Loading...
07/23/1998 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER July 23, 1998 Present: William Schwob Chair William Johnson Vice-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 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 ITEM #B - Continued Variance Requests - None. ITEM #C - New Variance Requests C1) Sandra Kay Hicks for the following (1) a setback variance of 3 ft to allow a new fence zero ft from a street (Landmark Dr.) right-of-way where a minimum setback of 3 ft is required; and (2) a landscape buffer variance to allow a new fence with no landscaping adjacent to a street (Landmark Dr.) right-of-way where shrubs along 50 percent of the length of the fence is required at 2588 Brandywine Dr., Northwood Estates-Tract C, Blk F, Lot 15, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-54 This property has a double frontage. It is addressed from Brandywine Drive, with Landmark Drive abutting its Southwest side. This property is developed with a single family home and backyard swimming pool with concrete and wood decks. The backyard is enclosed by a recently erected 6-foot wood fence which replaced a fence in the same position, close to the property lines. No permit for the fence exists. Two palm trees are near the inside of the fence. The wood deck is approximately 2 feet from the rear property fence and 0.2 foot from the side. A Florida Power transformer is approximately 1 foot from the fence on the property’s West corner. According to a letter from Joseph G. Brown, Senior Engineering Representative for Florida Power Corporation, the front of the transformer requires at least 6-feet clearance for maintenance, and all other sides must have 3 feet. Seventeen lots in this block back up to Landmark Drive. Excluding the applicant’s property, 12 lots have 6-foot wood fences along Landmark Drive. Of those, 6 are set back from the property line, and 3 are landscaped on the outside. Of those not set back, 4 have hedges on the inside of the fence. Several fences jog around Florida Power transformers and equipment. Directly across from this block on Landmark Drive, 8 residential lots are enclosed with 6-foot wood fences set back from the Landmark Drive right-of-way. Six are landscaped on the outside. City records indicate only 1 fence-related variance application in the immediate area. After installing a 6-foot fence adjacent to Landmark Drive without setback or landscaping, that property owner requested variances. On February 27, 1997, DCAB (Development Code Adjustment Board) denied a landscape variance but approved a 1-foot setback variance, requiring the fence to be relocated 2-feet from the Landmark Drive right-of-way with landscaping on the outside. Following board direction, on March 5, 1997, staff sent letters to all other Brandywine Drive property owners, including applicant Hicks, explaining City rules regarding fences. The Landmark Drive corridor, which curves through Northwood Estates, is anchored by a shady office park and a public school and church with spacious grounds. The street is intermittently lined with trees. Public sidewalks along the right-of-way are separated from the street by wide inclined grassy strips. Staff recommends bringing non-conforming fences along Landmark Drive into compliance with the code as replacements occur. Staff feels the fence should accommodate a minimum landscape buffer. According to Landscape Architect Tim Kurtz’s June 3, 1998, memorandum, a landscape buffer requires at least 3 feet between the fence and public sidewalk. Relocating the fence back 2 feet would position it adjacent to the wood deck. Staff feels the fence should be jogged around the transformer and palm trees on the property’s Northeast side. If the applicant desires to maintain the trees inside the fence, the trees could be transplanted. Staff feels it is important to soften the appearance of 6-foot fences that line City street rights-of-way. It appears the applicant can move the fence 2-feet farther from the Landmark Drive right-of-way and still maintain privacy and security from Landmark Drive. A landscape buffer would soften the public view of the fence. Senior Planner John Richter said the landscape buffers planted during the last 2 years have improved the greenbelt along Landmark Drive. Staff recommends a continuation of these improvements. Sandra Kay Hicks, applicant, said when one section of her fence began leaning under the weight of a vine, she replaced all sections to maintain a uniform look. She said she spends a great deal of time in her backyard gardening, swimming, and playing with her large dogs. She said her house sits back farther from Brandywine Drive than neighboring homes, limiting the size of her backyard. The fence cannot be moved to the other side of the transformer box as it opens into her yard. She said her palm trees are large and her wood deck sits 22 inches from the fence. She said moving her fence would ruin the look of her property. She wished to drop her request for a landscape buffer variance and offered to plant confederate jasmine against the outside of the fence. The fence is now 16 inches from the sidewalk. Had she been aware of the code, she would not have repaired the fence. She requested a 2-foot variance. In response to a question, Ms. Hicks did not recall receiving the March 1997, letter from the City referring to permitting requirements related to fences. It was suggested Ms. Hicks could relocate the palm trees and move the fence 2-feet to the edge of the deck. Ms. Hicks said her deck is 22 inches from the fence. It was suggested the fence be moved 18 inches, saving the palms and wood deck and providing adequate room for buffer landscaping. It was felt this compromise would accomplish the City goal of concealing the fence by attractive greenery. It was suggested where the fence must jog several feet to the property line past the transformer, buffer landscaping would not be necessary. It was noted this yard differs from neighboring properties due to the house’s large setback from the front property line. It was stated the property is well maintained. Ms. Hicks submitted 2 letters of support from neighbors. She stated if the fence can remain in its current position, she would have enough room to plant confederate jasmine, which would hide the fence. It was noted this problem would not exist had Ms. Hicks obtained the required permit. She said she had felt she was repairing the fence, not replacing it. In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said when more than 50% of a fence is replaced, even though the posts remain, the project is considered a replacement. In response to a question, Ms. Hicks said the palms were in place when she purchased the house. No other support or opposition was expressed. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said confederate jasmine grows well on chain link but was unfamiliar with its ability to cover a wood fence. Concern was expressed that moving the fence would create problems as the adjoining fence is not set back. It was noted once bushes grow and obscure the view of the fence, motorists would be unable to determine the fence’s location. It was stated when the area first was developed, fences did not require permits. Neighbors had felt the wood fences lining Landmark Drive were unattractive and presented an alley effect. The homeowners association had planted wax myrtles in the rights-of-way to soften the road’s appearance. It was noted in the past 1.5 years, a significant percentage of fences along Landmark Drive have been replaced in accordance with the Land Development Code. Allowing the fence to remain in its current position would cause a unique situation in the future. It was felt the 18-inch compromise was acceptable. It was noted fences that jog around transformers on Countryside Boulevard are obscured by landscaping. It was recommended that viburnam be planted as buffer landscaping rather than slower growing plants. It was felt if Ms. Hicks’ neighbors do not object to the fence’s location, the City should not get involved only to placate Landmark Drive motorists. It was suggested planting confederate jasmine would create an adequate buffer. It was noted staff’s report had indicated additional space is needed for future sidewalk repairs. It was felt it is unlikely sidewalk repairs would ever be necessary as there are no nearby large trees with roots that damage sidewalks. The fence is 16 inches from the sidewalk. The need for uniformity was noted. Concern was expressed a precedent not be established before other property owners replace their fences. Fences on the opposite side of the street conform with code. It was felt confederate jasmine would not create the desired affect and could damage the wood fence. Member Johnson moved to deny the request to waive the landscape buffer on the outside of the fence because the applicant has not substantially met the standards of approval (1), (2), and (4). The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Johnson moved to grant a setback variance of approximately 18-inches for fence to be located within one-inch of the small palm tree inside the fence and then jog to its current location only where Florida Power Corporation requirements must be met subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request as modified by Board’s approval. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within 30 days from the date of this public hearing; 3) the fence shall be relocated to meet the approved setback requirement within 60 days; 4) a landscape buffer shall be installed on the outside of the fence parallel to Landmark Drive within 90 days; The buffer shall consist of a hedge of shrubs along the length of the fence, except where it is necessary to meet setback requirements for the Florida Power transformer. The shrubs shall be at least 18 inches in height at planting and 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. Irrigation shall be provided for the shrubs. Failure to maintain the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the variances; and 5) the board strongly recommends the landscape buffer consist of a rapidly growing shrub such as viburnum. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Jonnatti, and Moran and Chair Schwob voted “Aye”; Member Stuart voted “Nay.” Motion carried. ITEM #D - Land Development Code Amendments - None ITEM #E - Approval of Minutes Member Stuart moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 9, 1998, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #F - Board & Staff Comments Citizen Notification of Permit Requirements Mr. Richter reviewed steps he had taken to notify citizens regarding permit requirements: 1) letters were sent to all homeowner association representatives explaining permit requirements and requesting the information be shared with members; 2) letters were sent to home improvement stores requesting their help in notifying residents. A laminated notice was provided to post where fence materials are sold; 3) a booklet, “A Citizen’s Guide to Code Enforcement” is available to all interested parties; and 4) Information Management has agreed to broadcast public messages on C-View regarding this issue. The board complimented Mr. Richter on his promptness in addressing this problem and the thorough job he had done. Assistant City Attorney Remarks Regarding the appeal of the Curry Group Home case, Ms. Dougall-Sides reported the Hearing Officer is working on an order which will be forwarded to the City within a week. The Bay Aristocrat/Don Pablo case remains open. Ms. Dougall-Sides has requested an inspection of the property to confirm parking conforms to the approved site plan. Afterwards, she will forward a notice of no objection to dismissal of that case. An appeal filed regarding the LCC tower case has been forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the City hopes an alternative placement can be located. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:02 p.m.