Loading...
08/14/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER August 14, 1997 Present: Otto Gans Chair William Schwob Vice Chair Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter Absent: William Johnson Board Member 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. Roy D & Beryl A. Palmer for the following variances (1) a fence height variance within the structural setback of a secondary street right-or-way; (2) a fence setback variance from a street right-of-way; and (3) a fence landscape buffer variance adjacent to a street right-of-way at 1891 Murray Ave., Blackshire Estates, Lot 46, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 97-47 Mr. Richter presented background and staff recommendations, stating a non-conforming six foot high fence was recently built without a permit, enclosing the side yard and concealing two existing sheds. He detailed the property location, setbacks, fence height requirements, and neighborhood character. He related the positive and negative impacts of the fence on the neighborhood, explaining staff’s recommendation for granting variances to allow the fence to remain. If variances are granted, staff recommends the applicant obtain a building permit within 30 days, and plant a solid landscape buffer along Townsend Street. Mr. Richter explained the special circumstances for allowing landscaping to encroach into the right-of-way in this case. In response to questions, Mr. Richter said it is not known how long the sheds have existed in their present location or whether they were in compliance when they were constructed. A survey submitted by the applicant shows the sheds have been in their present location for at least seven years. Discussion ensued regarding right-of-way distance and landscaping requirements. Discussion ensued regarding the City’s practice of charging triple permit fees. One member urged the City to publicize the need for a permit when building or replacing fences, to avoid having to triple permit fees. Beryl and Roy Palmer, the owner/applicants, stated they were not aware of the permit requirements when they replaced an existing four foot chain link fence with six foot wood fencing. They wish to enclose the yard for privacy and a safe play area for a child and a large dog. A large tree in the corner of the yard makes it difficult to move the fence back. Discussion ensued regarding the proposal, and suggestions for landscaping outside the fence. Because of their work schedules, the applicants requested 60 days for landscaping installation instead of 30 days as recommended by staff. No verbal or written support of opposition was expressed. Member Schwob moved to grant Variances #1 and #2 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The property owner shall, within 60 days, plant a hedge or other solid landscape buffer on the outside of the fence parallel to the Townsend St. right-of-way. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least 18 inches in height at the time of planting. The plants shall form a continuous, solid screen at maturity. Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City’s Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Schwob moved to deny Variance #3 as the request does not meet the standards for approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. Raymond & Esther O. Lopez for the following variances (1) a fence height variance within the structural setback from a street right-of-way; (2) a fence height variance within the structural setback of a secondary street right-of-way; (3) a fence setback variance from a street right-of-way; and (4) a fence landscape buffer variance adjacent to a street right-of-way at 110 North Glenwood Ave., Crest Lake Sub, Blk D, Lot 4, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 97-48 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating a non-conforming six foot high wood fence was recently built without a permit, enclosing the side yard of the corner lot for privacy and to contain a large dog. He detailed the property location, setbacks, and fence height requirements. It was indicated the fence is not in harmony with the neighborhood and exterior landscaping is needed. While six foot high fences are not allowed within 25 feet of the right-of-way at this location, due to the small lot size, staff recommended compromising by moving the fence back 12.5 feet from the right-of-way. In response to questions, Mr. Richter said the area is within the City limits. Discussion ensued regarding zoning requirements, lot size, and density in the area. Concern was expressed the subject property appears to contain more than one dwelling unit. Staff will investigate. Raymond Lopez, the property owner, stated he leases the property to his son, Eric Lopez. The fence is needed for privacy, safety and security for large dogs and a boat Eric Lopez hopes to obtain. Raymond Lopez confirmed the dwelling is a duplex. He acknowledged the fence is constructed outside his property line in the right-of-way. He did not object to planting landscaping outside the fence if the landscaping could be planted in the easement. He submitted eight photographs of similar fencing conditions in the immediate vicinity, responding to questions regarding their orientation and locations. He expressed concern the home improvement center where he purchased his fencing materials did not advise him of the need for a fence permit. Discussion ensued regarding the poor quality of the fencing material. Raymond Lopez expressed concern moving the fence back 12.5 feet would mean losing half his enclosed yard area. He had been told his fence would be legal if he moved it back three feet and landscaped the outside. Board and staff members explained why that assumption was not correct, and advised the applicant of his options. In response to questions, Eric Lopez said before the fence was built, his large Doberman was tied to the porch and frequently barked at passersby. He felt it would be safer for everyone to fence the yard and give the dog space to move around. No one was present to speak in support of the application. The applicant submitted six letters of no objection from residents within 500 feet of the subject property. Theresa Jo Kelly, the adjacent property owner to the south, spoke in opposition to the request. She cited concerns regarding the negative impacts of the fence on her property: 1) the fence appears to have been constructed across her property line; 2) the fence in its present location will negatively impact the resale value of her home; and 3) the fence blocks her view of the street and approaching traffic, creating a safety hazard in backing her car from the driveway. She submitted a survey and nine photographs illustrating the fence in relation to her property. She responded to questions regarding her survey and the difficulties she has experienced since construction of the fence. One letter from Ms. Kelly and two letters from nearby property owners were submitted in opposition to the application. The applicant responded to objections, submitting a copy of his survey for the record. Discussion ensued regarding location of the property line and distance needed to allow adequate view of traffic for Ms. Kelly. Board discussion ensued regarding the property boundaries and small lot size. Raymond Lopez reiterated his concern he was being asked to cut his yard in half. Board and staff members explained why that assumption was not correct and reiterated the applicant’s options. While sympathizing with the applicant’s wish to fence the small lot, the board indicated few instances of nonconforming setbacks and fencing exist in the area. Most properties have larger setbacks and more landscaping. It was felt staff's recommendation for a 12.5 foot variance was justified. The applicant was strongly recommended to obtain a new survey to solve the property line dispute with the neighbor to ensure fence placement is fair to all parties. Member Jonnatti moved to grant Variances #1, #2, and #3 because the applicant has substantially met all 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing 3) The fence shall be positioned back 12.5 feet from the Grove St. right-of-way; 4) The property owner shall, within 30 days after issuance of the building permit, plant a hedge or other solid landscape buffer on the outside of the fence parallel to the Townsend St. right-of-way. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least 18 inches in height at the time of planting. The plants shall form a continuous, solid screen at maturity. Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City’s Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the variances; and 5) The applicant shall have prepared and submit to the City with the building permit request, a survey of the fence line adjacent to the property at 1511 Grove Street. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Raymond Lopez requested and received clarification of what was granted. It was recommended for the applicant to work with staff regarding details of his proposal. Member Jonnatti moved to deny Variance #3 as the request does not meet the standards for approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3. Charles E. & Kathy S. Buttrick for a fence height variance within the structural setback from a secondary street right-of-way at 3006 Homestead Court, Homestead Oaks, Lot 23, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 97-49 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicants wish to enclose the rear yard of the corner lot with a six foot wood fence. The fence will restore the privacy and security that existed prior to recent development of a new elementary school to the north. He detailed site conditions, surroundings, and vehicular access. He specifically noted the public sidewalk was built on the applicants’ land, but felt it prudent to locate the fence a minimum of three feet back from the sidewalk to allow adequate space for a landscaping buffer. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions. Board concern was expressed the fence on the school property was built without regard to City zoning requirements. Kathy and Charles Buttrick, the owner/applicants, expressed concern they are losing a total of eight feet of back yard space by placing the fence three feet back from the sidewalk. They requested consideration of allowing the fence within two feet of the sidewalk. In response to questions, it was not known how the sidewalk came to be located on the applicants’ property, as the area does not appear to be an access easement. The applicants stated they have tried without success to get the sidewalk removed. One member suggested being located next to a school is an asset that will add value to the home. The applicants concurred, however renewed their request for a landscaping buffer smaller than three feet wide. The board praised the beauty of the home and encouraged the applicants to plant as much landscaping as possible to preserve the home’s appearance and reduce the incidence of fence defacement along the sidewalk. Discussion ensued regarding fast growing landscaping materials, and vehicular access to the school. No verbal or written opposition was expressed. One letter and a petition with five signatures from surrounding property owners were submitted in support of the request. Member Schwob 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; 3) The fence shall be located at least 3 feet back from the public sidewalk; and 4) The property owner shall, within 30 days, plant a landscape buffer on the outside of the fence parallel to the Abbey Lake Rd. right-of-way. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least 18 inches in height at the time of planting. The plants shall form a continuous, solid screen at maturity. Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City’s Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the variances. The motion was duly seconded. Questions were raised from where right-of-way is measured. One member did not favor depriving the applicants of three additional feet of their property. In view of the generously sized yard, the majority felt the applicants would not be deprived of reasonable use of their land and indicated their support of staff’s recommendations. Discussion resumed regarding reasons in favor of moving the sidewalk. Mrs. Buttrick stated the City will not move the sidewalk because the six foot sidewalk easement is a matter of public record. Discussion ensued regarding the motion. Upon the vote being taken, Members Gans, Schwob, and Jonnatti voted "Aye"; Member Stuart voted "Nay." Motion carried. Minutes Approval – July 24, 1997 The minutes were corrected to indicate Mr. Schwob was not present. Member Stuart moved to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Comments 1. Land Development Code Status – Scott Shuford This item was postponed because Mr. Shuford had been called away on business with the City Manager. 2. Election of Officers At the July 24 meeting, Mr. Gans had been nominated for re-election as Chair; Mr. Schwob for re-election as Vice-Chair. No additional nominations were made. Member Jonnatti moved to continue election of officers to the meeting of August 28, 1997, in order for a full board to be present. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.