Loading...
07/25/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER July 25, 1996 Present: Otto Gans William Johnson Mark Jonnatti Chair Board Member Board Member   Leslie Dougall-Sides John Richter Gwen Legters Assistant City Attorney Senior Planner Board Reporter  Absent: William Schwob 5th Seat Vacant Vice Chair 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. Derek H. & Rita F. Blair for a fence height variance of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in a setback area adjacent to a street to which the property is not addressed at 3253 Pine Haven Dr, Countryside Tract 5, Lot 69, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-50 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to extend an existing six foot high rear yard fence to enclose a side yard along Northside Drive where the fence height limit is four feet. Mr. Richter reviewed fence heights in the surrounding neighborhood, indicating existing six foot fences within the Northside Drive right-of-way do not conform to code. Staff did not recommend approval, expressing concern the proposal would adversely affect the aesthetics of the neighborhood’s entry corridor. In response to questions, Mr. Richter said he found no record of variances for the existing non-conforming six foot fences. Discussion ensued regarding allowable fence heights, proposed distance from the fence to the sidewalk, and 80 foot right-of-way width. Derek Blair, the owner/applicant, complained a ten foot utility easement limits his back yard gardening and leisure activity. Discussion ensued regarding configuration of his back yard in relation to the easement, fencing and sidewalk. Mr. Blair described gardening and restoration work he wishes to do in his back yard. Discussion ensued regarding allowable uses of the drainage and utility easement area. Mr. Richter said construction of permanent structures such as pools or decks is regulated within utility easements, but planting materials are not generally prohibited. In response to questions, Mr. Blair said he wants the fence for security and did not feel a four foot tall fence was sufficient to discourage intruders. He plans to seal the wood to inhibit discoloration. He will extensively landscape outside the fence, coordinating planting materials with the County extension service to xeriscape with labor- and water-saving planting materials. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Edward Gantz, a member of the neighborhood association and nearby property owner, informed Mr. Blair the requested fence may violate the neighborhood association’s fence deed restriction. Mr. Gantz read the rule into the record and reviewed Mr. Blair’s proposal. The applicant was informed deed restrictions may be more restrictive than code. Ms. Dougall-Sides affirmed it is possible for a property owner to act within the code and still be subject to separate action by the neighborhood association. Mr. Richter indicated fences atop dirt mounds do not comply when the overall height exceeds the limit. Mr. Blair complained many fences in the vicinity are in violation. Surprise was expressed the neighborhood association has not taken action to enforce their deed restrictions. Staff was requested to pursue code enforcement of non-conforming fences in the subject neighborhood. Member Jonnatti moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, no special circumstances exist related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. 440 West Condominium Association, Inc for a fence variance to permit 619 ft m.o.l. of 4.5 ft high cable fence in a waterfront setback area where fences are prohibited at 450 S Gulfview Blvd, 440 West Condominium, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). VR 96-51 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant has begun construction of a fence-like barrier along the top of the seawall in the setback area from Clearwater Pass. The structure will consist of concrete posts spaced 30 feet apart, connected with cables. He said conditions support approval because the barrier will protect the public from injury on the rock revetment at the foot of the seawall and the open construction will not obscure any views. David Tackney, a coastal engineer representing the applicants, stated the proposed barrier will replace previously existing fences that were destroyed by storms. The design will preserve the view, and eliminate maintenance problems caused by storms. In response to questions, Mr. Tackney said he is not the construction contractor, but was hired by the condominium association. He described the proposal and responded to questions regarding variations in grade and decking that require the height to exceed 42 inches in some places. It was indicated certain posts are larger in diameter because they bear more of the cable load. Sam Vazquez, the property manager, provided clarification regarding column size, placement and load bearing characteristics. He verified the posts are 14 and 18 inches in diameter. The height sometimes exceeds 42 inches from grade to create a perfectly horizontal line reflecting the horizon while allowing for variations in ground and deck height. He responded to questions about an extra column near the center of the property and whether a gate is proposed. He said the association may seek the necessary approvals to construct a fishing dock in the future. He displayed samples of two stainless steel cables, stating the half-inch diameter will be used. The holes where the cables pass through the posts will be protected from wear by PVC sleeves. He estimated the cost of the project at approximately $60,000. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Strong concerns were expressed the posts are already in place without the benefit of permits. It was indicated a triple permit fee will be charged. Discussion ensued regarding a contractor’s obligation to follow code. Mr. Vazquez said the contractor had reported being told by Central Permitting staff that a building permit was not necessary to replace what previously existed. While board members felt this design is a good alternative, strong concerns were expressed a licensed contractor would think to attempt a $60,000 project of this magnitude without the appropriate permits. Staff was asked to investigate. Concern was expressed with exceeding the 42-inch height limit. 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are 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 these variances 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. 3. John S. Ricciardi for a variance of 78 ft in distance to permit construction control line at 1192 Mandalay Point Rd, Mandalay Point Sub 1st Addition, Lots 25 and 25A, and part of Lot 24, 24A, 26 and 26A; together with unplatted land to West of said Lots, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential) and OS/R (Open Space/Recreation). VR 96-52 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct an elevated swimming pool and deck seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) behind an existing single family home. The building official did not object to the proposal. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Tim Johnson, attorney representing the applicant, reviewed the site plan, an aerial photograph of Clearwater Point, and an artist’s rendering of the proposal. He demonstrated the proposed pool location, and the slope down to the wide beach that has accreted behind the home over the years. The applicants wish to elevate the pool to allow the children using it to remain in view from the ground floor of the living quarters. The pool will not obstruct any views and the neighbors do not object to the proposal. The home to the north has an elevated pool, located approximately 150 feet away from the subject property and separated by a vacant lot and vegetation. Discussion ensued regarding history of land acquisition, public access and construction on the Point in relation to the CCCL. It was not known if variances were granted for construction of the home on the subject property. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board members felt the pool will fit beautifully into the natural empty space. Brief discussion ensued regarding other approvals needed. 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are 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 these variances 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; and 3) The applicant shall obtain approval from the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. Land Development Code Amendments 1. Ordinance 6068-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 35.11 and 42.34, Code of Ordinances, to specify that density calculations for nursing homes shall be computed on the basis of three residents equals one unit, and parking for nursing homes shall be required on the basis of one space per three persons residing in the facility; providing an effective date. Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the ordinance proposes to change language with regard to nursing home density calculations, referring to the number of residents instead of the number of beds. Brief discussion ensued. Member Jonnatti moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 6068-96 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval - July 11, 1996 Ms. Legters noted the preliminary draft of the minutes sent to the board did not reflect that Member Schwob had made the motion near the bottom of page two. This has been corrected in the final version. Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes as corrected by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Comments Board members expressed concern the vacant seat has not been filled because Member Johnson is scheduled for vacation during the next meeting. Ms. Dougall-Sides said she has indicated the board’s concerns to the City Attorney. Member Jonnatti questioned earlier comments regarding contractors being required to adhere to code. Concerns were raised that property owners are held accountable when contractors fail to obtain building permits. In the past, it had been proposed to take sign contractors who violated the code before the PCCLB (Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board), which could place sanctions on the contractors. Member Gans suggested a similar requirement for all licensed contractors, using today’s Item C2 as an example. He felt strongly that contractors should be held responsible for obtaining all applicable permits. Mr. Richter will relay the board’s concerns to the Building Official and report whether this has been addressed and what is needed to enact such a requirement. Board members missed Member Schwob while he was on vacation and looked forward to his return. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:21 p.m.