06/12/1997 (2)
... : .... ',','+ ,., ..... .', ..' ~:~~~." J, ~ \..:.. . .,. ... ..,1.. ...,'. ..... \. .. ..;' . ..,j. .:. 'I '.'.'. \
'.-. '
,.
.
.,
'.
, ,. . , .'
~1.~;\':~~~';Si:":' ;\~.: ';~;';;""":;"".~'.~;;~~~ '\"k,!. .:.,.: ,,,': ,.; ...:, ...; ;.: . !,,' . ': . i.. ,\,,,.,,.,.< i ,;.;::: . "'.".:. '..' :. '. . ">: . . .
~!' . . . A
. DCAB
. Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes '.\
D'ate'
June. I d, lqq1
}'
Jl.o<1
. \
.~
"
..
,:,.~..::.~:_!.... .' . ,,~\.'."'.:~".'. ,..:'., :....:'. ',.: .....:. .....:.:.':., .,',.-.... .:.' ~,'," ,':'".. .'.'.>':':',", ..,:. '::.:... >,:,," .<.. .,""...' . "-:..:'..';"'''' "
. .". ,.' ..\': '.,1.' ..' t, ... '""" ,[_.. . : '.. ......'... '.'
"
~, ~., . ,.,. ,.,.. ,:... ". . . .
". , I . '.' . ." . ..,':".::.'.,::":.: ;:.!i~" ,
. I .. I" i . ~ . " '.. ~ ~ '
. \ '.. .... -I- : ,. ~ ',' .' .
< ~ ~".,{ I . r.. ,: \
" .
. i
., '
." ,
~
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.. ACTION AGENDA
Thursday, June 12, 1997
Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
C. New Variance Requests
C1. Samuel S. & Maureen B. Greenwav for a structural setback variance to allow a wood
fence along the Barton Lane right-of-way at 3049 Marlo Blvd, Shady Oak Farms Sub,
Blk G, Lot 3, zoned RS-6 (Single Family Residential.) VR 97-36
ACTION: Withdrawn by applicantr
C2. Thomas & Evanaelia G. Dushas for a structural setback variance to allow a gazebo
within the south side setback area at 1100 Mandalay Point Rd, Mandalay Point Sub,
Lots 1 & 1 A and land E of Lot 1 A to the existing seawall, zoned RS 4 (Single Family
Residential) VR 97-37
ACTION: Granted 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 one year from the date of this public hearing.
(:> Minutes Approval - May 22. 1997 - Approved as submitted
Board and Staff Comments -- Discussion
Adjournment - 2:17 p.m.
, .
o
.,l;-4;
DCAB ACTION
1
06/12/97
., .' ...'; #:.lli.(<~.", ,....~.
it?:.'.; ,....:.>',..:.: ;,,~y .\ '
'. " ..,,'.~ :~ :......., ~,;:_......._\.... ..~:, .~.,I:...,', '~" ....}.',...L\. .......:..'~......:\.' .'. ....... ....: ..... .....:.....~.'.,'... ....., .; .....'...
f'J
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
June 12, 1997
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwab
William Johnson (arrived 1: 14 p.m.)
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 Report.er
The meeting was called to order at 1 :00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation,
Pledge of Allegiance, meeting procedures and explanation of the appeal process.
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda "rder although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. New Variance Requests
{~ .
''lfr#
C1. Samuel S. & Maureen B. Greenway for a structural setback variance to allow a wood
fence along the Barton Lane right-ot-way at 3049 Marlo Blvd, Shady Oak Farms Sub,
Blk G, Lot 3, zoned RS-6 (Single Family Residential.) VR 97-36
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations,
stating the applicant is requesting the variance to allow a six foot fence to remain within
the setback along Barton Lane where a maximum fence height of four feet is allowed. He
detailed fences and setback conditions in the surrounding neighborhood, stating the appeal
of the clean, attractive subdivision is partially due to the open space provided adjacent to
the streets. A notice of correction was issued by a City Building Inspector. It was
indicated the proposal will comply with the standards for approval, provided the fence is
repositioned at least 18 feet back from the Barton Lane right-af-way, and exterior
landscaping is provided along the outside to respect the character of the existing
development. Staff recommended approval with four conditions.
In response to questions, discussion ensued regarding the setback requirement,
reasons for tpe 18~foot recommendation, and location of the property line in relation to the
right-of-way. It was indicated a permit for a four foot fence was issued in March 1997.
Samuel Greenway, the owner/applicant, said a six foot fence is proportional to his
home and pool cage, which are taller than others in the neighborhood. He had been told a
six foot chain link fence could be constructed legally in his requested location, but Mr.
Greenway did not wish to wait while vines grow to cover such a fence. Mr. Richter
clarified code height, setback and landscaping requirements for chain link and wood fences
along rights-of-way.
o
mdc06a.97
1
06/12/97
~.....:....:. ::...: '.,.. .'..'f"..' i. ~ .~. ,',:\.~.:. .:../..... .:..;i.....:.".....:.....:,.~.~.'":.:l~.::~~:'..:~:,,I;:::-.:'::..( ....'....~.:..:,:\:....:.:.,i.:....;.'\...\ " .'.'/:.F:......"..;.. ,.:',:'
,.~,.'''''..,.......,..'''.!''..,...'...''.',.'.
.'.< ~ <:.. . .~ '. '. ~. ~ .'. \ I ' ~~ ': ::. . .... ..', ., ~, .. :..':. " :. . I . ~ .: Or." ~. . r.;. I'''' }: ." '. '.;. ~i:,., :'..:,' .~ . , ~ " :.." '.: ~ ':1.'" . ~ ".~ h !.;.'.; '.: :':.:,..'\ : L .~: .,) .",' t. <. . '., ::' .,' : I ..' """ '.',' .' ..
.." .1 . ,. .... '., .... ". . '-' ". . . . "~"". .'1' . ., '. . ,. "
. . .': ' '. ~I., .:.: . ".:;:" ,:.:'1. ... :,.'I'j.. r'''',., I'. ~.. : ...... ..~:;.,..~ ..: ~::'.~ "1'. '.' :,' " ~ ,..." . "1\\
,~
:: 1
"';'7
','..'
..,'
.:.~.::
,.,
.;,',
"I.,
,'.
'<.~..';,
, '
, ,
','
"
, '.,
.i:"
., ..
~ ! I.
:._,
.:~':' .i
I,';'
.....;
.. "
",/.
.~ "I
'It>~
...
. .~,::.
:: .:..~
;k,~.
: i\;:
, .<
,~l"\'
''r.~~~
:.' -:.:'
".:<\
; : ~ ~:
\:.":1:
\',.":
',1.'.,
". \.:
" '
,',',.
~i::..
:' ~;':: ;
/:,:,
}:".',
,.....
~.~ l~: :
" '
'......1
l.:.':,J.."
'};)~:
, ~ 1.';(
::,:. ...
::":
....
',,,,.
..' . ~
..~~><I
,.
-,""
~.;:/,.
. -:.~ :1 ~.:
....ll
.....,
{" .
o
.,-
I,., ,
I"
i ~.' . .-$
:<., j/
:,"'.
,'.1'
.........
:.:; :.:~:::
:- ~ ! :
........
'..,'
:/.~.i.:~~;{:.,<. I .
';;::.!/.:.".t:.:'!.",'I:;:
Member Johnson arrived at 1: 14 p.m.
Discussion ensued regarding this issue. Mr. Greenway said he is not trying to
consume the whole yard with a fence, but wishes to provide an outdoor area for his dog
and privacy around his pool area. He objected to moving the fence back 1 B feet from the
right-of-way because the remaining five feet between the fence and the pool would be
inadequate. He questioned code requirements for height and setback, and how staff
arrived at the 1 B foot figure. Mr. Greenway questioned if he could lower the fence to four
feet in height and leave it in its present location without a variance. It was indicated he
could. Adding heavy shrubbery for screening the additional height was suggested as an
alternative.
Mr. Greenway withdrew his variance request, indicating he did not want to move his
six foot fence back as far as would be required to receive approval, and did not need a
variance under the circumstances.
C2. Thomas & Evanaelia G. Dushas for a structural setback variance to allow a gazebo
within the south side setback area at 1100 Mandalay Point Rd, Mandalay Point Sub,
Lots 1 & 1 A and land E of Lot 1 A to the existing seawall, zoned RS 4 (Single Family
Residential) VR 97-37
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations,
stating the applicants wish to construct an overhead walkway and gazebo extending west
from the home, south of the existing swimming pool. Detailing site conditions, Mr. Richter
said the request appears to comply with the standards for approval, and recommended
approval with two standard conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said gazebos
have rear setback requirements, but the owner has riparian rights that extend far to the
west of the seawall. The rear of the gazebo would not be affected.
Jim Graham, architect representing the applicant, displayed a drawing of the proposal.
He explained how the subject property is situated in relation to its surroundings, noting it is
located on a transition line between two zoning districts. Side setbacks are five feet on
one side of the line and ten feet on the other side of the line. He submitted eight
photographs illustrating the close proximity of the adjacent 35-foot tall home and its air
conditioning equipment. The applicant had originally requested a 1 6.foot tall masonry wall
to screen his home from the view and the noise generated by the air conditioning
equipment 2 % feet from the property line. The request was changed to the current, more
aesthetic treatment. Mr. Graham detailed property line boundaries; zoning; and property
ownership in the vicinity. He said the applicant/slot extends across the street to the
seawall. A construction line of demarcation had been drawn to save the dunes, sea oats
and other plants.
In response to questions, Mr. Graham said the applicant's home had privacy and a
vista to the beach before the home was constructed next door, on top of a former seawall.
The applicant is requesting the variance in order to continue enjoying his outdoor area. He
is not requesting anything the surrounding property owners do not already enjoy. The
broad vistas enjoyed by properties in this area differ from conditions further south where
mdc06a.97
2
06/12/97
~,~ u4, ,',' ]
., ' , c~.
. ' tl'
:... .i
. ,
:~ \:"
,j:l.
~
..,.
, ,
....\
j.I";
._,<~
1t'
~. ..'
::::,;
;.':
I{.:~-:
~/ '.:
.":,
" ,~
~-, J'.'
'~' .:<,
:'.,' '.
,',
'.j
'"
?',I.
...
. ,..
, .
~t'...;.:
.....
"
I.....c
, .
: '~..:
,.
, I ~ "
I ..\
.~ :/
.,'
'::';;:,'
\'<J::
>;;::1
j ~ .' ~,
(+1~:
" '
<, ~ Il I .
.', "
", .
"~'.:;~
. t
.,~..'>!-:
',','
'.:;'
, ','
,'. ,
.:,"
. ,
'.\ .
, .
v.r
:,1;.
; "
,.,.,
':~ :.
,.'"
.:.~.: ;,~
': i~::
~ : ~: 1.
\:;-}~i
.~ ~,~
\'J-':.:
~ . ~'i.
F:;'..:::
~" .; :
.:i.
. ..
./,.
..> ~, :.
~ . . '~
'..:
'..
,.,
"
,.' ,
.. ~"~l~....
./~I. ,
~.~~.>;~
, ',l'c
i"l. .~
, ,.~
<,:\.'~"
~;,!.; :.'
,':.,::
'I: '
~ " ., '
o
~ ,:
." "
"
,> . ":,
, :. ~'.
..''-'.:
. ~, . "
. ;'>:;::;'::/i::~'..;::" :....i.' , .
..1: ::.:'~:::.:\:
... ','1,-'
beach properties are built very close together. He noted the subject property is the only
place in Carlouel where this unique zoning situation could occur. Mr. Graham said the
applicant was never able to establish contact with the next door neighbor. Construction
alternatives have been discussed at length with staff.
In response to questions, Mr. Graham explained how landscaping has been installed
alongside the proposed gazebo location, to screen some of the objectionable view and
buffer noise from the air conditioning equipment. He demonstrated the proposed gazebo
location in relation to an existing swimming pool and the side setbacks. A two by four foot
wood lattice will be placed in the upper portion of the gazebo, and tilted horizontally to
screen the view while allowing air flow. He acknowledged a non-conformity exists on the
other side of the subject property, where a portion of an old fireplace projects about two
, feet into the setback.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Board members acknowledged the problem, and noted the variance is very small. The
proposal seems to be a good solution that will maintain the attractive appearance of the
neighborhood.
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, 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 one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Staff was requested to determine whether the home to the south of the subject property is
being used as more than a single-family dwelling. One member objected to this request, stating
it was generated by an unsubstantiated rumor. Mr. Richter will ask the Community Response
team to investigate, on behalf of person who raised the concern.
Minutes Approval -- May 22 1997
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each
member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
. Ms. Dougall-Sides provided copies of the final order in the Budzinski appeal, issued by
the Administrativ~ Law Judge. She reported the DCAB's decision to deny Britt's variance
was overturned, but with conditions recommended by staff. Discussion ensued regarding
the issue. Board members reiterated many of their earlier concerns regarding the outdoor
seating area not having been constructed in accordance with the submitted plans, and a
permit having been issued in error for construction of a canopy that does not appear to be
mdc06a.97
3
. 06/12/97
~
o
.0
.'
,: .
.."n.l:.i:,~.~.>~::, .' :'~ '."
. easily moveable. Questions were raised whether the business has obtained the appropriate
certificates of occupancy. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded it is not known at this time, but
staff will determine whether any action needs to be taken by the City regarding certificates
of occupancy or further appeal. The property will be monitored for the appearance of any
further enclosure of the seating area.
Certain members felt the City should pursue circuit court appeal because the outdoor
seating area was not constructed in accordance with the plans as submitted. Ms. Dougall-
Sides said the final order acknowledges the board's belief the proposal was built far beyond
what was planned. As the 3D-day appeal period does not run out before the next DCAB
meeting, she asked the board to delay their recommendation to the next meeting to allow
time for her to discuss the case with Mr. Shuford and the City Attorney. Discussion of the
board's concerns continued.
. Member Stuart said he must leave the June 26 meeting early due to a schedule
conflict. Mr. Richter indicated the agenda will contain only one or two cases.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2: 17 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
.~~
Bbard Reporter
mdc06a.97
4
06/12/97
~ .\.N.,.I~~I-~"'.*~.U.C""~)':J:~ .,~~' .~.. ~~,t'~::,\:.,:..'.:~\.~: ,c, ~:;.' '",T, '~.'..~ldrl' 1:"
. '\. ,
,,':',)~;: '>...Tt:' ,,:',
'..<'. , > .' .'