07/13/1995 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 13, 1995
Members present: Alex Plisko, Chair
Otto Gans
Joyce Martin
William Johnson
William Schwob
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 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.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 22, 1995
Member Schwob 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 of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation. He stated the applicant wishes to build five foot high fences 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.
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.
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 C. Kunnen, Jr (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 ft 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 tower 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 out 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.
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 Florida, 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 expressed 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.
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 Schwob 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 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 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. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Gans, Johnson and Schwob voted "Aye"; Members Plisko and Martin
voted "Nay." Motion carried.
3. 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 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
In a letter 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. Island 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.
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 was 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 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 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.
D. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - None
E. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS - Election of Vice Chair
Member Schwob 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 "Bill" 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.
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.
Chair