Loading...
10/08/1998 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER October 8, 1998 Present: William Schwob Chair Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Absent: William Johnson Vice-Chair Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Sandy Glatthorn Planning & Development Services Manager 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 - None. ITEM #B - Continued Variance Requests - None. ITEM #C - New Variance Requests C1) Clearwater Housing Corporation, Inc. for a variance to allow a 6 ft. high fence at the property line along Bayview Ave. and Drew St. at 2990 Tanglewood Dr., Sec 17-29-16, M&B 11.01, zoned RPD 8 (Residential Planned Development). V 98-70 The applicant proposes to erect a 6-foot chain-link fence at the property line along Bayview Avenue and Drew Street. The back of the public housing units abut these streets, making clotheslines and other accessory features visible to motorists. CHA (Clearwater Housing Authority) proposes to grow jasmine vines on the fence to buffer the development from traffic, provide privacy for residents, and create more attractive views from the public streets. The applicant has agreed to address staff sight restriction concerns by installing the fence at an angle by driveways and streets. Member Stuart stated he served on a CHA volunteer board. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides indicated no conflict of interest exists as his service is voluntary. In response to a question, Planning & Development Services Manager Sandy Glatthorn said the Code does not require a landscape buffer for chain-link fences. Ken Florczyk, representative, said the site is being upgraded. Jasmine vines, planted along Drew Street in the past 2 months, already reach the top of the fence. The CHA was complimented for improvements made to the complex. No support or opposition was expressed. Member Jonnatti moved to grant a fence height variance of 24 to 42 inches 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) variance based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) requisite fence permit shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of the public hearing; and 3) per the Traffic Engineer, fencing shall be set back at angles near the driveway exit and street intersections of Bayview Avenue and Tanglewood Drive and Bayview Avenue and Drew Street to eliminate sight restrictions for motorists of approaching vehicles and pedestrians. The fence plan and permit shall be subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2) Harry Adkins & Deborah Mendenhall for a variance to allow an 11 ft. setback from street right-of-way (side) at 1720 Long St., Highland Pines 5th Add., Blk 34, Lot 11, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-71 The applicant plans to build a carport on the east side of the single family residence. Corner lots, zoned RS-8, require 25-foot setbacks from both abutting streets. The house is approximately 21 feet from the Arden Avenue right-of-way. The applicant proposes to construct a carport 11 feet from that street’s right-of-way. Staff feels no special circumstance warrants approval. Strict application of the code will not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. The request is not in the community’s best interest, which is to provide adequate setbacks from street rights-of-way. A 2-car garage, attached to the residence, is used for vehicle storage. Traffic Engineering indicated the existing concrete slab is too narrow for parking. Vehicle access would require driving across the sidewalk or widening the driveway, which Traffic Engineering cannot support. Harry Adkins, applicant, said he has a classic car hobby and owns 4 automobiles. He said the 2 vehicles which do not fit into the garage protrude over the sidewalk when parked in the driveway. The tire of one car had been slashed recently. He wanted to construct the carport to protect his new car. He said he had installed the concrete slab before he began work on the carport. He planned provide a buffer of shrubs and a fence. It was noted the neighborhood is well maintained. No existing precedent that would permit this variance. In response to a suggestion, Ms. Glatthorn said Traffic Engineering would have to approve a driveway off Arden Avenue. Support was noted for a proposal to construct a carport on the east side of the house. No support or opposition was expressed. Member Jonnatti moved to deny the variance request because the applicant has not met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #D - Land Development Code Amendments - None ITEM #E - Approval of Minutes Member Stuart moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 24, 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 The July 9, 1998, Administrative Interpretation was distributed which concluded ”existing nonconforming structures or buildings where are lawfully established under previous City of Clearwater codes which currently do not comply with dimensional or numerical requirements as the result of City action in the form of Zoning Atlas Amendments or Land Development Code amendments may be expanded or enlarged provided that additions do not further encroach beyond the existing nonconforming setback line. However, if such structure is damaged, destroyed, or reconstructed to an extend equal to or greater than 50% of its appraised value, said structure must meet all dimensional and numerical requirements of the existing Land Development Code.” Ms. Dougall-Sides said a strict interpretation of the Code would result in additional variance requests. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn said the interpretation does not address open or green space or fences but would permit a 2nd story added to a nonconforming building. Ms. Dougall-Sides said modifying view corridors is not addressed in this document and would require variances. The interpretation to be included in the new Land Development Code is effective immediately. Member Moran moved to approve the July 9, 1998, Administrative Interpretation regarding the expansion or enlargement of structures with lawful dimensional nonconformities. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was noted copies of the new Land Development Code had been distributed. Ms. Glatthorn said the Planning & Zoning Board will hold a public hearing regarding the document. Development Code Adjustment Board members may comment as private citizens. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m.