Loading...
03/14/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER March 14, 1996 Present: Otto Gans William Schwob William Johnson Mark Jonnatti Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member   Leslie Dougall-Sides John Richter Gwen Legters Assistant City Attorney Senior Planner Board Reporter  Absent: 5th Seat Vacant Board Member   The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. New Variance Requests 1. D. Guy McMullen Properties, Inc. (S&M Truckworld) for a variance of 2 ft in height to permit an 8 ft high fence not located in a street setback area where 6 ft is allowed at 2868 Gulf to Bay Blvd Sec 1729-16, M&B 13.32, zoned CG (General Commercial) V 96-15 Mr. Richter presented background information and staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to retain an eight foot high fence, built without permits, to enclose an outdoor storage area. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated it is standard practice to impose a triple permit fee automatically when work is done without a permit. One member expressed concern a stack of materials was visible above the eight foot high fence. Steven Humphries, the business owner/applicant agreed with staff analysis and conditions. He said pickup bed liners are sometimes stacked above fence height immediately after a shipment. He said many liners are sold within a day or two, and materials would not often be visible above the fence. Member Schwob 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 variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant’s variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request 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, with a triple fee, shall be obtained within 30 days from the date of this public hearing and 3) material shall be stored so that nothing shows above the eight foot tall fence. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Gretchen R. George Living Trust (Prelude Construction Company, Inc.) for variances of (1) 5 ft in lot width to permit a lot 95 ft in width where 100 ft is required and (2) 10 ft to permit a structure zero ft from side property line where 10 ft is required at 304 S Belcher Rd FFTS Sub, Lot 1, zoned CG (General Commercial) V 96-16 Mr. Richter presented background information and staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to expand an existing office building on a substandard sized property. He explained substandard lot width usually does not require a variance when all other dimensional requirements are met. This variance to lot width is required because the request does not comply with side setback requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said landscaping requirements will be met. Alex Plisko, architect representing the applicant, distributed and explained copies of two site plans. One plan depicts the existing site, the other illustrates the proposal. In response to a question, he said the applicant wishes to use the addition for an office. He said the project will substantially improve the character of the building in its surroundings. Mr. Richter distributed copies of a cross parking agreement with the adjacent retail establishment to the north, for a minimum of 28 spaces. The document was submitted by William W. Short, Jr., proprietor of said establishment. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. 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 variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant’s variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request 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 one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. James C. Goss (Capri Mobile Home Park) for variances of (1) 5 ft to permit mobile homes 5 ft from both side and rear property lines where 10 ft is required and (2) 75 ft to permit mobile homes 100 ft from the centerline of US 19 right-of-way where 175 ft is required at 24195 US 19 N, Sec 05-29-16, M&B 23.03, zoned RMH (Mobile Home Park.) V 96-17 Mr. Richter noted, according to drawings accompanying the application, the second variance should be for 65 feet, not 75 feet as advertised. He presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant has placed new mobile homes on two lots within the park. At the time the park was designed, required setbacks and mobile homes were significantly smaller than they are today. Due to code changes and the larger size of modern mobile homes, variances are needed to allow the applicant reasonable use of the land. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with five conditions. Luther Moore and Jim Goss presented a photographic display of the park and the two lots in question, #128 and #301. They wish to operate the business as it was designed 30 years ago. They will place the new homes exactly as the previous homes were in relation to the side setbacks, without adding or changing existing spaces. The first variance is needed to encroach into the rear setbacks. In response to a question, Mr. Moore confirmed a mobile home was on lot #301 previously. No one was present to speak in support of the request. Ernest Motta spoke in opposition to the request. He said he lives on lot #130. He submitted a packet containing a 1985 letter from the City Building Director, a lot plan of the mobile home park, and a drawing showing the relationship of the mobile home on lot #128 to his property. He expressed concern the proposal restricts open space and will adversely affect use and maintenance of his home and property. He expressed concern building a patio or awning, or parking a car on #128 will crowd his lot and adversely affect his enjoyment of his home. In response to questions, Mr. Richter responded the subject property is significantly closer to US 19 than most properties. He clarified setbacks are measured from the closest point of the home to the property line. He confirmed the code requires a ten foot separation between mobile homes regardless of lot lines. He stated this requirement was established when the City addressed the issue of overcrowded mobile home parks in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Patios are not subject to the structural setback requirement because they are not over 12 inches high. He said the lots in this park are owned by the park owner and leased to the residents. If a patio was wanted, it would be up to the discretion of the park owner. He said awnings are subject to setback requirements and the code does not address proximity of cars to mobile homes. It was not known if the park meets open space requirements. Mr. Moore assured Mr. Motta they will not crowd his home with a carport or patio. In response to a question, Mr. Moore said the new mobile home is 15 feet from Mr. Motta’s home. Mr. Goss pointed out the number of lots was reduced from 119 to 114 in order to create more green space and he has tried to comply with all requirements. One member with experience in leasing mobile home parks agreed it is difficult to find modern mobile homes small enough to fit into spaces in existing parks. It was felt the request is minimal. Member Johnson moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all 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 variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant’s variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing; 3) a setback variance of 65 feet is granted from the centerline of US 19 on Lot 301, not the 75 feet advertised; 4) the variances apply to Lots 128 and 301 only; and 5) by placing a mobile home within the street setback on Lot 301 pursuant to this variance, the owner and applicant agree that no governmental agency shall be liable for the cost of relocating or removing the home in the event the property is acquired by eminent domain for road widening or any other public purpose. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Christopher G. & Caroline K. Roetzer for variances of (1) 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high fence within a secondary street setback where 4 ft is allowed and (2) 25 ft to permit masonry columns zero ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 3001 Sunset Point Rd, Sec 04-29-16, M&B 23.03, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 96-18 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated an existing six foot fence encloses the rear yard of the subject property. A permit was issued by the County and the fence was constructed according to Pinellas County standards, after the property was annexed into the City of Clearwater. Variances to allow the existing fence to remain were denied on July 28, 1994. This decision was upheld by a State appointed hearing officer on February 3, 1995. The current proposal is to replace 134 feet of six foot high fence along Oak Forest Drive with four foot high fencing. The first variance is requested because the applicants wish to retain the continuous six foot fence height along the boundaries shared with properties to the south (Lot 36) and east (Lot 37). These shared boundaries extend away from Oak Forest Drive. The applicants indicate they do not wish to interrupt visual continuity by jogging these fence sections from six down to four feet within 25 feet of Oak Forest Drive. The second variance is to allow construction of two masonry columns adjacent to the Sunset Point Drive right-of-way. The columns will border the driveway and serve as an entry feature to enhance visual appeal and property identification. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. A question was raised regarding City liability if someone ran into the proposed columns. Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated, if the columns meet sight lines requirements and are not in the right-of-way, the City would not be liable. Christopher and Caroline Roetzer submitted a photographic display illustrating the subject property and chain link fences or entry columns on other properties in the same zoning classification. They submitted a letter in support signed by property owners to the west and south. They said they received verbal approval from the property owner to the east. They explained how the fence was built without City approval and described their unsuccessful administrative efforts to allow it to remain. Mrs. Roetzer explained they do not want their fence set back 25 feet because they wish to enjoy the full expanse of their yard. They described how they have worked with Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford and the fence company toward achieving compliance. In response to questions, Mr. Roetzer explained the fence is needed for the safety of their four pet golden retrievers, for privacy, security, and to prevent trespass from children coming home from school. They felt a four foot fence around the entire perimeter would be too easily scaled by the dogs, children, or prowlers. The remaining six foot fence is more concealed from view and they felt offers more likely access by trespassers. They discussed the behavior of their pets and the need to restrain them and the neighborhood children from bothering each other. They said the neighbor to the south supports the six foot fence for the mutual protection of his child and the dogs. Mrs. Roetzer explained the expense of replacing fencing materials. Discussion ensued regarding a landscaping hedge and a proposed 12 foot wide gate in the fence along Oak Forest Drive. It was indicated the hedge will soften the appearance of the fence and a gate is needed to allow access for truck deliveries and Mr. Roetzer’s mowing equipment. No one was present to speak in support of the request. The letter signed by property owners to the west and south was submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Roetzer in support of the application. Four neighbors spoke in opposition to the application. 1) Robert King, Lot 30, indicated he felt the applicants knew they were in the City limits when the nonconforming fence was built because they had petitioned for annexation. He felt the remaining six foot segments would be visually intrusive. He said the reasons stated for allowing the fence to remain were not sufficient nor are the standards of approval met for this case. He noted Mr. Shuford attended a meeting with several neighbors opposed to the fence. 2) Irving Carlson, Lot 38 objected to the visual incongruity of the proposed varying fence heights. 3) Dan DuBois, Lot 34, pointed out children can stick their hands through chain link fencing. He noted a street light impedes vehicular access at the location of the proposed gate. 4) Mr. Straker, Lot 40, stated the fence is an eyesore and he has objected to the appearance from beginning. He objected to granting a variance for fencing in the southeast corner and strongly urged following code. Mr. King submitted a packet containing two maps and three photographs of the subject property and vicinity, standards of variance approval, a letter from Mr. Shuford following his meeting with the opposing neighbors, and a list of those in attendance at that meeting. The applicants summarized their case, restating their reasons for the request. Mr. Roetzer said Craig Hill, the neighbor to the south, testified at the appeal hearing he wanted the six foot fence to remain. This was confirmed by Ms. Dougall-Sides. Referring to a portion of the litigation file, she stated Craig Hill testified the applicants’ fence provided security to keep his son away from the dogs and that the presence of the fence did not detract from Mr. Hill’s purchase of the property. In response to questions, Mrs. Roetzer said the dogs are pets. She said the applicants are not in the business of selling, breeding, or raising dogs for show. Board discussion ensued regarding the application. Some felt the fence variance is minimal, denial would deprive reasonable use of the land, the request is not financially driven, and the southerly neighbor supports the proposal. Others felt the fence is an eyesore and safety is not sufficient justification for granting the fence variance. It was indicated better maintenance of the sidewalk area outside the fence would lessen the negative appearance. One member stated he has friends and relatives among the objectors and questioned if he should declare a conflict of interest. Mr. Dougall-Sides responded a board member may be recused only for a financial interest in a case. Discussion ensued regarding what constitutes a financial interest. Member Schwob moved to grant Variance #2 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 variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant’s variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request 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 for the entry feature shall be obtained within one year and the building permit for the existing fence shall be obtained within 30 days from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the existing fence abutting Oak Forest Drive, which is not part of this variance and does not conform to code shall be removed or replaced with a conforming fence, in a timely manner, not to exceed any compliance date specified by City code enforcement officials. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 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, subject to the above three conditions. There was no second. Member Jonnatti moved to grant Variance #1 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 above three conditions, plus: 4) the 25 foot long segment of 6 foot high fence along the south property line immediately adjacent Oak Forest Drive shall be eliminated from the variance request. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Johnson, and Jonnatti voted “Aye”; Member Schwob voted “Nay.” Motion carried. D. Land Development Code Amendments - None E. Minutes Approval - February 22, 1996 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. F. Chairman’s Items Member Gans distributed copies of revised language for the Chair’s opening commentary and individual case procedure. He thanked staff for their help in preparing the revisions. G. Board and Staff Comments Member Gans was commended for the manner in which he conducted the meeting. Ms. Dougall-Sides distributed copies of the approved 1996 Rules of Procedure minus underlines and strikeouts. She will update the footer and pagination and reprint the document for signature and distribution. Ms. Dougall-Sides researched hearing officer appeals during the past year in response to a Board request at the last meeting. A summary of the results was submitted to the Board. Member Gans questioned the code regarding Board reappointment after resignation. Mr. Richter read from the administration section of the code, explaining a member who resigns is not eligible for reappointment to the same board for a period of time equal to a full board term. Discussion ensued regarding the Board’s vacancy. Mr. Richter was requested to copy the Board rules and other pertinent information when a new member is appointed. Discussion ensued regarding visiting the locations for which variances are being requested. Mr. Gans and Mr. Schwob felt seeing the property is essential to making an informed decision. Mr. Schwob cautioned against speaking with the applicant or representative outside of the public hearing process. Member Johnson stated the aerial photographs being provided in the Board packets are very helpful. Mr. Richter agreed it was an excellent suggestion. Discussion ensued regarding the need for better communication between the City and County regarding annexations. Mr. Richter said the City has started sending welcome letters to owners of property that has been annexed. Mr. Gans pointed out sometimes property owners choose to build to County standards, knowing non-conformities will be grandfathered after annexation into the City. Ms. Dougall-Sides was thanked for her comments and participation during the meetings. Mr. Richter reminded the Board of their annual report to the City Commission on April 18, 1996. He encouraged members to contact him whenever anything in their packet needs clarification. H. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.