Loading...
05/14/1998 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER May 14, 1998 Present: William Schwob Chair William Johnson Vice-Chair (departed at 2:24 p.m.) Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, review of meeting procedures, and explanation of appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM A - Time Extension Requests A1) Robert L. Root, TRE, for a vegetative buffer variance of 25 feet to allow a zero foot wide vegetative buffer strip where a minimum of 25 feet is required at 2436 Enterprise Rd, Sec 31-28-16, M&B 12.05, zoned RM 16 (Multi-Family Residential). VR 97-32 The applicant requested an unspecified time extension in a letter dated May 3, 1998. No reason was given. The applicant was not present and was not represented. Staff outlined the request briefly, recommending approval of a one year extension. Member Johnson moved to grant a one year time extension, to May 8, 1999 for VR 9732. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM C - New Variance Requests C1) Douglas M. & Sharna L. Paradowski a setback variance of 2 feet to allow a shed 3 feet from the west property line where a minimum setback of 5 feet is required at 2315 St. Charles Dr., Morningside Estates Unit 2, Lot 221, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 9840 This property, in an established subdivision of single story homes with well-maintained yards, has a non-permitted, 6 x 8-foot storage shed in the home’s west side setback. Staff feels conditions do not support approval. The shed is visually discordant, visually crowds the neighboring home, and is viewable from the adjoining public street right-of-way. The shed does not visually integrate with the neighborhood. Staff feels approval will negatively impact this neighborhood. Douglas Paradowski, owner/applicant, disagreed with staff’s analysis. He submitted photographs of a variety of neighborhood sheds, visible from the street. He said he poured a concrete slab for the shed, garbage cans and air conditioning unit, and plans a six-foot stockade fence to screen this utilitarian area from street view. He needs the shed to store dangerous items out of reach of his two small children so he can store their toys in the garage. He is at the limit of impervious area for his property, and could not relocate the shed without tearing out the slab. He said he talked to his neighbors about the proposal, and none wished to be involved. His homeowner association declined to send a letter of support, but is looking at changing deed restrictions to allow sheds in yards. Fence variances are not needed for the proposal as presented. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board discussion ensued regarding code enforcement efforts in the neighborhood. In response to a question, Mr. Paradowski acknowledged his error in not obtaining a permit, but said he had taken the salesman’s word that he knew of no restrictions on building the shed. Concerns were expressed regarding: the proposal’s flagrant violation of the setback requirement; adequate space for the shed exists in the back yard; lack of neighbor or homeowner association support; setting a precedent for more unwanted activity city-wide; and tearing out the concrete slab to move the shed. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted much of the property is paved. She pointed out every property owner must understand when the point is reached that the owner must decide how much to build on a property. Rather than approve this request because other non-conforming sheds exist, it was suggest to pursue code enforcement activity for the sheds depicted in the photographs Mr. Paradowski submitted for the record. Member Johnson moved to continue V 9840 to the meeting of May 28, 1998, to allow time for staff to determine how many shed violations exist in the neighborhood, collect input regarding the homeowner association’s position on sheds in side setbacks, and work with the applicant to identify a more appropriate shed location on the subject property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2) Werner-Donaldson Moving Services, Inc. (Business Records Management, Inc.) for the following (1) a setback variance of 19 feet to allow a new building 1 feet from the Maple Street right-of-way where a minimum setback of 20 feet is required; (2) a setback variance of 9 feet to allow a new building 1 feet from the east property line where a minimum setback of 10 feet is required; (3) an open space variance of 7.1 percent for the lot to allow 7.9 percent of open space where a minimum of 15 percent is required; (4) a building coverage variance of 5 percent to allow a new building that will increase the total building coverage to 65 percent where a maximum building coverage of 60 percent is permitted; (5) a parking variance of 7 spaces to allow 3 spaces where 10 parking spaces are required; and (6) a landscape buffer variance of 4.05 feet to allow a 0.95 feet wide landscape buffer strip along Maple Street where a minimum of 5 feet is required at 1143 Eldridge St., New Country Club Addition, part of Blk “D”, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). V 98-42 This property is developed with a 7,800-square-foot storage building adjacent to the west property line. Six variances are requested to construct a new storage building, identical in shape and size, adjacent to the east property line. Staff feels conditions support approval. This neighborhood, compactly developed with industrial buildings and uses, is nearly devoid of vegetation. The proposed construction provides an opportunity to improve this property and neighborhood. New landscaping will front the property along Eldridge Street. Investment in this industrial area will be favorable for the City. Approval will not adversely affect this area. Tom Nash, attorney representing the applicant, said the applicant understands and supports meeting staff’s recommended conditions. The proposal will improve area conditions. In response to questions, Mr. Nash said sufficient parking exists for employees of this document storage facility and it is unlikely outsiders would come to the facility. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Johnson moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to 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 shall be obtained within one year; 3) prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City’s Environmental Official. The plan shall provide landscaping across the front of the property along Eldridge St. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the plan prior to approval of a final inspection and shall be continuously maintained or the variances shall become void; and 4) prior to issuance of a building permit, stormwater detention shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Public Works Department. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3) The Cepcot Corp., Porpoise Pool & Patio, Inc., and Clearwater Depot, Inc. (Pinch A Penny) for a height variance of 3.33 feet to allow a wall 9.33 feet high where a maximum height of 6 feet is permitted at 651 Court St., Court Square, Blk 13, Lots 7 thru 9, part of Lot 6 together with Magnolia Park, Blk 13, Lots 10 & 11, part of Lot 12 and vacated alley, zoned UC[C-2] (Urban Center Core-2). V 98-43 This property is developed with a restaurant and retail shop. The property owner proposes to develop a picnic area south of the retail shop, separated by a 9.33-foot monument paneled with granite veneer etched with the Ten Commandments, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. The monument will screen a trash compactor. To enclose the trash compactor, the property owner proposes to construct a 9.33-foot masonry wall on the north side. Staff feels conditions support approval. The wall will be the same height as the monument, will enclose the compactor, and screen its view from all directions. Approval will enhance safety near the compactor, improve the property’s appearance by screening objectionable views, and will not adversely affect any other property owner. Robert Aude, architect representing the applicant, said construction of the entire park will coincide with construction of the dumpster enclosure. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Moran moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to 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 shall be obtained within one year. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4) Scott & Ruth Hale/LCC International, Inc. for the following (1) a setback variance of 10 feet to allow a monopole tower 50 feet from the east side property line where a minimum setback of 60 feet is required; (2) a height variance of 70 feet to allow a monopole tower 120 feet high where a maximum height of 50 feet is permitted; and (3) a height variance of 2 feet to allow fence 8 feet high where a maximum height of 6 feet is permitted at 1496 Belleair Rd. (Proposed), Sec 23-29-15, M&B 33.05, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 9839 This item was heard at the beginning of the meeting. Three variances are requested to construct a 120-foot monopole telecommunications tower on this undeveloped property. Staff feels the tower will visually impact the City and pose safety concerns during high winds. Staff recommends continuing this application to allow the applicant additional time to address these concerns and provide supporting documentation. The applicants’ representative, who was not sworn in, requested to hear staff’s recommendations before deciding whether or not to request a continuance. Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides said she received a call from the applicants’ attorney immediately prior to today’s hearing. The representing attorney discussed with Ms. Dougall-Side the possibility of continuing this case for two weeks and meeting with staff to explore the concept of co-locating the antenna at another site owned by FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation.) The representative read a list of conditions she wanted attached to any continuance, to ensure a timely hearing. Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed alternatives available to the applicant, stating staff is agreeable to work toward the applicants’ objective. Discussion ensued regarding continuance. Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides acknowledged applicant time constraints and reviewed provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, requiring an expeditious hearing. Members of the public present to speak to the item expressed concerns many did not receive notice of this hearing and feared they would miss any notice of a future hearing. Public hearing advertising requirements for Development Code Adjustment Board and Planning and Zoning Board were discussed. Member Johnson moved to continue Item C4, V 9839 to May 28, 1998. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Normal agenda order was restored and discussion ensued regarding Item C1. Member Johnson left the meeting at 2:25 p.m. ITEM D - Land Development Code Amendments - None ITEM E - Minutes Approval -- April 23, 1998 Member Stuart moved to approve the minutes, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Johnson was not present. ITEM F - Board & Staff Comments Mr. Richter reported the staff report format is being improved to key into the standards for variance approval. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the board imposes a time limit for obtaining appropriate permits because code does not specifically address time frames for construction. The board needs to determine whether an applicant intends to proceed with construction in a timely manner and impose conditions accordingly. General discussion ensued regarding the property addressed in today’s Item A1. Staff was requested to inspect a completed telecommunication tower on Virginia Street for possible code violations. A suggestion was made to incorporate telecommunication towers with church structures, such as steeples. An ordinance was suggested to require building material suppliers and home improvement centers to post notice that permits may be required. The board praised staff’s efforts to work with property owners along Eastland Avenue and Landmark Drive to move fences back from property lines and landscape the exterior for a more attractive appearance. Consensus was to continue board member introductions at the beginning of the meeting. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:33 p.m.