Loading...
11/12/1998DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER November 12, 1998 Present: William Schwob Chair William Johnson Vice-Chair Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Sandy Glatthorn Planning Manager Brenda Moses 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 Variances Requests - None. ITEM C - New Variance Requests 1. Carlouel Garden & Improvement Association, Inc. for a variance to allow the replacement of an existing fence and gate between 1040 & 1046 S. Eldorado Ave., Mandalay Sub, Blk 69, Lot 17 and riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-75 The applicant wishes to install a six-foot fence, 3 feet from the eastern property line, to separate a private beach access area and park which serve Carlouel Homeowners Association members. The fence will identify the property as a private beach access. Staff feels no other means to maintain the private nature of this park exist. The chain link fence needs repair and does not maintain the private status of the park and beach access. The City has no record of the existing fence’s construction date. Required landscaping will minimize negative effects resulting from the increased fence height. Staff recommends approval. Stewart Halbauer, Carlouel Homeowners Association Chair, said the association also is requesting to install a landscaped 4-foot chain link fence on the property’s northern perimeter to hide the adjacent garage and for safety reasons. Bob Derwent stated the chain link fence will match the black wrought iron currently at the front of the property. Discussion ensued and it was remarked the landscaping will enhance the area and eliminate the safety issue. Member Jonnatti moved to grant a fence height variance to allow installation of a six-foot fence to be located 3 feet from the eastern property line 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, 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) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months; 3) the applicant shall provide landscaping on the right-of-way side of the fence along Eldorado Avenue in accordance with Section 42.27 of the Land Development Code and after submitting a landscape plan for review and approval by staff; and 4) the applicant shall not utilize a chain link fence at this site along the front of the property. In response to a question, Planning Manager Sandy Glatthorn stated it is intended the fence will be see-through and decorative. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Stan Albro for a variance to allow a 6 foot high masonry fence along the front of the property at 2432 Sharkey Road, Sec. 07-29-16, M&B 42.08, zoned RM 12 (Multiple Family Residential). V 98-76 Ms. Glatthorn reported Item C2 was withdrawn. 3. Amaz D., Bakije F., Neim B. & Enverije Adjullaj (The Renaissance on Sand Key) for variances to allow construction of a residential condominium building with a zero setback and a proposed height of 235 feet at 1370 Gulf Boulevard, Sec 19-29-15, M&Bs 14.04, 14.05 & 14.06, zoned CG (General Commercial) & OS/R (Open Space/Recreational). V 98-78 Ms. Glatthorn reported the applicant had requested a continuance to December 10, 1998. Staff is meeting with the applicant regarding alternative plans. Assistant Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the application had contained some deficiencies as she had not yet seen a copy of the application with signatures of all owners. The submitted survey had contained easement land not owned by the applicants. Member Johnson moved to continue Item C3 to December 10, 1998. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Chair suggested residents with concerns contact the City Clerk Department on the morning of December 10, 1998, to confirm the case is agendaed. Citizens who cannot attend the meeting, can mail comments. It was stated residents can submit photographs and materials pertinent to the case. ITEM D - Land Development Code Amendments ORDINANCE NO. 6348-98 REPEALING THE 1985 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AND REPEALING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 2, CODE ENFORCEMENT, CHAPTER 20 NUISANCES, OF SUBPART A OF PART II OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; CHAPTER 35 GENERAL PROVISIONS, CHAPTER 36 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, CHAPTER 37 ANNEXATION, CHAPTER 38 RESERVED, CHAPTER 39 CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 40 ZONING, CHAPTER 41 SPECIAL LAND USES, CHAPTER 42 UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 43 SITE PLANS, CHAPTER 44 SIGNS, CHAPTER 45 VARIANCES, CHAPTER 46 SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM PLATTING, OF SUBPART B OF PART II OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 50 LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, SECTIONS 52.01, 52.02, 52.03, 52.04, 52.05, 52.06, 52.07, 52.31, 52.32, 52.33, 52.34, 52.35, 52.36, 52.37, 52.38 OF CHAPTER 52 TREE PROTECTION; CHAPTER 53 MARINE IMPROVEMENTS; CHAPTER 55 DOWNTOWN PROPERTY STANDARDS; AND ADOPTING A NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE KNOWN AS THE DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER WHICH PERTAINS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS APPLICABLE TO ALL LAND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY, AUTHORIZED USES WITHIN EACH ZONING DISTRICT, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL USES, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES, REGULATIONS CONCERNING NONCONFORMITIES, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, CODE AMENDMENTS, ZONING ATLAS AND LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS; ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD; RESPONSIBILITIES OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD; NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS; THE PROVISION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE PROPER NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENACTMENT AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Charlie Siemon, Siemon, Marsh, and Larsen, said his focus is to streamline the process, making it positive and proactive. At each stage, he will bring comments, ideas, and corrections to the attention of the appropriate body. He explained the different levels of approval and how the appeal process will work. This public hearing of the new LDC (Land Development Code) is held for DCAB (Development Code Adjustment Board) review. Minor changes, including typographical errors and unintended deviations from code, will be incorporated into the final draft. The October draft will be presented at the November 17, 1998, City Commission Work Session with first reading on November 19, 1998. In response to a question, he anticipated less than 12 appeals a month will require board review. Ms. Glatthorn requested members specifically provide recommendations regarding appropriate sections of Chapters 40, 42, and 44, although comments regarding other chapters also are welcome. In response to a question, Mr. Siemon said advisory boards are being consolidated to streamline processes, and allow one body to review similar matters. Unlike other boards, it was noted DCAB reviews exceptions to the code. Mr. Siemon said the new code advocates flexibility necessary for revitalization. It is anticipated some of the new board’s workload will be shifted to staff. Concern was expressed regarding the loss of citizen input as it was felt a board with only 7 representatives is insufficient. It was noted the new LDC is intended to simplify the process, not to dispense with community input. Mr. Siemon said the administration’s priority is to ensure professionalism is in place to do the job properly. Two citizens expressed concerns: 1) the number of proposed changes is overwhelming, with inadequate time for resident review; 2) locating an IRT (Industrial, Research & Technology District), particularly related to adult uses, a block from residential property; 3) the need for a Police Department review of the code related to adult uses; 4) the definition of a residential infill project; 5) opposition to multi-family uses such as mother-in-law and garage apartments in single family residential areas; 6) parking on front lawns; 7) the loss of advisory boards; 8) long response times by the new Planning and Development Services Department; 9) TDR (Transfer Development Rights) should include a maximum percentage or donation clause; 10) the definition and location of neighborhood conservation districts; 11) unclear rules regarding alcoholic beverage uses; 12) a suggestion to clarify rules rather than simplifying code to eliminate conflict; and 13) the flexible standard allowing buildings to be 150 feet high, especially on Clearwater beach. It was remarked the new code is simplified and easier to read. It was suggested these concerns be addressed. Mr. Siemon suggested residents contact Assistant City Attorney Rob Surrette regarding adult use theaters and the separation of multi-family from single family residential properties. He said the Commission had directed him to shift the default to a tiered system and away from exceptions to rules. Due to their original design, neighborhood conservation districts should not have flexibility but will have additional standards. He said residential in-fill properties cannot be used economically for other uses due to area annexations, for example. The in-fill residential designation allows a property owner to demonstrate to the new Community Development Board that the parcel is not economically feasible and should be subject to a specific set of standards. Mr. Siemon said TDR will avoid future conflicts that could result from the transfer of a cluster of units. Once transferred, the subject property cannot have future allocations of density transferred. The City cannot mandate a parcel of land be donated for private ownership. In response to a question, he said the code’s property management standards ensure staff can address every conceivable circumstance. He said alcoholic beverage and land uses are regulated. He felt the new code substantially enhances neighborhood protections by focusing on external impacts such as lighting, sound, etc. Concern was expressed boards are pushed to give recommendations before all information is reviewed. One member remarked revision to the code has been in the works for a couple years. The first draft was available for review 3 months ago. Board members commented they were unaware they would be asked to make a recommendation on revisions to Chapters 40, 42, and 44 today. Member Johnson moved that a recommendation regarding revisions to Chapters 40, 42, and 44 be continued to December 10, 1998. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was requested the topic be placed on the agenda. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the board can accept public hearing comments regarding this topic at the next meeting. ITEM E - Approval of Minutes - October 22, 1998 Member Johnson moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of October 22, 1998, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried 4:0. Member Jonnatti abstained because he was absent from the meeting. ITEM F -Board and Staff Comments The board approved 1999 meeting dates: 1) January 14; 2) January 28; 3) February 2; 4) February 16; 5) March 2; 6) March 16; 7) April 8; 8) April 22; 9) May 13; 10) May 27; 11) June 10; 12) June 24; 13) July 8; 14) July 22; 15) August 12; 16) August 26; 17) September 14; 18) September 28; 19) October 14; 20) October 28; 21) November 11; 22) November 25; 23) December 14, 24) December 28. 2. REQUEST TO RECONSIDER VARIANCES DENIED ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1998, DUE TO THE DISCOVERY OF NEW INFORMATION AFFECTING THE FENCE LOCATION: Don McFarland, Attorney, for Lynn Bennett for variances to allow the construction of a 6 foot high wood privacy fence along the property line adjacent to Keene Road, on property located at 1784 Thames Street, zoned RS8 (Single Family Residential). V98-64. Ms. Glatthorn stated environmental and City forestry staff had discovered trees on the site conflict with the installation of a fence in the proposed location. Due to this information, staff requests the board reconsider the case on December 10, 1998. It was requested the board be supplied with forestry and environmental reports, and tree surveys regarding the interference of the existing trees. Member Johnson moved to re-hear Case V98-64 on December 10, 1998. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:02 p.m.