07/06/1995 - Meeting Cancelled
~'~~~~::~ :);::';....~.. :-'
, :", .',.
, . ~~.... >, ,~ . :,. ~.
.' 1.:<
" t'
I,.:
J' . I. .
, ,
., .
~,..:\O"p~;~!,\'."".r. '."~ ~~Ic ~~..~:.il...:.:' ~l.. . .'.7' , ,~.
'. ~ > .. .,
>~;.'v:...: .: c. ~:. .......oI'."'~
. ". . /., ..... . ,.' {' ,~.. t'
I}
a
The Development Code Adjustment Board meeting scheduled for
Thursday, July 6, 1995, at 1 :00 p.m., has been cancelled. This meeting
has been rescheduled to Thursday, July 13, 1995, at 1 :00 p.m., in the
City Commission Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola
Avenue, Clearwater, Florida.
City of Clearwater
P.O. Box 4748
Clearwater, FL 34618-4748
Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC
City Clerk
. ,\)
()
<I
, I
\...J
, ' ' , " " .' " " .
/;;l~.~>;':'.Y . ", ". ". ", c.
:~~-: ';;c' ~" .... ~: ' . \
...,
. . ,
( ~..,'
....
'.~"': .
...
. c . ~ ~:.
.'. .
" '. '
. J;
"
".. ".
.;~. ;", ,
r\" . ~ ".... .
l-:~.~: >; " , .
"r":'.' .'
>\.t~ c:" ".'
. I
.' . . .
"""'........._..'<1.-~,I~.n/..!.~........}'t,~.....'.>.I.,". ~. ...' .~" ......';.. "'~"~>";i'~"'.'~>'" ~'. .:.
. .' ,....~., ..' ,\.' :
. .... ,',.'\' 'l
" , ',j ,., .' .. ,-' .-.,., .... ~'r .,.,~.....
.0
. ..."h,.
'. . ~
DCAB
Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
Date
, .
.' ,.....-."
\ . . I
.' "-..--/
J~ II 1:2
I ....'.
\. :
",/
'.
''ff;t'.' " .
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD - ACTION AGENDA
~
Thursday, July 13, 1995
Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Invocalion
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 22, 1995
Approved as submitted.
B. VARIANCE REQUESTS:
1. Horizon House for variances of (1) 5 ft to permit a fence height of 5 ft
where none is allowed in a waterfront setback; and (2) 2.5 ft to permit a fence
within the structural setback from a street (Island Way) right-of-way from which the
property is addressed at 31 Island Way, Horizon House Co-op, a portion of Tract
uN" zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential). V 95-33
i '-'~")
.~
ACTION: Granted Variance #1 to permit a 5-foot high vinyl fence as requested for swimming
pool safety and insurance purposes and Variance #2 to permit a 36-inch high chain link fence
for parking lot and trespass protection subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is
based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the app1;cant, including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of tile appUcant'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, wilf result in this variance being null and of no effect and 2) the requisite building
permit(s) sha// be obtained within 6 months from the date of this public hearing.
2. Frijnk C. Kunnen. Ir (Clearwater 1119" Commerce Center) for variances of
(1) 133 ft to permit a communications antenna 199 ft high where 60 ft is permitted;
and (2) 78.5 ft to allow a setback of 21 ft where 99.5 ft is required at 22067 US 19
~, Clearwater 1119" Commerce Center Park, Lot 1, zoned IPO (Industrial Planned
Development). V 95~34
ACTION: Granted as requested 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) tile requisite building
permit(s) shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the
installation shall strictly conform to FCC regulations regarding interference with other electronic
uses.
DCAB ACTION
Page 1 01 2
07/13/95
, . . '. ... ','. ~. ': < . . ."+
./.
"l~.^"t~l"",~l~ n' T '.
..: ~ . '~'. ..
~
3. Robert Eo Malke for variances of (1) 50 ft to permit a minimum lot width of
100 ft where 150 ft is required; (2) 11.6 ft to permit a deck and handicap access
ramp 3.4 ft from a street (Coronado Drive) right-of-way where 15 ft is required; (3)
8.5 ft to permit a deck 3.5 ft from a side property line where 12 ft is required; (4)
6% to a minimum open space for lot of 19% where 25% is required; and (5) 21 %
to permit a minimum open space for front yard of 29% where 50% is required at
348 Coronado Drive, Lloyd White-Skinner Sub, Lots 118 & 119, zoned CR 28
(Resort Commercial). V 95-35
M:I,{QfS.: Continued at the request of the applicant to the meeting of July 27, 1995.
4. Island Club Condominium Association. Ine for variances of (1) 6 inches to
permit a fence height of 4 (t where 3.5 ft maximum height is allowed; and (2) to
permit zero percent clear space where 20% is required at 724 Bityway BlvdJ Island
Club Condominium, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-36
ACTION: Granted as requested 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 or no effect and 2) the requisite building
permit(s) shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of this public hearing.
,~,
, i ......,)
D.
LAND DEVElOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - None
E. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS - Election of Vice Chair
Mr. Cans was elected as Vice-Chair.
F. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Go BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS - Welcome New Member
William Johnson was welcomed to the Board.
H. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2: 20 p.m.
u
DeAB ACTION
Palla 2 01 2
07/13/95
. ,
. .
.' '.'.'" . . ~ ..... .' .. , .
~i~"'.t. ~;' ~, '. '
DEVElOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
n
July 13/ 1995
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chair
Otto Gans
Joyce Martin
William Johnson
William Schwab
Also present:
John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department
Gwen Legters, Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1 :03 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City
Hall, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation. He outlined procedures and advised
anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may
appeal through the City Clerk Department within two weeks. He noted Floridn 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.
....'rH'J..l;'
'",,""
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 22,1995
. Member Schwab moved to approve the minutes of June 22, 1995, in accordance with copies
submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The following variance requests were considered:
B. VARIANCE REQUESTS:
1. Horizon House for variances of (1) 5 ft to permit a fence height of 5 ft where none
is allowed in a waterfront setback; and (2) 2.5 ft to permit a fence within the structural
setback from a street (Island Way) right-of-way from which the property is addressed
at 31 Island Way, Horizon House Co-op, a portion of Tract "A," zoned RM 28
(Multiple Family Residential). V 95-33
Senior Planner Richter gave the background or the case and presented, in writing, the staff
recommendation. He stated the applicant wishes to build five foot high (ences in three locations
on the high-rise condominium property. Staff supported approval of two fences to complete the
pool enclosure for safety reasons. The purpose of the third fence along Island Way was
questioned. Concern was expressed it would obstruct the view of the water for southbound
traffic. Two standard conditions of approval were recommended.
\J
mdc07il.95
P.1gC 1 of (j
07/13/95
. " '. ....:. . . . I I
'. .
~. . . > . .
~~
Russ Sachs, Vice President, Board of Directors representing Horizon House Condominiums,
distributed copies of a drawing to clarify the request. He stated fences adjacent to the swimming
pool are needed because of an insurance requirement to control outside access. Concerning the
third fence, he stated visitors in the parking area sometimes run right up to the seawall before they
are aware of it. A fence is needed along the seawall to protect them from injury. A question was
raised what will keep visitors from walking around the covered parking area to the seawall. Mr.
Sachs stated the covered parking area is blocked at the rear. Mr. Richter indicated staff was not
aware of the safety concern along the seawall and agreed some type of fencing was indicated.
He suggested a compromise to allow a fence that does not obstruct the view of the water.
Discussion ensued regarding the type of fencing material, location and extent of the proposal. Mr.
Sachs indicated the pool enclosure will be green vinyl covered chain link. In response to
questions, he stated the third fence was to be built in front, not on, the sea wall. It was felt a three
foot high galvanized chain link fence would be less obtrusive along the water. Mr. Sachs
concurred.
I .~ ~~\.,
....'"l!e.,;tl
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Gans moved to grant Variance
#1 to permit a 5-foot high vinyl fence as requested for swimming pool safety and insurance
purposes and Variance #2 to permit a 36-inch high chain link fence for parking lot and trespass
protection 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) 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 6 months from the date of this public hearing.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. frank Co Kunnen.lr (Clearwater "19" Commerce Center) for variances of (1) 133
ft to permit a communications antenna 199 ft high where 60 ft is permitted; and (2)
78.5 ft to allow a setback of 21 (t where 99.5 ft is required at 22067 US 19 N,
Clearwater "19" Commerce Center Park, Lot 1, zoned IPD (Industrial Planned
Development). V 95-34
Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation.
He stated it is difficult to find a suitable location for such a tower in a densely populated area.
Located a substantial distance away from residential development, the tow~r would be situated
to minimize the impacts. Staff recommended approval with the two standard conditions.
Concern was expressed the location was difficult to find and discussion ensued.
Suzanne Urash, representing Mobile Communications of Florida, stated this project was
developed to coordinate with other facilities around Florida. She pointed oul a mistake on the
original drawing and distributed an amended site plan showing the tower 21 feet from the north
property line. Ms. Urash detailed how the proposed location relates to the surrounding properties.
''0
mdc07il.95
Page 2 of (j
07/13/95
". " .. ,.' , . \. ,"
"
~ft"l '''',_ ,c If
r':)
Discussion ensued regarding platted access and whether setback requirements for a small
shed on the property changed as a result of the site plan amendment. Mr. Richter noted this
is a planned development area and specific requirements are not shown in the Land
Development Code. He suggested addressing the height variance today and handling the
setbacks later if any problems arise.
Walter Tanner, also representing Mobile Communications of Floridll, responded to questions
regarding the nature of the business. He stated this is a national network of enhanced
specialized mobile radio. Functioning similar to cellular telephones, he said a variety of
communication functions can be combined into one unit. He indicated they mobilize during
crises such as the California earthquakes and have donated equipment to FEMA and other
emergency agencies.
Concern was expressp.d regarding the potential for electronic interference with neighboring
properties and a nearby tower owned by Pinellas County. Mr. Tanner said they have
exercised due diligence in researching the frequencies and expect no problems with
interference as strict FCC regulations will be followed. He outlined the procedure for
reporting and correcting interference if it should occur.
t;)
One letter was submitted opposing the application. Concerns were expressed with the
number of times variances have been requested for this property and with possible electronic
interference from the operation. Discussion ensued regarding the variance history of the
property. Staff was requested to inform the concerned individual of her recourse regarding
any electronic interference.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. Some felt the subject property was an ideal
location for the tower. Others expressed concern the use is too intensive for the site and
financially benefits the property owner. Some concern was expressed with a tower of this
height near US 19. It was indicated US 19 is not a scenic corridor.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Schwab moved to grant the
variances as requested because the applicant has substanlially met all of 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; 2) the requisite building pcrmit(s) shall be obtained within 6
months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the installation shall strictly conform to
FCC regulations regarding interference witl~ other electronic uses. The motion was duly
seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Gans, Johnson and Schwab voted ItAyelt;
Members Pliska and Martin voted UNay.1t Motion carried.
'..J
mdc07a.95
Page 3 of 6
07/13/95
, '.' '". . . "', ' ..' " ", '.'.
~1;1.'~ . "~. '
~
3. Robert E. Malke for variances of (1) 50 f\ \0 permit a minimum lot width of
100 ft where 150 ft is required; (2) 11.6 ft to permit a deck and handicap access
ramp 3.4 ft from a street (Coronado Drive) right-of-way where 15ft is required;
(3) 8.5 ft to permit a deck 3.5 n from a side property line where 12 ft is required;
(4) 6% to a minimum open space for lot of 19% where 25% is required; and (5)
21 (I/o to permit a minimum open space for front yard of 29% where 50% is
required at 348 Coronado Drive, Lloyd White-Skinner Sub, Lots 118 & 119,
zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-35
In a leHer dated July 7, 1995, the applicant's representative requested a continuance to
July 27, 1995 due to a schedule conflict. Consensus was to approve the continuance request.
Discussion ensued regarding previous variances to the size and location of a deck on the
subject property. Staff was requested to provide details at the next meeting.
4. IsJand Club Condominium Association. Inc for variances of (1) 6 inches to
permit a fence height of 4 ft where 3.5 ft maximum height is allowed; and (2) to
permit zero percent clear space where 20% is required at 724 Bayway Blvd,
Island Club Condominium, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-36
............
\
,...../
Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff
recommendation. He stated the applicant wishes to build a fence to complete the northwest
corner of the existing swimming pool enclosure. Staff felt the request was appropriate to
enhance pool safety and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
Mark Madison, representing Island Club Condominium Association, outlined conditions on
the site. He stated the existing pool was built about 15 years ago and is non-conforming
under the current code. The variances are needed due to an insurance safety requirement to
fully enclose the pool. He said none of the companies researched would insure the pool
unless fully enclosed with a 48 inch tall fence. Not having insurance would be a severe
hardship. He stated the request is consistent with conditions in the area. The fence is to be
of open PVC construction. It will not obstruct the view or conflict with the architectural
design of the area.
A photograph of the original building showing a four foot black tubular metal railing around
the seawall was submitted for the record. Mr. Madison proposed to replace this with the
new, more attractive railing. He also submitted a sales brochure depicting the design of the
new fence. He stated the proposal is beneficial to the public safety and welfare and will not
adversely affect anyone.
In response to a request, Mr. Madison submitted for the record a letter from the insurance
company specifying the 48 inch fence height requirement. This was compared to the City's
42 inch height limitation.
v
mdc07i\.95
Page 4 of 6
07/13/95
.".!1.:~~. .
n
,
Discussion ensued regarding the fencing requirements for pool enclosures. Staff was
requested to investigate bringing City code in alignment with insurance company
requirements in order to reduce the number of variances being requested, It WilS indicated
this is already being done.
Lonny Lamb, President of Island Club Condominium Association, responded to questions
regarding a six foot wooden fence on the property. He stated it was built to stop people from
throwing lawn furniture into the pool and the Gulf. He did not feel a four foot fence of the
style proposed would represent enough of a deterrent. It was not known if a permit was
issued for the six foot fence. Staff was requested to investigate.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Martin 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, 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 applicant1s 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
regarding 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 6
months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
I.'~")
,,~
D. lAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - None
E. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS - Election of Vice Chair
Member Schwab nominated Mr. Gans as Vice.Chair. The nomination was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
F. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
G. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS - Welcome New Member
William IIBinn Johnson was welcomed to the Board.
Staff was requested to ensure the Board receives a site plan with every variance request. Mr.
Richter indicated plans submitted with applications are sometimes vague and inconsistent
with the variance being requested. It was suggested applicants be advised, in the future, the
Board will postpone variance requests not accompanied by a current and accurate site plan.
Mr. Richter stated a note to this effect Is to be placed on the variance application form.
Concern was expressed with the difficulty of locating certain building sites. Staff was
requested to include reference to major intersections on maps.
v
mdc07a,95
P<lge 5 of 6
07/13/95
g,~~,~<:':;,~~.:~~ \ .. :
"~". ., ~ , .
,: .' ~ : :,:
:' '
r,~\ ;
~\~
:'. .
l:~:' c' .
::t..:-
"./ .<
}
. .
.to
c . j, .
---I ..',
~. ~l . :' ... ,
: '~" . '.". . .
':." . . ,.
~~~(~;(,.:,;.y~:;~;'.::~;~~t;!~\J~!(}:Y;\:"lr~'~~(:~r' ;:;:::.": ';';'p.:.-','; ,':, ',. ,1.1: . ':. :
~ ">.. ".'. (..
J : '. . , ',c.' ..~ .: "F > ':- I .
,.
,'>'
'.c' ,. =c' " '
. " ' : .
.' '.'"::"::c.~' -.10 . '~"" ,~~
.: ...:~' , . ( .. . , , , -,...'" , .....
~
f.,W~"
. ~. . ,
A question was raised regarding whether the Board wished to continue opening meetings
with the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation. It was felt a certain amount of formality
dignifies the proceedings and reassures the public. General consensus was to keep the
pledge and invocation as a regular part of the agenda.
H. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
gQ-- ~
... --' .c~~ 1
Chair .
(' .
ATTEST:
.'
.'.,
~U/WJ~W
,Board Reporter c:/
,.
, I
I
I
I
. 0''''''
, '..
. " ."
V
mdc07a.95
Page 6 of 6
07/13/95