Loading...
09/12/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER September 12, 1996 Present: Otto Gans William Schwob William Johnson Mark Jonnatti Ron Stuart Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member   Leslie Dougall-Sides John Richter Gwen Legters Assistant City Attorney Senior Planner Board Reporter   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. B. Continued Variance Requests B1. (Continued from 4/11, 4/25, 5/23, & 6/13/96) James E. & Jeanne B. Wagner for a separation distance variance of 11 ft. to permit an adult care living facility to be located at 1189 ft. from an existing Level I Group Care where 1200 ft is required at 2345 Nursery Road, Pinellas Groves Sub, SW ¼, a portion of Lot 19, lying in Sec. 19-29-16, zoned RS-6 (Single Family Residential). V 96-24 In a letter dated September 5, 1996, the applicants withdrew application V 96-24, stating the subject property was sold to another buyer on August 30, 1996. In response to a question, Mr. Richter felt it was unlikely the new owners intend to pursue an ACLF. C. New Variance Requests C1. William W. & Patricia Trach for a height variance of 2 ft. to allow a wood fence 6 ft. high within the setback area from the Baywood Ave right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft. is allowed at 2372 Eastwood Dr, Eastwood Terrace 2nd Addition, Blk E, Lot 14, zoned RS-6 (Single Family Residential). V 96-58 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. The applicants have started replacing a deteriorated six foot high wood fence in the rear yard of their single family home, located on a corner lot. Fence construction was started without permits, in a location that extends into the west side yard toward the Baywood Avenue setback area where the fence height limit is four feet. A City inspector issued a stop work order. The subject property is the only one in the area that does not front on Baywood Avenue. Several properties in the vicinity are in the jurisdiction of Pinellas County. Mr. Richter highlighted conditions on the surrounding properties, expressing concern the proposal disadvantages the neighborhood by creating a visual obstruction that diminishes the openness of the setback area. Staff did not feel neighborhood conditions or the standards for approval support the request and did not recommend approval. In response to questions, Mr. Richter stated a variance would not be needed to replace the fence in its former location. A question was raised regarding a large van parked next door on Lot 13, to north of the subject property. It was indicated the City restricts parking of commercial vehicles, RV’s, boats and trailers in residential areas, but the zoning map indicates Lot 13 is in the County where the City has no jurisdiction. Mr. and Mrs. William Trach, the owner/applicants, submitted nine photographs of the subject and surrounding properties, explaining what is wanted for the pool enclosure. The original fence restricted use and enjoyment of their pool because of its location within two to three feet of the water line. They wish to extend the enclosure approximately 25 feet westward. The six foot height is necessary for safety, because a four foot high fence will not keep neighborhood children from jumping the fence into the pool area. In response to lengthy questioning, Mr. and Mrs. Trach indicated they wish to increase their rear yard enclosure to increase their enjoyment of the pool area. Their experience has shown that a four foot high fence on another part of their property is no deterrent to children from the adjacent apartment complex who frequently cut across the subject property. Kathleen Klein, property owner across the street to the west, spoke in support of the application, stating she frequently sees children from the apartments cutting across the subject property. She did not object to the view of a six foot fence from her front yard, indicating it would help screen her view of the neighbors’ large gray vehicle to which she referred as a “monstrosity.” Ms. Klein stated she has complained to the County numerous times, but the owner of the rental property has been unable to get the tenant to move the offending vehicle. No verbal or written opposition was expressed. Lengthy negotiation ensued among board members and applicants, concerning the options available to the applicants, the possibility of a reduced request, exterior landscaping requirements, and the effect of the proposal on surrounding property values. In response to a question, Mr. Richter calculated a six-inch extension is the maximum variance staff could grant administratively. While it was generally agreed a six foot fence encroaching into the street setback was out of character with the existing City surroundings, one member noted the high incidence of County properties in the vicinity and questioned the County’s fence height limit. The meeting recessed from 1:33 to 1:43 p.m. while staff ascertained the County’s fence height limit. When the meeting reconvened, Mr. Richter stated the County allows six foot high fences in right-of-way setbacks where the property is not addressed. The applicants’ proposal would be conforming under County jurisdiction. While this fact cast the request in a more favorable light for some board members, it was indicated they are still charged with upholding City code. While sympathetic to the applicants’ reasoning and inclined to support a compromise, most members felt insufficient grounds exist for granting the current request, as it does not meet many of the code criteria for variance approval. Member Stuart moved to grant the variance as requested. The motion was duly seconded. The Chair reiterated the options available to the applicants. Rather than risk outright denial, Mr. Trach requested a continuance to allow time to reevaluate his plan and determine how much he could reduce his desired 25 foot fence extension toward Baywood Avenue. Mr. Richter indicated a continuance would allow more time for staff to work with the applicants and prepare a recommendation. The second and the motion were withdrawn. Member Schwob moved to continue Item C1 to the meeting of September 26, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. and Mrs. Trach were advised to return with written or verbal confirmation of neighborhood support and reasons they feel the request supports code criteria for granting a variance. In response to a request for an interpretation, Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides affirmed that the subject property directly abutting county property may be considered as a special physical condition under the standards for approval. While she did not wish to suggest that such language would make the fence legal, she pointed out the language does exist as one of the components of the standards. C2. James A. & Marcella R. Meyer for a height variance of 1.5 ft to allow a chain link fence 4 ft high within the setback area from the Regency Ct. right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft. is allowed at 2870 Regency Ct, Chelsea Woods Phase II, Lot 29, zoned RS-4 (Single Family Residential). V 96-59 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. The subject property is developed with a single family home. Along the south side of the property, a ten foot wide ingress and egress easement has been granted to provide convenient neighborhood access from Regency Court to a City park being developed immediately to the west. As the access easement cuts across the south side of the subject property, a four foot high chain link fence is proposed to line both sides of the easement. The variance is needed for the easternmost portion of the fence where the maximum allowable fence height is 2.5 feet. It was indicated conditions support approval of the request in order to define the accessway and protect the adjoining private property from trespass and foot traffic. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Mark Roether, City Nursery Superintendent, spoke on behalf of the property owners as a convenience to them, because of the public use of the easement. He responded to questions, stating the situation makes this property unique and the owners are not happy about having the easement across their property. The City will pay for the sidewalk and landscaping along the easement. He described the new park as a quiet neighborhood park with two unlit tennis courts and a roller hockey rink, created in response to residents’ requests. Other amenities include fitness courts and a ten foot wide asphalt loop, or trail being built for recreational use around the perimeter of the park. He stated a Florida Power easement crosses the park property, but the park land belongs to the City. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Schwob moved to grant the variance(s) 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. C3. City of Clearwater (Parks & Recreation Department) for a height variance of 3.5 ft. to allow a chain link fence 6 ft. high within the setback area from the Soule Road right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft. is allowed at 2191 Soule Road, Chelsea Woods Phase II, Parcels “A” & “B”, zoned OS/R (Open Space/Recreation). V 96-60 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated this application is similar to the previous request as it relates to the same park. A six foot high chain link fence is proposed along the entire northern property line of the park, to separate it from the adjacent Camp Soule Boy Scout camp. The height variance is needed for continuity of fence height as it extends westward to connect with the gated entrance in the street setback at the northern end of Soule Road. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Mark Roether, representing the applicant, stated a landscaping hedge will be installed on the City side of the fence. He indicated development of the park will increase traffic on the northern end of Soule Road, an area that typically does not carry heavy traffic. The City felt it is important to protect the neighboring property from trespass or any undesirable activity that might result from the public’s use of the park. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. In response to questions, Mr. Roether gave general highlights of park funding, stating Penny for Pinellas funds are used for new park construction. Maintenance and operations costs are paid out of the City’s General Fund. The new park is tentatively scheduled to open in October. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance(s) 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. D. Land Development Code Amendments D1. Ordinance 6075-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development code; amending Sec. 36.033(2)(a), Code of Ordinances, to revise the standards for membership on the Planning and Zoning Board; Amending Sec. 36.035(2)(a), Code of Ordinances, to revise the standards for membership on the Development Code Adjustment Board, providing an effective date. Mr. Richter presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement of an amendment that will allow for appointment of members to fill vacant seats, when none of the volunteers strictly meets the code qualifications for a board member. Brief discussion ensued. Member Johnson moved to endorse Ordinance 6075-96 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval - August 22, 1996 Member Jonnatti requested correction of the vote on page 3 for Item C1 (VR 96-55, Taylor) to indicate Members Gans and Jonnatti had voted “Nay.” Staff verified the vote and will correct the minutes accordingly. Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Comments -- Discussion 1. Lobbyist Registration Ordinance -- Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides Ms. Dougall-Sides gave a detailed summary of the ordinance and how it affects the board. She reviewed the sections relating to definitions, registration of lobbyists, statement of lobbying expenditures, reporting of registrations by the City Clerk, exemptions, and penalties for violations. In response to questions, she stated the burden is not on board members to ensure lobbyists register, and it is not likely that someone mentioning an issue in casual conversation can be considered a lobbyist. She provided copies of the registration form and instructions. Ms. Dougall-Sides discussed a recently adopted amendment to Florida Statute 286.0115 related to communications by local public officials and members of quasi-judicial decisionmaking bodies. She explained, in the past, the City advised board members that ex parte communications with applicants could endanger the validity of the board’s decision, and that the better practice was to limit such contact and declare it at the hearing, if it occurred. In light of the new legislation, she indicated that precaution will no longer be necessary, and such conversations need not be disclosed at the hearing, because they cannot be found to prejudice the board’s decision. The amendment is scheduled to take effect October 1, 1996. She cautioned a new City ordinance under review could result in enforcement of the more stringent requirement. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded to additional questions regarding lobbyist registration. She understood lobbying was limited to oral communication, because it might be burdensome to require anyone wishing to write a letter to the City to register as a lobbyist. The Legal Department advises that any correspondence pertaining to board business should be copied to all board members through the City Clerk Department or Mr. Richter’s office. She indicated it would be proper for a board member visiting a site to ask to be shown what the applicant is asking on the application. She pointed out it has been a problem in the past when some members were provided facts or information not provided to other members. No annual renewal of a lobbyist registration form is required for a single issue, unless pertinent data changes, because lobbyists are required to file a separate form for each issue. As the ordinance is not a part of the Land Development Code, staff will keep board members apprised of any amendments or revisions. In response to a question, she assumed an attorney appearing before the board at a hearing would fall under the exemptions and would not be required to register. An attorney hired by a client to attempt to influence action outside a public hearing would be considered a lobbyist. It was indicated new board members are provided with a copy of the guide to the Sunshine Law. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:52 p.m. Chair Development Code Adjustment Board  Attest:   Board Reporter