Loading...
03/28/1991 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD March 28, 1991 Members present: Thomas J. Graham, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman John W. Homer Alex Plisko Emma C. Whitney Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:02 p.m. in the Commission Chambers in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two (2) weeks. He noted that 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. I. Extensions A. (1st request for time extension) Florida Bypass Properties for variances of (1) 11.6% building coverage to allow 41.6% of building coverage where 30% is permitted; (2) 0.116 floor area ratio to allow a 0.416 floor area ratio where 0.3 floor area ratio is permitted; (3) 13 feet to allow addition 2 ft from a rear property line where 15 ft. is required; (4) 7 ft. to allow addition 3 ft. from side property line where 10 ft. is required at 906 and 908 S. Ft. Harrison Ave., Harbor Oaks Sub, Lots 67, 69 and part of Lot 71, zoned OL (Limited Office). V 90-139 Mr. Homer moved to continue this item until later in the meeting to allow time to obtain the file on this request. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was pointed out this property is in the Harbor Oaks area. Mr. Plisko moved to grant a six-month extension to October 25, 1991 in which to obtain a building permit. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Public Hearings ITEM A - (continued from 02/14/91 and 02/28/91) The Crescent Beach Club at Sand Key Condominium Association, Inc. for variances (1) to permit fence in setback area adjoining waterfront, (2) of 22.96 ft to permit fence seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, (3) of 103.7 ft to permit encroachment of fence into clear space areas and 4) to allow a fence to be constructed within a structural setback area from a street right-of-way to which property is addressed at 1340 Gulf Blvd., Crescent Beach Club Condos I and II, zoned RM-28 (multiple-family residential) and OS/R (open space/recreation). V 91-10 The Planning Official stated the applicant has been advised that enclosure of the area surrounding the two pools associated with the Crescent Beach Condos I and II is necessary for continued insurance coverage. The applicant proposes to construct a 4-foot tall fence along the seawall of the property abutting the Gulf of Mexico. The applicant also wishes to erect a 48-inch high fence in a setback area adjacent to Gulf Boulevard in order to prevent pedestrian access from Gulf Boulevard for security reasons. Ben Rabin, representing the applicant, stated the Board of Directors of the Condominium Association requested the Board rule on the application as submitted. In response to questions, Ben Rabin stated he understood from comments made at the February 28, 1991 meeting that prior fence approvals granted by the Board were limited to the pool area. One letter in opposition to the request was submitted for the record at the February 28, 1991 meeting. Concern was expressed in regard to the fence extending across the entire length of the property. It was indicated there is excellent shrubbery present on the property to provide security. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the variances are not the minimum; and the granting of the variances would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM 1 - Zenat M. Godzosa for variances of (1) 1.5 ft to permit a 25.5 ft dock length, (2) 5.87 ft to permit 22.67 dock width and 3) 10.84 ft to permit dock 5 ft from extended side property lines at 250 Skiff Point, Island Estates Unit 5A, Lot 41, zoned RM-20 (multiple-family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 91-18 The Planning Official explained the application stating the applicant wishes to install an overhead boat lift just beyond the end of his existing dock to replace his existing davit. Joseph Place, Gibson Marine, representing the applicant, said the boat lift would provide safety for the boat and relieve stress on the existing dock and davits. He said the adjacent property owners have signed off on the required county dock permit. Discussion ensued in regard to a second lift to be constructed at a later date to replace the davit presently existing just beyond the shore line. In response to a question, it was indicated the applicant would continue to moor the boat in the same location. Concerns were expressed regarding whether or not this is a minimal request and whether the boat lift would obstruct the view if covered. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, more specifically because, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the density of Skiff Point; in other words, the number of units per lot size, subject to the following conditions: (1) the variances be restricted to permit the construction of boat lifts within the added space authorized by the variances; (2) the required building permit for the construction of the boat lift at the end of the dock shall be obtained within six months of the date of this public hearing; and (3) if both lifts are not constructed under the same building permit, a permit shall be obtained for construction of the second lift within two years of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Homer, Plisko and Graham voted "aye;" Ms. Whitney and Mr. Gans voted "nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM 2 - Frank C. and Suzanne K. Logan for a variance of 15.47 ft to permit deck 9.53 ft from a street right-of-way at 1035 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub, Blk 273, Lot 1, zoned RS-8 (single-family residential). V 91-19 The Planning Official explained the application stating the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Building/Flood Control approved a variance on March 20, 1991 to allow a structure to be located less than 18 feet from the seawall. Upon site inspection of the property, it was discovered that the "old" patio has already been removed and the "proposed" deck has been built without the benefit of a permit. Frank Logan, applicant, submitted photographs of the property before the new deck was installed. He said the old beach house on the property is 3 feet off the ground and is built on piers. He said the size of the deck area is being reduced with access off one side of the house. Concern was expressed regarding the deck being built before approval had been obtained. Discussion ensued in regard to an setback variance being required and Mr. Logan requested this item be continued. In response to questions, Mr. Logan indicated he would live in the house in the summer and rent it out in the winter and that Singer Construction is the contractor. Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of April 25, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney and Messrs. Graham, Homer and Plisko voted "aye;" Mr. Gans voted "nay." Motion carried. ITEM 3 - (continued from 3/14/91) Ordinance 5087-91 relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 136.016, Code of Ordinances, relating to fences and walls, to add standards and regulations for hedges; providing standards for materials; providing for easement and right-of-way restrictions; providing height and setback regulations for fences, walls, and hedges; providing an effective date. This proposed amendment creates location, height and setback requirements for hedges; it also revises fence and wall requirements to accommodate swimming pool fencing requirements (by insurance carriers) and to permit taller fences and walls adjacent to street rights-of-way from which the property is not addressed. Concern was expressed in regulating the height of hedges as it was felt enforcement of this restriction would be difficult as there is no way to determine when the hedge was planted before or after adoption of the ordinance. Discussion ensued in regard to there being very little new construction in the City of Clearwater. It was felt hedges should be regulated on corner of commercial properties when the traffic view is obstructed and it was indicated this could be addressed under traffic hazards in the code. There was also discussion regarding increasing the green area in Clearwater not restricting it. Mr. Homer moved to recommend removing the word "hedges" from the ordinance as the Board felt hedges should not be regulated. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney and Messrs. Graham, Homer and Plisko voted "aye;" Mr. Gans voted "nay." Motion carried. Discussion ensued in regard to the proposed 50-foot setback for fences taller than 30 inches in the waterfront setback areas and fences surrounding swimming pools in the waterfront and street setback areas. Mr. Homer moved to recommend deleting the proposed restrictions regarding the proposed 50-foot setback for fences taller than 30 inches in the waterfront setback areas keeping the current 10-foot setback; that walls not be allowed to exceed 30 inches when they surround swimming pools in the waterfront and street setback areas; and any fences which are permitted to attain the 42-inch height shall be non-opaque. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Motion carried. Discussion ensued regarding fences along street rights-of-way from which property is not addressed. Mr. Homer moved to recommend allowing a 6-foot high fence within the right-of-way setback from which the property is not addressed only for interior double frontage lots in single family residential zoning districts. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Motion carried. Discussion ensued in regard to notification of property owners when work is done in the rights-of-way and it was indicated current City practice in nonemergency situations is to notify the property owner in advance. For private utility companies doing work in rights-of-way or easements, notice is given only if it is a policy of the utility company. It was felt the permit obtained to do this work could be conditioned upon notification of property owners. ITEM 4 - Ordinance 5090-91 relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 136.006, Code of Ordinances, relating to setbacks, to establish standards for free standing canopies projecting into certain required setbacks, and prohibiting the projection of free standing canopies over street rights of way; requiring a minimum clearance over grade of at least nine feet, rather than eight feet, for certain building projections over street rights of way; defining "free standing canopy;" providing an effective date. This proposed amendment establishes requirements for freestanding canopies, such as those above gas pump islands and bank teller windows. There are no such regulations in the existing Land Development Code; freestanding canopies have either been considered as structures, or the provisions for canopies attached to buildings have been applied to freestanding canopies. Discussion ensued in regard to 90 percent of the canopies in the downtown area extending over the proposed projection allowed and it was indicated there are no setback requirements from street rights-of-way in the downtown. There was discussion regarding requirements for both free standing and attached canopies. Concern was expressed in allowing canopies of residential owners with 25-foot setbacks to extend 10 feet into this setback and it was questioned whether the purpose of this ordinance was to make existing non-conforming canopies legal. It was indicated this ordinance would only permit canopies to extend over public rights-of-way in certain zoning districts. Mr. Homer moved to recommend that canopies that are permitted to extend over public rights-of-way should be restricted only to those zoning districts which have no setback requirements from street rights-of-way (Urban Core, North Greenwood Commercial and Beach Commercial Districts. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Motion carried. ITEM 5 - Ordinance 5091-91 relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 135.187, Code of Ordinances, to provide for two additional methods for determining maximum lot development of mixed uses involving residential and other permitted uses; providing an effective date. This proposed amendment adds two other formulas for determining allowable land use intensity for mixed use developments. These formulas do not change the existing means of calculating mixed use development intensity, but merely provide other methods of calculation. Discussion ensued in regard to the method of calculating mixed use development and it was indicated this is done differently in different communities and staff is working with the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) for consistency with the countywide plan. It was indicated new land categories are being proposed to be added. Mr. Plisko moved to recommend approval of this ordinance as written. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Motion carried. ITEM 6 - Ordinance 5092-91 relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 137.019 and 137.020, Code of Ordinances, to reduce the quorum of the Planning and Zoning Board from five to four members, to reduce the quorum of the Development Code Adjustment Board from four to three members, and to provide for continuances when less than a quorum is present at a meeting of either board; providing for two alternate members of the Development Code Adjustment Board; providing an effective date. This proposed amendment adjusts quorums for the Planning and Zoning and Development Code Adjustment Boards. It also permits the Boards to take action to continue items when a quorum does not exist. Also, alternate members would be provided for the Development Code Adjustment Board to ensure quorums and to assist in the transition when members' terms expire. Discussion ensued in regard to reducing the quorum to three and concern was expressed in regard to approval of a variance requiring the affirmative vote of all three members. In the case of alternate members, concern was expressed regarding these members not being familiar with the board, its functions and the cases coming before it. There was opposition to increasing the number of board members to seven and it was indicated the Development Code Adjustment Board had a good track record of not having to cancel meetings due to a lack of a quorum. There was discussion regarding having the quorum at four except in the case of a conflict of interest or emergency of one of the members continuing the meeting with three members with approval of any variance requiring all three affirmative votes. Mr. Gans moved to recommend that the Development Code Adjustment Board not establish alternate members, to reduce the quorum to three members with the understanding that the Board's rules, procedures and policies be amended to provide action by the Chairman to inform applicants that three members must vote in favor of a request for it to be approved and that they have the choice of asking for a postponement to the next meeting or to proceed with the request; however, the Board would prefer, if legally possible, not to reduce the quorum of four members to have a meeting but to allow an action to be taken with three members, in the case of a conflict of interest or emergency of one of the members. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Motion carried. ITEM 7 - Ordinance 5094-91 relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 136.023, Code of Ordinances, to revise the interior landscape standards for parking lots and vehicular use areas containing between 4,000 and 8,000 square feet, and for parking lots and vehicular use areas containing more than 8,000 square feet; establishing soil treatment requirements for all required parking lot landscaping; providing an effective date. This proposed amendment establishes revised interior landscaping requirements for parking lots containing between 4,000 and 8,000 square feet. It also establishes soil treatment requirements for required landscaped areas. Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of the amendment as written. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Motion carried. III. Board Comments Discussion ensued in regard to the March 27, 1991 memo from the City Clerk regarding the desire of some advisory boards to have luncheons honoring outgoing members or celebrating holidays. The memo stated that due to the requirements of the Sunshine and Public Records laws, it would be best to refrain from scheduling this type of event. Mr. Gans moved that the Development Code Adjustment Board if respectfully requesting they be permitted to continue their usual practice of an annual "advertised" Christmas party. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. IV. Minutes of February 14, 1991, February 28, 1991 and March 14, 1991 Mr. Graham pointed out that on page 4, paragraph 1, of the March 14, 1991 minutes the maker of the motion should be "Gans" not "Homer." Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of February 14, 1991, February 28, 1991 in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing and the minutes of March 14, 1991, as amended, The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. V. Board Comments Mr. Gans expressed concern regarding panel vans or trucks being used as vehicular signs for advertisement. Mr. Homer questioned whether or not the police parking lot to the east of the building across the railroad tracks is a legal parking lot. He requested a copy of the approved lease for MacDonald's. Ms. Whitney questioned whether or not MacDonald's outdoor seating could be taken away if the parking spaces designated for MacDonald's are not being used by them. Mr. Plisko expressed concern regarding parking in the right-of-way on the street north of the health department on Myrtle Avenue. Ms. Whitney expressed concern regarding the signs and sale of bait, ice, beer etc. at the King Cole Restaurant on the Beach. Mr. Graham requested staff investigate Checkers in downtown using the property next door for outdoor seating. Mr. Gans expressed concern regarding a huge concrete enclosure on Ft. Harrison Avenue and it was indicated the gas tanks at the old "Spur" station are being removed and the enclosure is for pollution control. V. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.