Loading...
02/27/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER February 27, 1997 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 at 1:00 p.m. in Harborview Center Ballroom A, followed by the 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. Pinellas County - (Board of County Commissioners) for a fence height variance of 1.5 ft to allow a trash compactor screen fence 7.5 ft high where a maximum height of 6 ft is required at 315 Court St., Markley’s Addition, part of Lots 1 thru 4 and all of Lots 11 thru 14; A.C. Turner’s Sub, Blk 7, part of Lots 1 thru 3 and all of Lot 4; Blk 8, part of Lots 1 and 4, all of Lots 2 & 3, together with vacated portions of Palm Ave. and Markley St., zoned UC(B) (Urban Center Bayfront). VR 97-14 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is improving the downtown office and courthouse complex. A 7.5 foot high fence is proposed to screen the existing loading and service area on the west side of the southernmost building. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Questions were raised regarding the exact location and extent of the fence, as these details were not clear on the plans submitted with the application. Carl Barron, Director of General Services for Pinellas County, submitted a drawing labeled “Partial Courtyard Layout Plan” and pinpointed the location of the fence within the complex. David Flanagan, consulting landscaping architect, described the orientation of the courtyard and pedestrian accessways. He said the existing garage structure will be demolished and the area will become the southerly front door entrance of the courthouse. The fence will visually and functionally screen the dumpster enclosure, directing pedestrian access away from the service area toward the public areas. In response to a question, he said the end-loaded compactor will be accessed from Chestnut Street. The fence will be constructed of open white metal grid to match other architectural elements in the courtyard, and lined with opaque black mesh to block the view. Discussion ensued regarding subsurface conditions that prevent the service area from being constructed below grade. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Mr. Barron stated the fence will provide an aesthetic buffer to enhance the mall atmosphere they are creating for the campus, and enable elimination of several dumpster locations on the site. He described the major renovations underway on the old and new courthouse buildings. In response to questions, he could not explain why this beautification process has not received better press coverage. He has worked extensively with the City and County Administrator, and has created a rendering showing the mall effect extending to Cleveland Street, if the City and other property owners desire to pursue the concept. 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 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 one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Keith A . & Brenda Matthews for the following variances: (1) a setback variance of 3 ft to allow a 6 ft high wood fence to be located zero feet from the Landmark Dr. right-of-way; and (2) a landscape buffer variance to waive the required landscaping on the right-of-way side of the fence along Landmark Dr. where shrubs are required along at least 50 percent of the length of the fence at 2616 Brandywine Dr., Northwood Estates Tract C, Blk F, Lot 8, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 97-15 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant’s double frontage lot was recently enclosed with a six-foot high wood fence, installed without a permit. A City building inspector issued a stop work order and informed the applicant of the need for a permit. Upon applying for a permit, the applicant learned of the City’s requirement for fences to be set back at least three feet from adjoining street rights-of-way and for landscaping to be provided outside the fence. The requested variances were filed to allow the fence to remain in its present location with no setback or landscaping. While numerous similar non-conforming fences exist along the east side of Landmark Drive, staff feels it is worthwhile to initiate efforts to improve this attractive, winding corridor, with the required landscaping buffer. Mr. Richter explained at length the City’s position regarding merits of the required landscaping buffer, the procedure for verifying the location of underground utilities, the lack of previous landscaping variances in the area, and existing conditions relating to age, location and condition of existing fences in the vicinity. Based on staff’s evaluation, the underground utilities and conversations with Florida Power officials, it is staff’s position, with proper care and precautions, the fence could be placed two feet from the right-of-way, thus: a) protecting the utilities; b) providing a three-foot offset from the sidewalk where landscaping can be placed; and c) respecting the interest of the property owner to maintain a large private yard. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval of a variance to allow the fence to be set back two feet from the street right-of-way, with landscaping included outside the fence. In response to a question, Mr. Richter thought it was likely the neighborhood was developed prior to adoption of the current code in about 1980. Mr. Richter responded to questions regarding his presentation and concerns with setting a precedent that would seem open the door for many similar variance requests along Landmark Drive. Keith A. Matthews, the owner/applicant, submitted photographs of the fence location on the subject property, and discussed the history of the project to date. He is new to Pinellas County, having purchased his home in September, 1996. He has obtained a permit for a fence located three feet from the right-of-way, but he wishes to rebuild the deteriorated fence in its original location. He cannot move his fence back the required three feet because of the buried power, cable, and telephone lines. The utilities have marked the locations of their lines, but he has discovered the markings are off by several inches, and he does not wish to risk having to tear down portions of his fence if the utility lines cross under it. He will lose a 25-foot citrus tree if he moves the fence back two feet as suggested by staff. He would have to move back seven feet, losing an unacceptable amount of his back yard. He did not feel the request would negatively impact the traffic corridor, because of the 15 to 20 foot wide buffer zone between the roadway and the sidewalk. Mr. Matthews responded to questions, clarifying information as presented above. He said he was told he would not have needed a permit if he had replaced his fence one section at a time, but staff indicated he had been misinformed. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board discussion ensued regarding the request. One member has lived in the area since it was built, and felt area is more attractive since some homeowners have planted landscaping outside their fences. He related his experience of paying for having a power line moved to put in his pool. It was indicated the utility lines are marked with reasonable accuracy, and fences and landscaping can be installed if reasonable caution is exercised. He felt staff’s analysis and presentation were excellent and recommended the board act with caution, since what is done today will have an impact on the surrounding properties in the future. One member favored allowing replacement in the original position due to the difficulties involved in moving the fence. He expressed concern with disrupting a fence line that has existed for 17 years, stating the process of changing the line will make the area unattractive during the transition. One member did not want to see the requirement waived, stating the outside landscaping has enhanced the corridor. In response to questions, staff explained the code requirements, stating at maturity, landscaping materials should cover at least 50% of the fence. Construction that predates the current code does not have to be moved unless it is changed or replaced. It was indicated a triple permit fee was not charged to Mr. Matthews. After discussing the appropriate language for a motion with Ms. Dougall-Sides, it was decided to vote on the two variances separately. Member Schwob moved to deny variance #2 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. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Johnson, Schwob, and Stuart voted "Aye"; Member Jonnatti voted "Nay." Motion carried. Member Schwob moved to grant variance #1, for one foot to allow a fence two feet from the Landmark Drive right-of-way, 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 one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) The fence shall be set back two feet from the Landmark Drive right-of-way with landscaping included on the outside of the fence; and 4) The landscaping shall be approved by the City Environmental Official and shall be maintained in a healthy condition for this variance to remain in effect. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board members felt it was unfortunate Mr. Matthews is the first homeowner on the block required to comply with the new code. Staff was requested to send a notice to all property owners along the east side of Landmark Drive, informing them of the setback and landscaping requirement when replacing their fencing. Member Schwob will prepare an article for the neighborhood newsletter informing the residents of the law. Mr. Matthews requested and received clarification regarding placement of his new fence. 3. James J. Kyle for the following variances (1) a setback variance of 5 ft to allow a workshop 5 ft from the rear property line where a minimum setback of 10 ft is required; and (2) a setback variance of 2 ft to allow a workshop 3 ft from the Southerly side property line where a minimum setback of 5 ft is required at 950 Mandalay Ave., Mandalay Sub, Blk 60, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 97-16 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to replace a deteriorating shed behind their single family home with a new structure, for use as a garage, storage, and workshop. He related setback requirements, stating accessory buildings near lot lines are not unusual in this neighborhood. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions plus a condition to avoid the possibility of converting the building into a dwelling. Barbara Kyle, the owner/applicant, agreed with staff’s analysis. She added they wish to remove an unsafe building, replacing it with a new structure in almost the same footprint. She verified the space will be used exclusively for a garage, storage, and workshop. In response to questions, it was indicated the building will have a concrete foundation, and workshop activities will not disturb neighbors. She understood the building cannot be used for a dwelling. No verbal or written support was expressed. One letter was submitted from the next door neighbor, citing concerns the proposal will depreciate property values and lessen the suburban nature of the community. Ms. Kyle was puzzled by the letter, stating the neighbor had offered verbal support when told the applicants were fixing up the falling building. One member with realty experience said such an addition was an added feature that would likely increase the value of the home. One member expressed concern with granting this application when the previous request for a replacement structure was denied. Another pointed out the shed is out of public view and is not materially injurious to its surroundings. Member Jonnatti 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 one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The applicant shall file a restrictive covenant with the Official Records of Pinellas County ensuring the property is used exclusively for one dwelling unit in this single family zoning district. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Everybody’s Tabernacle, Inc. (Homeless Emergency Project) for the following variances: (1) a setback variance of 7 ft to allow new multi-family apartment buildings 5 ft from the Westerly property line where a minimum setback of 12 ft is required; and (2) a setback variance of 20 ft to allow new multi-family apartment buildings 5 ft from the Fairburn Ave. right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at 1260/1266 Engman St., Fairburn Add., Blk A, Lots 1 & 2, zoned CN (Neighborhood Commercial). VR 97-17 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes to remove existing storage buildings and mobile homes to construct three two-story apartment buildings containing a total of 16 units. He detailed setback requirements and condition of the property, stating the proposal will not alter the character of the narrow property. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Barbara Green, administrator of Everybody’s Tabernacle, noted the property address was advertised incorrectly. The correct address is 1260 Engman Street. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the address correction would not change the public notification radius. For the purpose of hearing the case, she said the address will be listed as 1260 through 1266 Engman Street. Ms. Green agreed with staff’s analysis of the proposal to construct permanent housing for families. The variances were requested to create an area in front of the apartments for children to have room to play. The mobile homes were beyond repair and transitional housing is needed for families moving out of emergency shelters and working to obtain education and jobs. She responded to questions regarding grants and private funding, stating all funding is in place. Bill Woods, engineer for the project, noted the same variances were granted on August 11,1988, when the trailers were on the property. He felt it was prudent to come back, since the trailers are being replaced with permanent structures. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. One member commented the people of Clearwater appreciate the work Everybody’s Tabernacle does. 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 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 one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 5. Brown Assoc. Ltd-II/Kennedy Assoc. Ltd/Roberts Assoc. Ltd-II (Island in the Sun Mobile Home Park) for the following variances: (1) a height variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the Drew St right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is required; (2) a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the Hampton Rd. right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is required; and (3) a setback variance of 3 ft is required at 100 Hampton Rd, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 12.01, zoned RPD 10 (Residential Planned District). VR 97-18 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes to replace fencing along Drew Street and Hampton Road. The existing fencing encloses the perimeter of a mobile home park. He detailed height and setback requirements, stating replacement of the deteriorated fencing will improve the appearance of the property from the adjoining public streets. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Jack Kennedy, of the Kennedy Association, said the property associations have tried to do everything they were asked with respect to the fence replacement. He said part of the existing fencing material is in decent shape, so the fence replacement will be done in stages, with the sections along Drew Street being replaced first. He asked for an extension of the standard one year time limit, to allow replacement over a period of three years. Staff supported this request, stating conditions should not change significantly in three years. In response to a question, Mr. Kennedy said the mobile home park is 11 years old. He noted pressure treated lumber will be used for a longer lasting fence. Frank Kunnen, authorized representative, was present to respond to any questions on behalf of the applicants. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. One member complimented the association for the way the park has been maintained. Member Jonnatti 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 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 three years from the date of this public hearing; and 3) Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the specifications of the City Environmental Official and shall be maintained in a healthy condition for these variances to remain in effect. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval -- February 13, 1997 Mr. Gans pointed out a typographical error on page four, paragraph four, sentence four, in Item C3, (VR 97-12; Britt’s Cafe.) He requested changing the last sentence in the second paragraph on page 5 to read, “Others One felt the board should rely on staff’s recommendation…” He questioned the accuracy of the statement at the end of the first paragraph on page five, indicating all construction on the subject property had been inspected and approved by the City building department. Mr. Richter responded with details from the subject and previous related variance approvals. Additional discussion of this item is related below, under Board and Staff Discussion. Member Schwob moved to approve the minutes of February 13, 1997, as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Discussion It was reported the applicant has appealed the board’s denial in Case #VR 97-12 (Britt’s Cafe.) Mr. Richter responded to questions regarding history of the case and how the building permit came to be issued in error for a deck 12.5 feet from the right-of-way, when 15 feet is required. Discussion ensued regarding what the board approved in the previous request. Mr. Gans questioned whether the minutes provide sufficient background for the hearing officer to make an informed decision. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded the hearing officer will look at the documents submitted, as well as any additional evidence submitted at the appear hearing. In response to a question, she said the hearing officer would not likely call members of the board to testify on what was done previously, but written, audio and video records (if any) of recent and previous action will be included. If it was thought the record did not accurately reflect what was done, it might be appropriate to call witnesses. She forestalled further discussion on the record, stating she will contact the board if questions arise regarding on what the board members voted. She will inform the board when the appeal hearing is scheduled. Ms. Dougall-Sides reported the appeal of Walter vs. The City of Clearwater, appealing the Ken Marks variance approval, is scheduled for March 28, at 9:30 a.m. in the Main Library. Mr. Richter reported the minor variance report requested at the last meeting should be ready for presentation by Mr. Shuford next month. The Land Development Code revisions will be presented to the board in a public hearing in April. Discussion ensued regarding the 50% landscaping provision and the importance of City Environmental staff’s involvement in the process. Member Schwob complimented Mr. Richter for taking a long range view of landscaping improvements, looking beyond the letter of the code, and making recommendations in the best interests of the property owners and the City. Mr. Richter thanked the board, stating he calls upon his background and education in landscape architecture. Member Schwob questioned when City Hall will reopen, because the public is questioning when they can expect televised meetings to resume. It was indicated City Hall may reopen in late March, or early April. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:18 p.m.