Loading...
08/22/1996 (2) C{'1. T ," '~~': ~"" ~. .> > '. "", " ~.' C 'C . . . . , " ...' ."'" I, .' , .. . . . . . J-' ". ~" > ' . . " . C . ,i. "" '. . " "" !~!~~:<; .:r <. . . . . . .," I :?:' ~.. . . -. ~" . ...........,_~., ~..d. ">. , "' "," -." " , ' ..' .' .' ", . '. . ,>... ~. : "', l"~' .",..' .~r:. . ;" . " .~"..- ......... DCAB Development Code Adjustment Board Minutes ~ ,. . . Date Ik.gu.sf 22~qq(P " () . j- ~ 60 I I , . r I I I ('J I 1 f ! , , .~r>: I. ;..: ~ DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD ~ ACTION AGENDA Thursday, August 22, 1996 Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation C. New Variance Requests C1. Barrv L. & EUQenia L. Tavlor for a height variance of 1.5 ft to allow a fence 4 ft high within the setback area from the Edenwood St. right-of~way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed at 2801 Edenwood Street, Woodvalley Unit No.1, Blk 6, Lot 7, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-55 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the fence shall be located three feet from the sidewalk and adequate landscaping shall be installed in accordance with City Environmental Department standards, to provide a solid and continuous visual screen for the fence, Such landscaping shall be located on private property, not in the City right-of-way. . ~7") C2. Church of the Good Samaritan for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high .~ within the setback area from the Summerlin Dr. right-of~wav where a maximum height of 4 ft is allowed at 2452 Glenann Dr. Morningside Estates, Unit 68, Lot 515, zoned RS B (Single Family Residential>. VR 96-56 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, wilt result in these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within 30 days from the date of this public hearing; 3) Landscaping shall be provided on the right-of-way side of the fence in accordance with City code; 4) The fence shall extend to the south in line with the existing fence, shall be notched at the top to preserve the limb of the existing tree, and shall extend to the south to permit landscaping on the outside of the fence in line with the south side of the house. C3. Shirley Stokes-Kilaore for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from Broadway right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is allowed at 1153 Granada St, La Jolla Sub, Blk B, Lot 28, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-57 ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant. including maps, -..i DCAB ACTION 1 08/22/96 , " . ~ ~ ~ . " ' " . ' ~, , . J:' ; ., , , .< ,I ~~." . , . :~,,' ....~. e~!""",~\~.f...\:.,~.:.:'>,l:t!;"./':;':;.;':'I-I~~"':'".~I".'" .... .0': e ' . ~~.I(,'('~'!"\' "'\"'10, ,,~jr\. .,' "" 0 ," '~;'.." ...0 'e" ll.:~f.~tJ.:~'/:'~:~:':~::+~:, '.~,~:' e "::;':' ~':'. : ...;.,.e",?,'". ',",en (', :: \:> '.:.' : "..< ,.',)~< >. '.' . <..' '. ,. ' .. . ~ , ,. .: ~. ,,4' ,'j '4"1j'- ; '; ...":\ ~'<.i...;~ , t..-., . . ",,,,~ 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 perm iUs) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. Minutes Approval -- August 8, 1996 - Approved as ~ubmitted Board and Staff Comments - Discussion 1. Mandalay Avenue Streetscape Plan Presentation - Don McCarty and Lisa Mui 2. Design Review Board Update - Don McCarty Adjournment -- 4:04 p.m. o <.J DCAB ACTION 2 08/22/96 . . .' : I ~ . .... . . >. . " ...., .t~!~::<.: ~ ,~, :~. .; 1;. .,' , ~, .' . ~ DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER August 22, 1996 Present: Otto Gans William Schwob William Johnson Mark Jonnatti Ron Stuart Leslie Dougall-Sides John Richter Gwen Legters Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Senior Planner Board Reporter The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1 :00 p.m. in City H.all, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, and a review of the meeting procedures and appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. New Variance Requests ('-'-) '~~;i' C1. Barry L. & EUQenia L. Tavlor for a height variance of 1.5 ft to allow a fence 4 ft high within the setback area from tho Edenwood St. right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft ;s allowed at 2801 Edenwood Street, Woodvalley Unit No.1, Blk 6, Lot 7, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-55 ~. Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. . He stated the applicant wishes to retain a non-conforming four foot high chain link fence enclosing the front yard. The enclosure was created as a secure play area for small children because a large swimming pool and deck occupy the back yard open space. Staff felt neighborhood conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Barry and Eugena Taylor the owner/applicants, addressed the board. Mr. Taylor said they built the fence because fast-moving traffic coming in from SR 590 on Calamondin lane does not observe the stop sign before turning onto Edenwood Street. This creates a hazardous condition in his front yard. He did not obtain a fence permit because he thought his property was in the County, and he was told the County does not require a permit for a four foot high fence. He learned the property is within City limits when a City inspector issued a citation for lack of a permit and informed him the fence was too high. Mr. Taylor expressed concern with communication difficulties he experienced with City staff while trying to obtain the permit and legitimize the fence. In response to questions, Mrs. Taylor said her family built the fence because a professional estimate had been too expensive. She has lived in the home for more --.I mdc08b.96 1 08/22/96 . . . .. ,I , . . ~ _ . '. . ~ ~ " . I . . . +, . . l~ , than six years and owns dogs that live in the back yard. She said her neighbors with children approve of the fence. Mrs. Taylor submitted a petition with 14 signatures in support of the application. Todd Wright, adjacent homeowner to the west, spoke in opposition. He expressed concern the Taylor's fence sets an unwanted precedent of enclosing front yards with fences in excess of the 3D-inch height rule. He suggested removing the fence from the front yard and using the materials to enclose the back yard pool for the safety of the children. He submitted photographs of the Taylor's fence and a petition with five signatures from adjacent property owners in opposition to the application. One letter was submitted in opposition, from the property owner across the street, citing a concern with a precedent that damages the aesthetic integrity of the neighborhood. Mrs. Taylor did not want to use the chain link fencing materials in the back yard because it is enclosed with a six foot high privacy fence the children cannot climb, while chain link is easily climbed. The pool is surrounded by a protective net barrier. In response to a question, it was indicated the high volume of fast-moving traffic through the neighborhood is due to drivers cutting through between SR 590 and Drew Street; to avoid US 19. Discussion ensued regarding setbacks, permits and fence height and landscaping "'~.., requirements. It was felt the fence would be acceptable if it was moved back enough ',..r.l to soften the outside with landscaping. One member questioned jf this idea would help relieve Mr. Wright's concerns. Mr. Wright did not believe the applicant would follow through with a landscaping condition, because large trees in his yard were cut down without permission during the fence installation and the trees were not replaced to his satisfaction. Mrs. Taylor said her father cut down the trees along the fence line while she was away, without realizing they were not on her property. She indicated she had tried to apologize. but Mr. Wright would not speak to her. She replaced the trees with the largest and most mature trees she could find. While board concern was expressed the fence is not visually attractive and compromises the setback and fence height codes, they sympathized with the Taylors' need to create a safe environment for their younger child. After lengthy discussion of alternatives; consensus was to approve the fence if is was moved back three feet and heavily landscaped on the outside with dense. fast-growing shrubbery. Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides cautioned such landscaping cannot be planted in the City right- of-way. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance(s} 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 '-/ mdcOBb,96 2 08/22J96 . .. ... I . . , . . . . . . " . ',~ .', .. ,. f~~ 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the fence shall be located three feet from the sidewalk and adequate landscaping shall be installed, in accordance with City Environmental Department standards, to provide a solid and continuous visual screen for the fence. Such landscaping shall be located on private property, not in the City right-of-way. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Schwab and Stuart voted "Aye"; Members Gans and Jonnatti voted "Nay." Motion carried. C2. Ctlurch of the Good Samaritan for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the Summerlin Dr. right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is allowed at 2452 GJensnn Dr. Morningside Estates, Unit 68, Lot 515, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-56 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to replace a deteriorated six foot high wood fence enclosing the rear yard of the single family home on a corner lot, The location of the existing fence is non-conforming along the Summerlin Drive setback. According to the plan submitted by the property owner, the replacement fence will be located closer to the Summerlin Drive right-of-way and will extend farther to the south, toward the front on the house. Staff did not support extending the fence outward, but felt ,~'" neighborhood conditions supp~rt approval of replacing the six foot fence in its existing (,...J location, due to the amount of deterioration. Three conditions of approval were recommended. Board discussion ensued regarding other fences in the area, including one across the street for which a variance was approved two years ago. Concern was expressed it was not in compliance with a condition requiring landscaping outside the fence and staff was asked to investigate. A question was raised regarding why staff recommends allowing a year to obtain the building permit, if the fence is in such disrepair. Mr. Richter indicated that is a standard condition that may be changed at the board's discretion. James Williamson, Church Pastor and Director, stated he plans to replace the fence as soon as possible, and explained his rationale for extending it outward. He wishes to extend the fence southward, toward the front of the house, to enclose the side door, air conditioning unit, and a bank of sprinkler valves located on the east side of the property. Having the side door within the enclosure would enable his young daughter to enter the back yard without using the rear door that accesses the pool enclosure. Concealing the air conditioning unit and sprinkler valves from view was thought to be more visually appealing. Extending the fence in a southerly direction along the existing line would cause it to interfere with the limb of a large tree on the east side of the house. He submitted eight photographs of the conditions existing on and around the subject property. ',-./ mdc08b.96 3 08/22/96 . . . '.... J '.. ,<,' . '.' . . ',., ~ .'.. . , "". .... J' . ~, ~. . .' . ~ I , No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Discussion ensued regarding street setbacks, how other homeowners have dealt with similar fence placement issues, and how the back yard is sectioned off to protect the Williamsons' daughter from the pool. Board member agreed with screening the air conditioner, dumpster and sprinkler valves, if adequate landscaping was provided outside the fence to soften the appearance. Discussion ensued regarding how to configure the fence extension to avoid the overhanging tree limb. Member Schwab moved to grant the variance(s) 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 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 30 days from the date of this public hl:!aring; 3) Landscaping shall be provided on the right-of-way side of the fence in accordance with City code; 4) The fence shall extend to the south in line with the existing fence, shall be notched at the top to preserve the limb of the existing tree, and shall extend to the south to permit landscaping on the outside of the fence in line with the south side of the house. The motion was duly \ .-;';) seconded and carried unanimously. ... t~'!"i'It~ C3. Shirlev Stokes-Kilgore for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from Broadway right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is allowed at 1153 Granada St, La Jolla Sub, Blk B, Lot 28, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-57 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to enclose a small area on the south side of an existing single family home. The home is located less than 16 feet from the right-of-way, it was not felt the six foot fence as proposed would have a significant impact on the space along the street. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Shirley Stokes-Kilgore, the owner/applicant, stated she just moved to Florida and wants to be a good neighbor. She said her neighbors are in favor of her proposal to enclose her yard for her three large dogs. She discussed the small size of the yard, different fence configurations she discussed with staff, and varieties of perimeter landscaping materials that will not die back during the winter. She wishes to install a sma)! therapeutic pool later, but will not cut down any trees. Discussion ensued regarding configuration of the property and existing conditions. One member offered a suggestion that a narrow concrete walkway along the inside of the fence is beneficial as a dog run. J mdc08b.96 4 08/22/96 . . . ~ ., , , ~, . '. . '. . , . t'. ;" '." . . . ~r;~<'::"" , ,~ No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Mrs. Stokes-Kilgore said she came from Ohio where she has real estate experience. She appreciated the kindness extended to her by staff and board members during this process. Member Schwob moved to grant the variance(s) 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 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval d August 8, 1996 Member Jonnatti moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion' was duly seconded and carried I, ...~) una nimously. ""':\t<. The meeting recessed form 2:46 to 2:56 p.m. Board and Staff Comments Proposed Mandalav Avenue Streetscaoe Presentation - Don McCarty and Lisa Mui Mr. McCarty delivered a slide presentation prepared as part of a preliminary concept plan coordinated and prepared by staff, at the direction of the City Commission. Mr. McCarty will contribute the experience in streetscape planning and design he gained from participating in St. Petersburg's Central Avenue streetscape project. to the Mandalay Avenue project. The plan was introduced during an informational community meeting held July 17 at Memorial Civic Center. Photographs of existing conditions along Mandalay Avenue were compared to computer enhanced photographs showing how major streetscape improvements could be accomplished to create a more pedestrian oriented environment. He observed recent improvements to Pier 60 and certain commercial developments show attention to the Tropical Seascape theme, but much more needs to be done, Some improvements were done along one side of Mandalay Avenue. but did not reflect the Tropical Seascape theme and need updating. .-...-' mdc08b.96 5 08/22/96 " , ,..' ~ I I' " , . . . . . .~' .". . . . . ~ . '. . .. , . ' ~/. !': ' . ~ With buildings constructed up to the property lines along Mandalay Avenue. an ; accumulation of signs, equipment and outdoor storage contributes to the crowded conditions of the narrow sidewalks. Mr. McCarty demonstrated how better utilization and maintenance of clear space, simulated brick sidewalk and crosswalk treatments, benches. street lights, enhanced landscaping, buried power lines, and mast arm traffic signals will dramatically improve the ambiance of the right-of-way. Traffic lane reconfiguration to eliminate a four foot wide strip down the middle of the street. and reduction. of on.street parking, wilt allow wider sidewalks and more pedestrian amenities. Through computer graphics, he showed an effective. attractive, and overall pedestrian and tourist friendly environment that could be created on the beach. He displayed a conceptual drawing showing simulated brick crosswalks bordered by bands of rock-salt textured concrete, extensively landscaped traffic neck-outs, benches and additional palm trees. At the community meeting, residents and business owners who had been skeptical received the plan well and hoped it can be implemented soon. Close coordination is needed with the community, to minimize disruption of activities during construction. Staff will work with property owners and merchants to determine their needs and desires, and to avoid conflicts with next winter's tourist season. In response to a question regarding funding, Mr. McCarty did not know the sources, but said a preliminary cost estimate of $850,000 to $1 million for the streetscape project depends on the intensity of landscaping used. Those figures include the cost of burying power lines. The City Commission has given approval to begin the project. Staff will keep the board informed as the process evolves. C;) General discussion ensued regarding adherence to a design theme, accommodating mass transit, drainage considerations due to the small slope, and extending improvements into side streets. City Engineering is plotting the infrastructure to coordinate new facilities with existing conditions. In response to a question, it was indicated about 32 of the existing 82 parking spaces will be lost. Staff is working with a parking consultant to address the beach parking issue comprehensively. Existing side street parking is being examined to determine if reconfiguration will result in more parking spaces. Dumpster location and screening will be carefully addressed. as will hours and locations for truck deliveries. Concern was expressed with the clutter of newspaper racks, vending machines and clutter on the sidewalks. A suggestion was made to replace some T-shirt shops with newsstands. Discussion ensued regarding crosswalk placement, design and lighting for pedestrian safety. Old sidewalks will be removed to enable creating the correct slope for the new sidewalks. It had been suggested for staff to consider changing the traffic flow to two lanes with a center turn lane, as was done downtown. Mr. McCarty said City Traffic Engineering indicates four lanes are needed to carry the traffic volume. Each traffic lane will be narrowed from 12 to 11 feet. \-/ mdc08b.96 6 08/22/96 . . I . " , ~.." ,- ., ~:. . .. , ~,,~ ,'; " I~ Concern was expressed conceptual plans have been in the works for many years, but I \ nothing has been started. Mr. McCarty said due to the extensive planning and coordination required, a construction date is not set, but staff estimates startup in the Summer or Fall of 1997. The City's goal is to create a streetscape that will contribute to the full, wonderful experience vacationers expect in today's tourist market. Staff felt the streetscape proposal will be a drawing point and is a step in the right direction. Design Review Board toRB) UDdate . Don McCartv Mr. McCarty referred to copies of the ORB annual report as presented to the City Commission on August 1, 1996. He reviewed the board's history, background, composition, and responsibilities. Accomplishments, current activities and goals for the next year were discussed. He responded to questions regarding the board's authority to approve proposed designs. The ORB does not have grant funding for a downtown improvement incentive program as did the design committee of the Downtown Development Board, A series of design workshops is being conducted at the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce to address dasign aspects being encouraged. The City Commission will hold a special meeting in September to discuss projects associated with the Downtown Plan. Staff Comments Mr. Ron Stuart was welcomed as a new member. J......'.....", .":Of:!,.4 In response to concerns expressed at previous meetings regarding contractors working without permits, Mr. Richter submitted copies of a memo from Building Administrator Victor Chodora. Discussion ensued regarding the City's procedure and possible consequences for contractors, including multiple fees, and referral to the PCCLB (Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board.) Board members wished to ensure those fines are paid by the contractors, not passed along to property owners. Ms. Dougall~Sides pointed out the City holds the property owners responsible for collection purposes. The board did not agree with this practice and asked Mr, Richter to forward their comments to Mr. Chodora. Mr. Richter submitted for discussion a memo from Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford outlining the pros and cons of reassigning sign variances to the Development Code Adjustment Board. While the Commission may consider this in the future, they wish to see the sign compliance program through to the end. Board members were satisfied the City Commission has been informed of the board's interest and availability to lighten the Commission's work load when the timing is right, Mr. Richter noted it is three weeks until the September 12 DCAB meeting, and Member Gans will deliver DCAB's annual report to the City Commission on September 19. Member Schwab stated he became familiar with Clearwater's commercial properties during his service on the Planning and Zoning Board. He had been unaware of the beauty of the City's residential areas before becoming a member of DCAB, and said this is a very pretty community. -..-I mdc08b.96 7 08/22/96 .. '.' . "-. '.. . ~:~~~.~', ~', ' .;' ~ '~. .,. (,.~ .... " ~. .. "':)" ' .::' . ,~:' .' , . " :'. ' ". :', c .,' c !..~. :-. " .... .' ,. . .\",".. . ,(,->:-..1.. . ...... ." , ' '. ,....:,.. " ..',:, , , \ '. , ~e r ., , .. ~... I' 'r' c . -1'': ' "':'I"'~ U!c~r.,.I.. "''''!'J ,U '.' .' . "It(,.t~g\~,..;; ~;. ~ ~ ~l"~"~~~~~ it,.JI I'i.~:' .l. l~~ \ ~..... ~l'".:, j'1 . <'. :~: ~ .~:~,...' '; ~ . . 9.i~,~~--:.~;!,..t"I.;, ,"'.": ..,TJ.'~I'::-~ d..P c' .~"~'.' .....' \u',~ .~.' ',: :".' "':.1-~"":",,,,,:~,,, " . ".1.' v:.... ' ::..~'. ::'~':' " r.\~,' ::.......;~..:.~ .'1>~; "':':.: "'::' '~':".,,~'\.";,"'''''~'';'''':'''..'' .:-..\.t"';(:"I'~""',I.t'l"~~'.!(~ ..:0 Chairperson Gans requested, for the sake of. meeting continuity, for. board members to refrain from negotiating details of the proposals until the applicants' final presentatiors. ,. , . .:{I , ; . Adjournment '~; . d, I:' The meeting adjourned at 4:04 p.m. . ~cfl: Chair Development Code Adjustment Board ,n, . :~ : . . I, ' :/ .~ " ~ . if.' ~ . .(> '. 1;.'" . \. ~;, Attest: .~&~ Soard Reporter t~: ": : ,- 'l.:" i,:;'.:... , >0'. . ' :, . . l \.~ , '\ o mdc08b.96 8 08/22/96 ., .