Loading...
07/27/1995 (2) .. . '- . .' . '. . ~. ~ ,. . ~ . }~~:',~,;~';Y" ,,: , o. ' ~ . I', ,', 'I ' ',' , ,..' I '.' .' < ,; . :' It', . ::'. ../ .:"~~L '.. .' ," >.\.," .. .. ... " /',".' :," ,e.- " ~,.: , , ' . . .' :+;'::,':>U::.,,:: " ,\~'.u,.,:,_',:. " , ~'~5P.~~~):;I~;}\t.i'.i:..i~(~~~I}~i';;~'~1'\~;.f7r)l..):~~~~('~~;'~fi;.:':.;.lc)T~":'.if;,.;"H, :':;....J: ';,: ....l: ,c}" , '.' " _ . ~W~\~/~~ ,;j:r~}~:.t~[:.l'~'c.~:~:':r,~,.,~'.~'~;~~:':\ (:<C::.:I...>..~..+..:/,::,':J~:,;i". .".:" c'; .. ," :". c.':i'~<'.'"';:~~::: ':..~,~ \"' " ,,' . ~.., ",., I, ~/. . " ,',", I '.....(-'It , : DCAB Development Code Adjustment Board, Minutes Date .. Ju(j 2~ 1!1!l~ "0 . ' -f-/;tO/ " ' ''-.-I . . ,_ I' " . t . . I , .' ~ I. . . . . ~,. . '~' . . . ... nt::;, ~ ,L. ' DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD - ACTION AGENDA July 271 1995 Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation A. None B. VARIANCE REQUESTS: ~~~ 1. (cant. from 7/13/95) Robert E. 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 und 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' 2 ft is required; (4) 6% to a minimum open space for lot of 19"1" 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 ACTION.: Granted as requested subject to the (ollowing 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 resu(t in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permiUs) shall be obtained within 30 days; and 3) the applicant shall satisfy the requirements of the transportation impact fee ordinance. 2. City of Clearwater/Art Kader (Countryside Community Recreation Center) for a variance of 7 ft to permit a building height of 32 ft where 25 ft is allowed ilt 2640 Saba' Springs Dr, Sec 29-28-16, M&B 22.04, zoned OS/R (Open Space Recrealional). V 95-37 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; and 2) the requisite building perm;t(s) shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of this public hearing. 3. Dr. Douglas Weiland & Dr. Elizabeth Sirna for a variance of 3.5 ft to permit a felice height of 6 ft where 2.5 ft is allowed at 3273 landmark Dr, Geiger Tract, Lots 3 & 4, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 95~38 ACTION: Granted as requested subject to the following conditions: 1) This varianct.~ 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 (or 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. DCAB ACTION Page 1 of 2 07/27/95 , ' " \ ' ' . ',' , , "", " ' ." ".n' :'." .' ' ~,:;.'~~;'''''".'' , .. 'W.' , ..\J!~' ! ' .. c ~~i~r~::;:'::").:': ,', >:, il'j" . e 4. Douglas M. & Wendy L. Darry for variances of (1) 11 ft to permit an above ground pool 14 ft from a street right-of-way of. where 25 (t is required, and (2) of 2 ft to permit a fence of 6 ft within a: secondary street setback where 4 ft is allowed at 1535 South Frederica Ave, Brookhill Unit II, Blk F, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-39 ACTION: Granted Variance #1 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 (or 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. Denied Variance #2 S. City of Clearwater (GTE Mobilnet of TampaJ Inc) for a variance of 90 ft in height to permit a communications antenna 150 ft high where a maximum height of 60 ft is permitted at 3290 S.R. 580, See 21-28~16, M&B 31.00, zoned P/SP (PublidSemipublic), V 95-40 ACTION: Continued to the meeting of August 10, 1995 D. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - None E. APPROVAL OF MI N UTES - July 13, 1995 - Approved as submitted F. CHAIRMANIS ITEMS Op..... I ' G. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - Courtesy Review of Downtown Redevelopment Plan Reviewed by Director Pete Gozza, Community Redevelopment Agency H. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS I. ADJOURNMENT Tile meeting adjourned at 2:31 p.m. '"'--- DCAB ACTION Page 2 Df 2 07127195 / .. ... , . +". . ~ ~ 1..- ..\\'ti"lt~~...I~' " ,..'C ':' ~trt ':"'. l~ . c ~ ' ~ DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD July 27, 1995 Members present: Otto Gans, Vice Chair Joyce Martin William Johnson William Schwab Members absent: Alex Plisko, Chair Also present: John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department Patricia Sullivan, Board Reporter (';"') "~'" The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chair at 1 :00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. 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 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. 'J B. The following variance requests were considered: 1. (cont. from 7/13/95) Robert E. 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 15ft 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 It was indicated this item was continued from the meeting of June 13, at the request of the appl icant. Senior planner Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff recommendations. He indicated a deck was constructed in violation of the City's setback and open space requirements. Detailing Code requirements, he stated the deck complements the architecture of the restaurant and ample parking exists to support the additional seating area. Staff felt no public purpose would be served by removing the deck. Environmental Management staff '-"' mdc07b.95 pagn l of (J 07/27/95 ~,j(t. '.'i,'. ~?:t;f.!,~:r:,. " '..~' II ' d\~. . ~ noted the deck does not conflict with the retention area below. Traffic Engineering staff said the application is subject to a transportation impact fee. Staff recommended approval with two standard conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Richter indicated no record of previous variances was found. Attorney Brunson, representing the applicant, explained the deck was built by a previous tenant without the owner's knowledge. Variances are now being requested to bring the structure into compliance. He indicated the property owner wishes to comply and is willing to pay the impact fee. A petition containing eleven signatures of Clearwater residents was submitted in support of the application, One address was within 200 feet of the subject properly. Outlining the benefits of the deck, Mr. Brunson indicated it provides better and safer access to the building, In response to a question, he stated the owner wishes to continue to lease the establishment as a restaurant. ' i,""":')\ .""" Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Schwab 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plansl 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 sitel will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within 30 days; and 3) the applicant shall satisfy the requirements of the transportation impact fee ordinance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. City of Clearwater/Art Kader (Countryside Community Recreation Center) for a variance of 7 ft to permit a building height of 32 ft where 25 ft is allowed at 2640 Sabal Springs Dr, Sec 29-28~ 16, M&B 22.04, zoned OS/R (Open Space Recreational). V 95w37 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation. He stated the variance is needed to build a gymnasium at the Countryside Community Park, The proposal is the minimum acceptable height and will be located more than 300 feet from nearby residential property. Art Kader, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, stated the idea for the center came from neighbors who wanted an indoor facility for community gatherings and activities. He stated the project has been underway for over two years. At meetings with homeowners, the only concern expressed regarded buffering. In response to a questionl Mr. Kader stated the additional height will allow construction of a first class gym, Members felt the park is beautiful. ',,-/ mdc07b.95 P,1gC 2 of 6 07/27/95 . . . , .' " '. ~.. \, ''-....., ,. , I ~~*.m;,c: ~ Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant 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 applicantts 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. 3. Dr. Douglas Weiland & Dr. Elizabeth Sirna for a variance of 3.5 (t to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 2,5 ft is allowed at 3273 landmark Dr, Geiger Tract, lots 3 & 4, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential), V 95-38 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation. He stated the applicants wish to build a six foot high open decorative fence at the (ront of the property. The fence is needed for safety and security. Several nearby properties are enclosed with fences up to six feet in height. Staff felt the request supports standards for approval. j """'} '"-,,, Craig Baughan, representing the applicants, stated the fence will be of open metal construction, The height is needed to keep pedestrians from stepping over onto the property. He referred to a drawing of the proposal submitted with the application, Concern was expressed the site plan does not show the location of gates depicted in the illustration. Discussion ensued regarding the configuration of gates proposed for the walkway and two driveways at the front of the property. It was indicated there is minimal impact to adjacent properties. Mr. Richter stated in response to a question, design elements are allowed to exceed the maximum fence height by up to 18 inches. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Martin moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards (or approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the land Development Code, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant 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. ~ mdc07b.95 PilSC 3 of 6 07/2 7/95 '" ~lft;J,'" "', " >' ~::.~..': ,I' '. ,~ 4. Douglas M. & Wendy l. Barry for variances of (1) 11 ft to permit an above ground pool 14 ft from a street right-of~way of where 25 ft is required, and (2) of 2 ft to permit a fence of 6 ft within a secondary strecf setback where 4 ft is allowed at 1535 South Frederica Ave, Brookhil1 Unit II, Blk F, lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential), V 95-39 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation. It was indicated the applicants wish to have an above ground pool enclosed with a six foot tall privacy fence. Due to the constraints of the corner lot, staff felt the conditions for approval were met for the first variance. Neighborhood conditions did not appear to favor approval of the second variance as no similar fences exist in the surrounding area. It was indicated the applicants may construct a four foot tall fence without a variance. A question was raised regarding fence heights in relation to street frontage orientation, It was indicated the fence height requirement is 2.5 feet for front yards and 4 feet for side yards. Mr. Richter explained this is because of the City's position that front yards should be open to preserve the view from th~ street. ""'--"'Ii." I"...) Doug Barry, the owner/applicant, explained conditions in his back yard and side yard, stating there is no other area for a pool. He indicated he cannot place the pool in the rear where a six foot fence would be allowed because of the roots of the large tree located there. He expressed concern a four foot fence will not provide adequate privacy, safety or security for his four foot pool. Discussion ensued regarding orientation of the pool. Concern was expressed the recommendation against the second variance is inconsistent with the recommendation in the previous case and other cases where safety was the motivating factor. In response, it was indicated other cases relating to swimming pool safety were due to insurance requirements for four foot tall fences. Discussion ensued regarding safety versus aesthetics. Concern was expressed a six foot wood fence would detract from the appearance of the neighborhood and other types of fencing materials should be explored. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Schwob moved to grant Variance #1 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant 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. ,--.-,' mdc07h.95 Page 4 of 6 07/27/95 !"i.li?~.. ". . "1"' lit' J.-lt'... . . '~~V'il:.; "l. c' . };> ,," '. . ~. . ~ Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Schwob moved to deny Variance #2 because the applicant has not substanlially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45,24 of the land Development Code, more specifically, because the granting of the variance will nol be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Land Development Code and comprehensive plan and will be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Gans, Johnson and Schwab voted "Aye"; Member Martin voted "Nay:1 Motion carried. 5. City of Clearwater (GTE Mobilnel of Tampa, Inc) for a variance of 90 ft in height to permit a communications antenna 150 ft high where a maximum height of 60 ft is permitted at 3290 S.R. 580, See 21-28-16, M&B 31.00, zoned P/SP (Public/Semipublic), V 95-40 , In a memo dated July 25, 1995, City Engineer Rich Baier requested a continuance to the meeting of August 10, 1995. He stated the requested variance is being increased from 90 to 111 feet and will require readvertising. D. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - None E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 13, 1995 (.."\ ''''~ Member Schwab moved to approve the minutes of July 13, 1995, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS - None G. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - Courtesy Review of Downtown Redevelopment Plan - Pete Gozza, Executive Director, Community Redevelopment Agency (eRA) Mr. Gozza stated a consulting group was retained to prepare a Downtown Redevelopment Plan, He indicated one of the resources used in developing the plan was a visual preference survey wherein participants rated a series of slides of different types of development and housing. He outlined the key points of the plan and displayed a map highlighting details. Discussion ensued regarding a variety of topics including: 1) development of a downtown lake and the surrounding property; 2) definition of the area designated as "downtown" for the purpose of qualifying for federal funds and tax increment financing; 3) plans for the area on the bluff that would fall under the referendum rules; and 4) proposed location of the Pinellas Trail through Clearwater. Discussion ensued regarding Clearwater beach as a separate entity from downtown Clearwater. Concern was expressed with the division. It was felt supporters of the two factions should work together for a unified Clearwater. The Board had 110 objections to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan as submitted, ,--",' mdc07b.95 Page 5 of 6 07/27/95 ....-. ~ ,', ~'~" I.... '. " '~~:~.'{~~~~;'~~':~:< ~, "-,' \ ' " , ':>:>. > . , '~ '.~ ".';> i".' I,:'" . ~~~: ' " ,!:' . ~ I, ." : . , ,:,,:'/':', ,. ,,' ;!:;~_ ','c> ..:', '.: c ~',~.' : ': . ,,: ..:' :' .": '," 1;{N' ..... · .. .. ,WtJ!~~~.~~;:~!i',}~\!"j:!~tr~t~i'~\~~,\;;:~tr.~~~'~'~~r':..: ;'':: ,'. ":~: ~",'::> ':":;, :' . . " ,.c , . . I :' ( .."..(. ~ ' .. . 1.. '", ~ . c ,,.;, . ''1. ._...,~... " " ':"(' ~:,,"O, I', "e" H. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS Don McCarty, Associate Planner/Design Review introduced himself to the Board. He stated he will be working with Scott Shuford and the Design Review Board. 1. . ADJOURNMENT ,The meeting adjourned at 2:31 p.m. ~/ 1.-.... ' ChaIr , " ,. ,~ ',' . Attest: .....$p~~. Board Reporter " J o " 1 I " l "'-'"' mcJc07b.95 Page 6 of 6 07127/95