Loading...
06/12/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER June 12, 1997 Present: Otto Gans Chair William Schwob Vice Chair William Johnson (arrived 1:14 p.m.) Board Member Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, meeting procedures and explanation of 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 C1. Samuel S. & Maureen B. Greenway for a structural setback variance to allow a wood fence along the Barton Lane right-of-way at 3049 Marlo Blvd, Shady Oak Farms Sub, Blk G, Lot 3, zoned RS6 (Single Family Residential.) VR 97-36 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is requesting the variance to allow a six foot fence to remain within the setback along Barton Lane where a maximum fence height of four feet is allowed. He detailed fences and setback conditions in the surrounding neighborhood, stating the appeal of the clean, attractive subdivision is partially due to the open space provided adjacent to the streets. A notice of correction was issued by a City Building Inspector. It was indicated the proposal will comply with the standards for approval, provided the fence is repositioned at least 18 feet back from the Barton Lane right-of-way, and exterior landscaping is provided along the outside to respect the character of the existing development. Staff recommended approval with four conditions. In response to questions, discussion ensued regarding the setback requirement, reasons for the 18-foot recommendation, and location of the property line in relation to the right-of-way. It was indicated a permit for a four foot fence was issued in March 1997. Samuel Greenway, the owner/applicant, said a six foot fence is proportional to his home and pool cage, which are taller than others in the neighborhood. He had been told a six foot chain link fence could be constructed legally in his requested location, but Mr. Greenway did not wish to wait while vines grow to cover such a fence. Mr. Richter clarified code height, setback and landscaping requirements for chain link and wood fences along rights-of-way. Member Johnson arrived at 1:14 p.m. Discussion ensued regarding this issue. Mr. Greenway said he is not trying to consume the whole yard with a fence, but wishes to provide an outdoor area for his dog and privacy around his pool area. He objected to moving the fence back 18 feet from the right-of-way because the remaining five feet between the fence and the pool would be inadequate. He questioned code requirements for height and setback, and how staff arrived at the 18 foot figure. Mr. Greenway questioned if he could lower the fence to four feet in height and leave it in its present location without a variance. It was indicated he could. Adding heavy shrubbery for screening the additional height was suggested as an alternative. Mr. Greenway withdrew his variance request, indicating he did not want to move his six foot fence back as far as would be required to receive approval, and did not need a variance under the circumstances. C2. Thomas & Evangelia G. Dushas for a structural setback variance to allow a gazebo within the south side setback area at 1100 Mandalay Point Rd, Mandalay Point Sub, Lots 1 & 1A and land E of Lot 1A to the existing seawall, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential) VR 9737 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicants wish to construct an overhead walkway and gazebo extending west from the home, south of the existing swimming pool. Detailing site conditions, Mr. Richter said the request appears to comply with the standards for approval, and recommended approval with two standard conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said gazebos have rear setback requirements, but the owner has riparian rights that extend far to the west of the seawall. The rear of the gazebo would not be affected. Jim Graham, architect representing the applicant, displayed a drawing of the proposal. He explained how the subject property is situated in relation to its surroundings, noting it is located on a transition line between two zoning districts. Side setbacks are five feet on one side of the line and ten feet on the other side of the line. He submitted eight photographs illustrating the close proximity of the adjacent 35-foot tall home and its air conditioning equipment. The applicant had originally requested a 16-foot tall masonry wall to screen his home from the view and the noise generated by the air conditioning equipment 2½ feet from the property line. The request was changed to the current, more aesthetic treatment. Mr. Graham detailed property line boundaries; zoning; and property ownership in the vicinity. He said the applicant’s lot extends across the street to the seawall. A construction line of demarcation had been drawn to save the dunes, sea oats and other plants. In response to questions, Mr. Graham said the applicant’s home had privacy and a vista to the beach before the home was constructed next door, on top of a former seawall. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to continue enjoying his outdoor area. He is not requesting anything the surrounding property owners do not already enjoy. The broad vistas enjoyed by properties in this area differ from conditions further south where beach properties are built very close together. He noted the subject property is the only place in Carlouel where this unique zoning situation could occur. Mr. Graham said the applicant was never able to establish contact with the next door neighbor. Construction alternatives have been discussed at length with staff. In response to questions, Mr. Graham explained how landscaping has been installed alongside the proposed gazebo location, to screen some of the objectionable view and buffer noise from the air conditioning equipment. He demonstrated the proposed gazebo location in relation to an existing swimming pool and the side setbacks. A two by four foot wood lattice will be placed in the upper portion of the gazebo, and tilted horizontally to screen the view while allowing air flow. He acknowledged a non-conformity exists on the other side of the subject property, where a portion of an old fireplace projects about two feet into the setback. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board members acknowledged the problem, and noted the variance is very small. The proposal seems to be a good solution that will maintain the attractive appearance of the neighborhood. 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. Staff was requested to determine whether the home to the south of the subject property is being used as more than a single-family dwelling. One member objected to this request, stating it was generated by an unsubstantiated rumor. Mr. Richter will ask the Community Response team to investigate, on behalf of person who raised the concern. Minutes Approval -- May 22 1997 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 Ms. Dougall-Sides provided copies of the final order in the Budzinski appeal, issued by the Administrative Law Judge. She reported the DCAB’s decision to deny Britt’s variance was overturned, but with conditions recommended by staff. Discussion ensued regarding the issue. Board members reiterated many of their earlier concerns regarding the outdoor seating area not having been constructed in accordance with the submitted plans, and a permit having been issued in error for construction of a canopy that does not appear to be easily moveable. Questions were raised whether the business has obtained the appropriate certificates of occupancy. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded it is not known at this time, but staff will determine whether any action needs to be taken by the City regarding certificates of occupancy or further appeal. The property will be monitored for the appearance of any further enclosure of the seating area. Certain members felt the City should pursue circuit court appeal because the outdoor seating area was not constructed in accordance with the plans as submitted. Ms. Dougall- Sides said the final order acknowledges the board’s belief the proposal was built far beyond what was planned. As the 30day appeal period does not run out before the next DCAB meeting, she asked the board to delay their recommendation to the next meeting to allow time for her to discuss the case with Mr. Shuford and the City Attorney. Discussion of the board’s concerns continued. Member Stuart said he must leave the June 26 meeting early due to a schedule conflict. Mr. Richter indicated the agenda will contain only one or two cases. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:17 p.m.