Loading...
08/23/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD August 23, 1990 Members present: John W. Homer, Chairman Thomas J. Graham, Vice-Chairman Kemper Merriam Alex Plisko Emma C. Whitney Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:03 p.m. in the Commission Chambers in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two (2) weeks. He noted that Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. II. Public Hearings ITEM #1 - City of Clearwater for a variance of 7 ft to permit building 3 ft from a side property line at 1605 N. Keene Rd., Pinellas Groves Sub, Sec 12-29-15, part of Lots 6, 7 and 8 and Sec 1-29-15, part of Lots 25 and 26, zoned IL (limited industrial). V 90-112 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the City is proposing to develop the site with a sanitation complex for sanitation employees and equipment. The three buildings proposed will be located outside the Airpark runway clear space, which runs through the center of the site. Greg Montgomery, representing the applicant, indicated the employees and administration building will be one story high. The proposed location of this building is due to future expansion of Keene Road which will possibly require 65 feet of additional right-of-way. In developing the site, consideration was given to allow maximum buffering from the residential area to the west, as well as avoid the runway clear zone. In response to questions, he indicated the site may eventually be fenced, the City is not required to provide landscaping on the south side and the building will be utilized mainly for employees/administration. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code was to be applied and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of the flight path for the Clearwater Airpark across the center of this property and the future planned expansion or widening of the Keene Road right-of-way which would take an additional 65 feet from the west side of that property, subject to the conditions that this building be used for an employee and administration building only, not for any industrial use, assembly or repair work of any kind, and a certified site plan be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #2 - City of Clearwater for variances 1) of 90 in. to permit a 120 in. high wall in setback adjacent to address street and 2) to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjacent to waterfront at 3141 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Myron A. Smith's Bayview Sub, Part of Tract "B" and Sec 16-29-16, M&B 31.02, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 90-113 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the City currently is upgrading the Clearwater East Advanced Pollution Control Facility in accordance with federal regulations. Since the site is at the entrance to the City of Clearwater, buffering from the road is desired for aesthetic and safety reasons. Terry Jennings, representing the City, stated the treatment plant is in a very visual location and they wish to make the facility as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Development on the site is intense due to site constraints. He indicated the wall is needed for safety reasons and will be located 4 feet from the pump house in order to maximize landscaping on the street side. A chain link fence is being proposed at the rear of the property near the seawall to provide security. In response to a question, Mr. Jennings indicated they plan to erect a 6 foot chain link fence along the east side and hope to obtain a landscaping easement from DOT. It is possible a decorative wall will not be needed if enough landscaping is provided. The proposed landscaping in front of the plant will be as close as possible to the wall and tiered toward the road. He indicated a 10 foot high wall is desired due to the height of the buildings behind it. Discussion ensued in regard to the proposed widening of S.R. 60 by DOT and the proposed 49th Street Bridge overpass and ramp. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the particular surroundings and shape of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code was to be applied and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the nature and intensity of the development making the site unique to this area of the City; therefore, buffering is needed for aesthetic reasons especially due to being located at the entrance of the City of Clearwater, the chain link fence is necessary for the safety of citizens and visitors to the community, the proposal is in keeping with the desires of the City Commission to benefit the community and the decorative screen wall will be placed 30 feet back from the street in an area where the required street setback for a building with this zoning classification is 35 feet, subject to the conditions that a densely landscaped buffer be provided between the wall and the street and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #3 - Horst and Joan E. Partenheimer for variances of 1) 26 in. to permit 56 in. high wall in front yard setback area (Four decorative walls of varying heights), 2) 7.5 ft to permit steps 17.5 ft from a street right-of-way and 3) 9 ft to permit terrace 6 ft from a rear property line at 400 Palm Island S.E., Island Estates Unit 6A, Lot 26, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 90-114 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the variances are associated with a single family home to be built in conformance with City flood protection standards in Island Estates. The new residence will not be a stilt house; however, will be built with the living area 11 feet above mean sea level with the property graded from that height to the existing elevation at the property boundaries. It is felt the decorative walls will minimize the impact of the added height of the house. Horst Partenheimer stated the existing subdivision was developed prior to the current flood elevations. The walls and planters have been designed to blend in with the neighborhood. The planters will conceal the steps and break the visual impact of the front of the house creating a terrace effect. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed design of the walls. It was indicated there are no objections from the neighbors. Concern was expressed regarding the wall on the east side of the house being in the setback area. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the house being built within an established neighborhood and being brought up to current flood standards, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship, subject to the conditions that the variances be limited only to the three wall heights on the west side of the driveway and not include the wall on the east side and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. In response to a question, the applicant indicated he does not have any immediate plans to put in a pool. ITEM #4 - Antonios Markopoulos for a variance to permit zero landscape buffer between parking lot and a street right-of-way at 100 Coronado Dr., Columbia Sub, Blk "A", Lot 1, and Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 44-47 and Lots 90-97, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-115 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to continue the existing nonconforming parking lot arrangement. He said the interior lot will need to be redesigned to meet City parking requirements. Antonios Markopoulos stated he had razed a building to put in the parking lot. He said having the planter in the middle divided the parking lot and made ease of access to the motel office difficult for the guests and that the separate two-way drives for each created a traffic problem. In response to a question, it was indicated 12 feet is the standard size for a one-way drive. Concern was expressed regarding the proper amount of landscaping along the right-of-way be provided. Discussion ensued concerning alternate designs for the parking lot and it was felt a conforming lot arrangement could be provided. Mr. Graham moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown, it is not a minimum variance, the ingress and egress as it is set up would endanger public safety and it would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Graham, Plisko and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #5 - Palm Pavilion, Inc. (Palm Pavilion Inn) for variances 1) of 42 in. to permit a 72 in. high fence in front yard setback area, 2) of 3 ft to permit fence zero ft from a street right-of-way and 3) to permit zero landscaping on right-of-way side of fence at 18 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater Beach Revised, Blk 8, Lots 6, 7, and 13, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 90-116 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the variances are to erect a fence around an existing swimming pool. The deviation in the elevation of the pool deck and the sidewalk creates a hazard to persons on both private and public property. The Planning Manager indicated fencing around swimming pools needs to be addressed in the Land Development Code. Wade Hamilton, representing the applicant, stated their insurance company is requiring the erection of a 42 inch high fence around the pool for safety reasons. The fencing will slope from 42 inches down to 24 inches high. To address the concern expressed regarding visual blockage of pedestrians from persons exiting the property, it was indicated the applicant would be willing to post a caution sign or install a speed bump to slow down any vehicles exiting the property. In response to questions, it was indicated the parking area is a private lot used by the employees and owners and is not a highly trafficked area. Landscaping is being proposed in the right-of-way, to line up with the grass in front of the adjacent Pick Kwik for aesthetic purposes. There was discussion regarding no provision in the the code for requiring setbacks for deck area. Discussion ensued regarding tearing up the concrete in the right-of-way to provide landscaping, whether the City would permit this to be done or whether the fence would need to be moved back to provide for the landscaping. It was indicated a precedent had been set for City right-of-way to be used for landscaping purposes in the area. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant Variances #1 and #2 as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the site conditions, subject to the conditions that the fence height parallel to the street and along the west side of the swimming pool deck shall be no greater than 42 inches above the swimming pool deck, with the fence along the eastern side of the site being permitted to slope upwards to a height of 6 feet where it would adjoin the existing shadowbox fence and that a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Merrian and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mr. Graham voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant Variance #3 as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship subject to the conditions, if the applicant cannot get City approval to place the landscaping in the right-of-way of Kendall Street, the applicant will be required to place the proper landscaping on his property and that a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Merriam and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mr. Graham voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. The Board recessed from 2:30 p.m. to 2:40 p.m. ITEM #6 - Speros and Joan Frangedis for a variance of 3.1 ft to permit stairs 8.9 ft from a side property line at 437 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lot 81, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-117 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the variance is to allow the construction of stairs on the north side of a second story building. A portion of an existing balcony will be removed to provide room for the stairs. In May, 1990, the Board granted variances to allow columns for roof and fascia support to be located in the setback. Michael Frangedis, representing the applicant, stated the stairs will provide a secondary means of egress from the second floor for safety reasons and will be used for emergency purposes only. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and additional egress is desired by the Fire Department, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #7 - Richard E. and Patricia A. Whissel, Jr. for variances of 1) 3.7 ft to permit detached garage 1.3 ft from a side property line and 2) 7.75 ft to permit detached garage 2.25 ft from a rear property line at 300 N. Lincoln Ave., Country Club Addn, Blk "5", Lot 7, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-118 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the variances are to reconstruct and enlarge a detached garage, utilizing the existing concrete slab. The existing garage is nonconforming as are several others in the neighborhood. Richard Whissel, Jr. stated many structures in the neighborhood are nonconforming with setbacks similar to what is being requested. He said he collects old cars and the garage would provide protection for them. He said this renovation would maintain the character of the neighborhood and improve the appearance of the property. The entire area is undergoing a process of revitalization. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not a hardship exists. In response to a question, the applicant indicated the garage would be built with the same slope as the roof and siding that is presently on the existing home. One letter and a petition with four signatures in support were submitted for the record. Discussion ensued in regard to freestanding garages being characteristic of the neighborhood; however, due to its size, it was felt the proposed garage would not be characteristic of the neighborhood. Mr. Plisko moved to deny the variances as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, the hardship was caused by the owner, they are not minimum variances and they would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Section 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #8 - John D. and Rita T. McEnaney for variances 1) to permit 30 in. high fence in setback area adjacent to waterfront, 2) of 41.45 ft to permit 69.65 ft dock length, 3) of 5.28 ft to allow dock extension 6 ft from an extended side property line and 4) of 9.31 ft to permit dock width of 29.05 ft at 225 Hamden Dr., Bayside Sub Replat, Lot 53 and land to bulkhead, zoned RS-8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-119 Staff requested a continuance of this item due to the request being amended. Mrs. Whitney moved to continue this item to September 13, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #9 - Alan C. Bomstein, Robert J. Burnside, William C. Gregg III, Thomas E. McCune and Robert P. Horst (Checker's) for variances 1) of one business identification sign to permit a total of three such signs, 2) to permit an additional menu sign and 3) to permit canopy sign to extend above canopy at 205 N. Ft. Harrison Ave., Jones Sub of Nicholson's Addn to Clearwater, Blk "5", Lots 1 and 2, zoned UC (C) (core sub-district of the urban center district). V 90-120 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the variances are for a proposed Checkers fast food restaurant on a site fronting on two streets. Jim White, representing the applicant, stated they are withdrawing Variance #1. He indicated the signs will extend above the canopy but not above the roofline. The menu sign will be placed on the front of the building between the pickup windows for visibility by walk-up customers. He said Checkers is requesting the menu sign outside because there is no indoor seating. It was indicated they would be willing to reduce the menu sign to 8 or 9 square feet. Discussion ensued regarding the traffic pattern for the drive-thru windows. It was indicated this situation has been addressed and there will not be a stacking problem. There was some discussion regarding the style of building being in character with the downtown area. It was felt this use was a better than a bus station or filling station. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant Variance #2 to permit an additional 9 square foot menu sign and Variance #3 as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, they arise from a condition which is unique to this use, which is a walk-up fast food restaurant, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Merriam, Graham and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #10 - Ordinance No. 5008-90 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending various Sections in Chapters 135, 136 and 137, Code of Ordinances, relating to family, group and congregate care facilities; redefining terms to comply with Florida law; deleting Level I group care as a conditional use in all of the single-family residential districts; allowing Level I group care as a permitted use, rather than a conditional use, in all of the multiple-family residential districts; allowing residential shelters as a conditional use in all of the multiple-family residential districts and in the limited office, neighborhood commercial, general commercial, highway commercial, limited industrial, and public/semipublic districts; establishing maximum densities for residential shelters in limited industrial and public/semipublic districts; providing for the location of foster care facilities; deleting floor area and lot area requirements as applied to Level I and Level II group care facilities only; reducing the minimum lot area requirement for Level III group care facilities; establishing off-street parking requirements for residential shelters; establishing minimum distance limitations for family care and group care facilities; providing that family care facilities shall be deemed noncommercial residential uses and allowable in single-family or multiple-family residential districts as a matter of right; providing an effective date. The Planning Manager discussed the changes to the Code necessitated by changes in State siting requirements for community residential homes. Also, the City Commission has indicated they desire to provide a potential for shelters for the homeless. Discussion ensued regarding the 1000 foot separation distance between group care facilities. Concern was expressed regarding these type facilities in residential zones. It was indicated separation measurement will be from structure to structure rather than from one property line to another. In response to questions, it was indicated zoning approval would be required allowing the City to monitor the location of family care facilities. Consensus of the Board was to recommend approval of the code amendment subject to the deletion of residential shelters as conditional uses in RM-8 and RM-12 zoning districts. III. Minutes Mr. Graham moved to approve the minutes of August 9, 1990, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. IV. Board Comments The Board requested staff to investigate a semi-trailer on Oak Avenue south of Turner for a possible code violation. V. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.