractors. Member Gans
suggested a similar requirement for all licensed contractors, using today's Item C2 as an
example. He felt strongly that contractors should be held responsible for obtaining all
applicable permits. Mr. Richter will relay the board's concerns to the Building Official and
report whether this has been addressed and what is needed to enact such a requirement.
Board members missed Member Schwab while he was on vacation and looked forward
to his return.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:21 p.m.
Chai,PJ:
Development Code Adjustment Board
A~~~
Board Reporter
'J
mdc07b.96
5
07/25/96
,
j'
I
i
1
,