Loading...
05/28/1998 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER May 28, 1998 Present: William Schwob Chair Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter Absent: William Johnson Vice-Chair 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 - None. ITEM #B - Continued Variance Requests B1) Douglas M. & Sharna L. Paradowski a setback variance of 2 ft. to allow a shed 3 ft. from the West property line where a minimum setback of 5 ft. is required at 2315 St. Charles Dr., Morningside Estates Unit 2, Lot 221, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-40 A 48-square foot storage shed was placed, without a permit, in the side yard setback on the home’s West side. On May 14, 1998, the DCAB (Development Code Adjustment Board) continued this application, requesting staff:1) identify sheds in Morningside inconsistent with setback standards, 2) contact the homeowners’ association regarding its position on this issue; and 3) determine how moving the shed would affect open space requirements. Staff recommends denial of the request as the applicant has not met all standards for approval. Senior Planner John Richter said the shed crowds the adjoining property. He recommended against establishing an undesirable precedent. Staff had contacted 2 members of the homeowners’ association who recommended addressing the issue through deed restrictions. Mr. Richter said staff would approve the 0.05% open space variance necessary to locate the shed in the back yard. Building Administrator Vic Chodora reported the City does not have enough staff to perform a door-to-door survey of sheds in Morningside Estates. He expressed concern this type of survey could result in selective code enforcement. City policy is to respond to complaints. In response to a question, he said City policy is to grandfather out-of-compliance sheds that appear to be at least 5-years old. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said the shed probably violates the homeowners’ association’s deed restrictions. The slab under the shed impacts the property’s open space. If the slab is removed, the property’s open space would no longer be an issue. The homeowners’ association members did not indicate if the association would address this issue. Douglas Paradowski, owner, submitted a petition, signed by 12 neighbors, in support of the variance. He said he was cited for constructing a shed without a permit, not for violating the setback. He said photographs he had submitted of sheds at the May 14, 1998, meeting, were not meant to punish his neighbors. He submitted 6 additional photographs of his shed and other sheds located in setbacks. It was noted the survey was suggested to determine the level of neighborhood non-compliance, not to punish. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said the City does not require permits for sheds smaller than 100-square feet. In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the City had issued a Stop Work Order. Mr. Paradowski was not cited for locating a structure in the setback, pending outcome of this variance application. Slabs less than 12-inches tall are not considered structures. In addition to the petition, no other support or opposition was expressed. Mr. Paradowski said the requested variance is small. He said the homeowners’ association is working to update many deed restrictions and has taken no action regarding the shed. It was felt deed restrictions are not relevant. It was noted staff had indicated the shed could be moved to the back yard even though the property owner opposes that suggestion as stored items may be dangerous to children. Disappointment was noted that staff had been unable to survey the neighborhood to identify sheds in violation of setback restrictions and had not obtained more information from the homeowners’ association. It was felt the homeowners’ association should address this issue. Concern was expressed this homeowner may be forced to comply with rules his neighbors ignore. It was recommended staff relate information on setback restrictions when answering inquiries regarding sheds. Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed City policy for complaints and indicated the complaint had been filed anonymously. It was questioned if one complaint should outweigh a list of supporting signatories. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the City could be charged with selective enforcement if it did not respond to every complaint. Member Jonnatti moved to deny the requested variance because the applicant has not substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded. Members Jonnatti and Moran and Chair Schwob voted “Aye”; Member Stuart voted “Nay.” Motion carried. B2) Scott & Ruth Hale/LCC International, Inc. for the following (1) a setback variance of 10 ft. to allow a monopole tower 50 ft. from the East side property line where a minimum setback of 60 ft. is required; (2) a height variance of 70 ft. to allow a monopole tower 120 ft. high where a maximum height of 50 ft. is permitted; and (3) a height variance of 2 ft. to allow fence 8 ft. high where a maximum height of 6 ft. is permitted at 1496 Belleair Rd. (Proposed), Sec 23-29-15, M&B 33.05, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 98-39 This property is undeveloped. Three variances are requested to construct a 120-foot monopole telecommunications tower. Staff feels the tower will have a visual impact on the City and pose safety concerns during high winds. Staff requests that the applicant submit documentation clearly supporting the need for a tower at this location, including the requested height, a description of coverage that can be provided if existing towers are utilized, and construction details to ensure adequate safeguards for the public, including construction plans, description of the wind load capacity and fall zone, and identification of radiation levels. Jane Kelly, Representative, indicated representatives of LCC International and BellSouth Mobility had met with staff to discuss alternative locations. She also reviewed Federal regulations regarding this issue. In response to DCAB’s request, representatives had contacted local residents who indicated they were unwilling to meet as a group. Ms. Kelly requested this item be continued to June 11, 1998. Negotiations are underway with FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) to collocate the subject telecommunication equipment on FDOT’s Young Avenue tower. Negotiations are taking longer than anticipated. Ms. Dougall-Sides said on June 4, 1998, the City Commission will consider a resolution that addresses this matter. It is difficult to predict how long before the issue is resolved. In response to a question, Ms. Kelly was unsure how feasible it would be to place this equipment on a Florida Power transmission tower in the public right-of-way. Kahled Juma said if the company’s equipment is located farther than 20 feet from the bottom of the pole, loss of signal will occur. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said a variance will not be necessary if collocation on the Young Avenue tower is negotiated successfully. Steven Murphy, neighbor, expressed concern regarding delays as he takes time off from work to attend these meetings. Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated the City must abide by requirements included in the 1996 telecommunications act. As the applicant has agreed to the continuation, the City is not in violation of the act. Mr. Murphy expressed concern the proposed tower will affect his equipment. He cannot attend the next meeting. In response to a question, Ms. Kelly said the 2 area churches contacted were not interested in locating telecommunications equipment on their steeples. Member Moran moved to continue Item #B2 to June 11, 1998. The motion was duly seconded. Members Stuart and Moran and Chair Schwob voted “Aye”; Member Jonnatti voted “Nay.” Motion carried. It was requested neighbors be contacted if the issue is resolved before the next meeting. Mr. Richter recommended interested parties call the Central Permitting Department on the morning of the meeting. Rufus King recommended the tower be located on the Taylor property in Largo. ITEM #C - New Variance Requests - None. ITEM #D - Land Development Code Amendments - None ITEM #E - Approval of Minutes Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 14, 1998, to be considered on June 11, 1998. ITEM #F - Board & Staff Comments Member Stuart requested an electrical engineer verify the minimum distance necessary between the base of a tower and essential telecommunication equipment. Member Stuart felt the board’s request for information regarding Item #B1 was handled poorly by staff. He said it is not necessary to knock on doors to gather information regarding backyard sheds. It was suggested staff could have driven through the neighborhood and gathered some information. Ms. Dougall-Sides reported neighbors had appealed the separation variation approved for Marie Curry’s ACLF. She will report on the outcome of the case to be heard by a Hearing Officer on June 10, 1998. Mr. Richter said a height variance had been processed more than a year ago for a tower that is part of a soil remediation effort behind a gasoline station. Member Moran questioned when the board would receive a draft of the new Land Development Code. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the outline has been distributed. It is expected that drafts of code sections will be completed soon. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:13 p.m.