09/26/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
September 26, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwob
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Ron Stuart
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Richard Hull
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 9/12/96) 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). VR 96-58
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations from the original hearing on September 12. This item was continued to allow time for the property owners
to consider reducing their variance request. As the applicants had not submitted an amended proposal prior to this hearing, staff had not prepared comments or a recommendation. Mr.
Richter suggested deferring further discussion until after the applicants’ presentation.
Patricia and William Trach stated the neighbors support their new proposal to construct a six foot high wood fence within the Baywood Avenue setback area, 18 feet, 10 inches from the
house instead of 25 feet from the house as originally proposed. Mr. and Mrs. Trach submitted four letters from surrounding property owners in support of the amended proposal.
In response to questions, Mr. Trach said they chose the 18 foot distance to allow room for a glider swing within the pool enclosure. He stated that amount of space is adequate for
their recreational needs. It was pointed out that three of the four letters in support are from Pinellas County property owners. Mr. Trach explained the location of each in relation
to the subject property, stating those are the properties immediately adjacent to his property. Brief discussion ensued regarding the location of the large gray recreational vehicle
(RV) in relation to the supporters’ residences.
Mr. Richter stated the proposal would place the fence four feet further back from the street right-of-way than did the original proposal. While he would have preferred to split the
difference with the applicants, he acknowledged their attempts to compromise in compliance with the board’s recommendation. He reviewed the results of his investigation of Pinellas
County code requirements,
stating they allow RV’s up to 35 feet in length in front yards, so he suspected the gray vehicle was legally parked. He confirmed the County allows six foot fences within street setbacks,
but the proposal on the subject property will be an exception to City rules. He recommended approval with standard condition #1, a building permit within 30 days, and full perimeter
landscaping to cover the outside of the fence.
No verbal or written opposition was expressed.
Concern was expressed the board had advised the applicants to discuss their amended proposal with staff prior to bringing it forward. Mr. Richter stated he conferred with the applicants
by telephone so they would not have to take time off work to visit his office.
The majority of the board members felt the amended proposal was a reasonable compromise in view of the County regulations in force on the adjacent properties, the unique mixed neighborhood
of City and County properties, and the negative visual impact of the gray RV to the north. One member noted the proposal helps relieve the visual problem with the gray van, but he did
not support a six foot fence in the street setback within the City limits.
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; 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained
within thirty days from the date of this public hearing; and 3) Landscaping shall be provided on the right-of-way side of the fence to provide a solid and continuous landscaping screen,
and such landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Schwob, Jonnatti, and Stuart voted "Aye"; Member Gans voted "Nay."
Motion carried.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter advised the applicants to draw up a landscaping plan to submit with the fence permit application.
C. New Variance Requests
C1 Bertha M. Dorsey (Greenwood Beauty Salon) for a setback variance of 4 ft to allow a room addition 6 ft from the rear property line where a minimum setback of 10 ft is required at
1105 Engman St Greenwood Park No. 2, Blk E.. Lot 31, zoned CNG (North Greenwood Commercial). VR-61
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to refurbish a small 300 square foot building for continued use as a
beauty salon. An open porch on the west is to be demolished and replaced with a 150 square foot room addition. He reviewed setback requirements under the zoning, and suggested design
review of the application for compatibility with future proposed design guidelines for the North Greenwood neighborhood. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval
with three conditions.
E.J. Robinson, Construction Specialist for Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services (CNHS), stated he is assisting Mrs. Dorsey’s application through the CNHS economic redevelopment
program. He said the variance would allow the room addition to be constructed within the same footprint as the currently deteriorated and unsecured entrance area. The proposal will
replace the existing entranceway to improve safety and security, and provide more floor space for the business. The addition will have a new roof and wiring will be brought up to electrical
code. In response to a question, Mr. Robinson said Mrs. Dorsey has been operating at this location for 20 to 25 years. She has established a good reputation and her business is thriving.
One member suggested having a design planner meet with Mrs. Dorsey on site, to explain suggestions with regard to design guidelines, and ensure she understands the proposed guidelines
are voluntary. Mr. Richter will relay this suggestion to the Design Planner.
Member Jonnatti 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; 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained
within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The applicant shall meet with the City Design Planner to discuss possible compliance with the design theme for North Greenwood
prior to the issuance of a building permit; this meeting shall be advisory only; and it is recommended for this meeting to be held on the subject property, with the Design Planner and
CNHS (Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services) representative present, for the applicant’s convenience and to clarify details of the suggested design theme. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
C2 John H. & Patricia P. Meek, Jr. for a setback variance of 2.05 ft to allow a room addition 7.95 ft from the rear property line where a minimum setback of 10 ft is required at 51 Carlouel
Dr Carlouel Sub, Blk 256, the Southerly 40 ft of Lot 22 and all of Lot 23, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-62
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicants wishes to construct an addition on the southeast side of their single family
home. He explained rear setback requirements, stating the proposal will be comparable to the setbacks provided for other homes along the south side of Carlouel Drive, and will not disadvantage
the adjacent properties or the neighborhood. In response to a question, he said the five foot side setback will not be affected.
Michael Myrick, contractor representing the owner/applicants, stated the variance is being requested to build a master bedroom, bathroom, and closet. The addition will exactly match
the exterior decor, and will not interfere with sight lines of the neighboring properties. He and the applicants agree with staff recommendations and will comply with all suggested
conditions.
In response to questions, Mr. Myrick stated he is extending the addition to the east instead of aligning it with the existing structure, to make the room more functional, and avoid
having a
long, narrow bedroom. The applicants have lived on Clearwater beach for some time, and have just purchased the two-bedroom home for themselves and their two children. He detailed how
the roof configuration will tie in with what currently exists. He said the property owners wish to maintain the existing side setbacks because they may wish to build a pool beside the
garage in the future. He stated the addition will not increase the existing nonconformity.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Mr. Myrick said the Meeks have painted and upgraded the structure since they have owned it, and they expect to live in the home for a long time. Board members commented the property
was difficult to locate because of the neighborhood street layout.
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.
Minutes Approval -- September 12, 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.
Board and Staff Comments
Mr. Richter introduced Assistant City Attorney Dick Hull. Mr. Hull stated he is filling in for Ms. Dougall-Sides, who injured her leg playing tennis. Mr. Hull has been with the City
for more than six years.
Mr. Richter distributed copies of code pages detailing regulations for advisory board membership and attendance, and the latest Land Development Code supplement.
Member Gans highlighted his September 19 annual report to the City Commission, stating he thought it was well received. Member Schwob concurred, stating the Commission appeared receptive
to the idea of transferring responsibility for hearing sign variances back to DCAB. Member Gans agreed sign variances will likely be conveyed to DCAB at the appropriate time, but he
did not favor rushing the transfer of duties.
Mr. Gans noted the City Commission’s rules for timing public hearing presentations are printed on their agenda. He questioned whether such rules are appropriate for DCAB. Mr. Hull
responded time limits are not required for DCAB public hearings, but may be invoked under extreme circumstances.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 1:46 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
Board Reporter