Loading...
03/24/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD March 24, 1994 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chairman Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman Otto Gans John B. Johnson Joyce E. Martin Also present: Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of 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 weeks. He noted 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. I. Public Hearings 1. Anthony & Mary Ann Saravanos for a variance of 5 parking spaces to permit the rental of 12 bicycles/scooters providing 0 additional parking spaces where 5 additional spaces are required at 600 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Revised, Blk 7, part of Lot 10, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 93-12 Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicants are requesting a parking variance for their bicycle and scooter rental business. There is one-hour public parking in front of the building and a metered public parking lot to the west. The Planning and Zoning Board approved a conditional use for the proposed rental business subject to several conditions. The City Traffic Engineering Department has recommended denial based on the high usage and shortage of public parking on Clearwater Beach. Mr. Shuford indicated the building covers the entire site with no space for parking, creating a hardship for the applicants. Staff feels the majority of the clientele will walk in from the beach and neighboring residential areas and recommended approval. In response to questions, Mr. Shuford stated the parking requirements are related to the area of the building and the variance applies to both the property and the business. He indicated this type of business has a greater parking requirement than a typical retail business, which would be grandfathered for parking. Ronald Pratt, the business owner, stated he is retired from Northwest Airlines and opened this business to keep busy. He distributed copies of an advertising brochure which lists rates and offers free delivery to beach hotels. He stated 95 percent of his business is walk-in from the hotels and residences and he has never installed one of his four bike racks on an automobile. He felt his store is an asset to Clearwater Beach and a welcome departure from the proliferation of t-shirt shops. Mr. Pratt indicated he is a good neighbor and his neighbors are willing to speak in support of his business. In response to questions, Mr. Pratt stated his operating hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., seven days a week. He said he has an occupational license for sales, which can be modified to include rental, although his main source of income is from sales. Concern was expressed the building is large and could serve other uses. Mr. Pratt swore he would not be used for anything other than bicycle sales, service and rental. He said he has a delivery van painted with the store logo which will be parked on Kendall Street. He did not think he would ever have a need for the five parking spaces; they are required in order for him to obtain his occupational license for rentals. Discussion ensued how parking is enforced in one-hour free parking zones. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property because of its use, which precludes the application of grandfathering of parking, and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome this hardship subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing; 3) the applicant shall obtain the required occupational license within 30 days of this public hearing; 4) the applicant shall comply with all motor vehicle safety standards and requirements in the rental of such equipment; helmets must be issued and taken with scooter riders; 5) there shall be no outdoor storage or display of any vehicles or goods involved in this business including sidewalks and public parking areas in the immediate vicinity of the use and 6) this variance shall apply to the subject business only. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Charles C. & Mary A. Carter for variances of (1) 5 ft to permit a side setback of 10 ft where 15 ft is required (2) 15 ft to permit entrance steps 20 ft from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required (3) 10 ft to permit a residential structure 25 ft from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required (4) 15 ft to permit a garage structure 20 ft from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required and (5) 1 ft to permit 24 ft of vegetative buffer where 25 ft is required at 2671 Third Ave, Chautauqua Unit No 1 -Sec A, Blk 44, Lots 1-6, 21-26, and part of lots 7 & 20, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential). V 93-13 Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a house and attached garage on a site with environmentally sensitive features which require a 25-foot buffer. Staff has been working with the applicants on a plan which would provide an adequate buffer and require a minimal variance. Staff indicated variance #4 does not appear to support the standards for approval. Discussion ensued regarding the proposal and the obscure location of the property. Charles Carter, the owner/applicant, gave the background of the property, stating the plat was done in 1925 for 550 mobile home sites. The commercial corridor was sold off during the 1970's to form Cypress Point Shopping Center. He said the property is in the process of annexation and he hopes to pull the permits on May 7, 1994. He submitted photographs with his application to illustrate the wild and unimproved nature of the land. He stated he purchased the property because of its rural nature and close proximity to urban conveniences. In response to questions, Mr. Carter stated he wishes to set the garage back from the bay window to preserve his view of the pond. He said he and his neighbors do not want to see the pristine area heavily developed and have met with the City staff regarding whether paved roads and sidewalks will be required as part of a regular improvement schedule. He indicated he was told a petition from a majority of the property owners would be needed for improvements to be scheduled. Mr. Carter expressed concern with being restricted to building a precise distance from the water line, since the water could rise. He questioned the enforcement of standard condition #1. Discussion ensued regarding what is proposed and alternatives to the building plans. Strong support was given to moving the house back away from the street, although some concern was expressed with any further encroachment into the environmental buffer. Mr. Carter requested a continuance to allow time to advertise an increase in variance request #5. Mr. Johnson moved to continue this item to the meeting of April 14, 1994 to allow time to readvertise a portion of the request. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Sun Watch, Inc for a variance of 2.2 ft to permit a structure 92.2 ft in height where 90 ft is allowed at 670 Island Way, Sec 5-29-15, M&B 31.011, zoned RM 28 (Multi-Family Residential). V 94-14 It was indicated a previous application for a five-foot height variance for this property was denied (V 93-55; 10/28/93). The decision was appealed to the State Hearing Officer, heard February 18, 1994, with the final order due within 45 days of the hearing date. Concern was expressed with this case being scheduled prior to the outcome of the appeal. Mr. Shuford explained the administrative policy regarding substantially similar requests. He stated if the new request is less than 50 percent of the original request, it is considered substantially changed and may be brought back before the board. The 2.2 feet now being requested is less than half of the 5 feet originally requested. Board members noted that this reduced request could indicate what was asked before was not the minimum. Strong support was given to waiting for the final order from the Hearing Office prior to hearing this request. Carlton Ward, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board, stating if this request is granted, the appeal will be withdrawn. He said the client has worked hard to redesign the project and wants to proceed. In response to questions, Mr. Ward stated the architect who presented the case in October was not familiar with the air-conditioning system and believed that five feet was the absolute minimum. After studying the plans, the engineers determined the current request will allow the installation of all air conditioning duct work and fire sprinkler systems in a manner that would accommodate the preferred finished room height of approximately eight feet. Discussion ensued regarding whether to hear the reduced request or wait for the outcome of the appeal. Consensus of the Board was to wait for the Hearing Officer's final order. Mr. Johnson moved to continue this item to the meeting of April 14, 1994 pending issuance of the Final Order in the appeal of V 93-55. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Plisko and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered: Ordinance 5536-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code amending Section 42.26, Code of Ordinances, to establish maintenance standards for fences and walls providing an effective date. In response to questions, Mr. Shuford stated this amendment applies to all fences, adding a new subsection 10 and not changing the existing ordinance. He indicated it would not be feasible to mandate that a fence be aesthetically attractive, because it is difficult to regulate appearance. Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5536-94 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ordinance 5551-94 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code amending Section 40.367, Code of Ordinances, to delete certain setback and building separation requirements in the Beach Commercial zoning district providing an effective date. Mr. Shuford stated the Board voted 3-2 on this amendment not being retroactive to any previous developments and the Commission approved this change on first reading. The Pelican Walk application will go back before the Commission on April 19 and final site plan approval has been rescheduled for April 21. Mr. Shuford was requested to provide copies of the Commission action for the meetings of April 19 and 21 relative to this issue. Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of the Ordinance to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ordinance 5557-94 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code amending Section 45.24, Code of Ordinances, to revise the standards for the approval of variances providing an effective date. Staff was commended for their work on compiling variance approval standards ordinances from other municipalities. Discussion of this item is to continue after all members have received copies of the proposed ordinance. Ordinance 5562-94 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code amending Section 35.11, Code of Ordinances, to create a definition for utility facilities amending various sections within Chapter 40, Code of Ordinances, to provide for utility facilities as permitted uses in the limited industrial and public/semi-public districts and as a conditional use in all other zoning districts amending Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplementary conditional use standards for utility facilities providing an effective date. Mr. Shuford indicated that the staff report on this item was inadvertently omitted from the agenda packet and he consequently recommended continuance. Ms. Whitney moved to continue consideration of Ordinances 5557-94 and 5562-94 to the meeting of April 14, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ordinance 5563-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code amending Section 35.11, Code of Ordinances, to create definitions for collector, local, minor arterial and major arterial streets amending Section 40.104, Code of Ordinances to provide for Level I Group Care facilities as a conditional use in the single family residential 8 (RS-8) district amending Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplementary conditional use standards for Level I group care facilities in the RS8 district providing an effective date. In response to questions, Mr. Shuford clarified the proposal, stating the street definitions are from the zoning manual. He said the ordinance will increase the number of beds allowed in a Level I Group Care facility from five to six, with Level II being allowed 7 to 14 beds. By making these facilities conditional uses, applications will go before the Planning and Zoning Board, which will ensure they are located on arterial streets. Discussion ensued regarding major and minor arterial streets, collectors and local streets. Ms. Martin moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5563-94 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Approval of Minutes of February 24, 1994 Ms. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of February 24, 1994, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. III. Board and Staff Discussion Mr. Shuford submitted two pages from the rules adopted by the Planning and Zoning Board concerning reconsideration of a variance. Discussion ensued regarding various scenarios under which reconsideration of a case would or would not be allowed. It was indicated anyone could ask for a reconsideration, giving their reasons. If the reasons were compelling enough to the prevailing portion of the Board, the reconsideration could proceed. Consensus was that the DCAB is satisfied with its rule concerning reconsideration, but will look at adopting rules covering modification of conditions. The majority of the Board favored a proposal to change DCAB rules related to modification of conditions. Mr. Shuford is to forward suggested language to Assistant City Attorney Lance to draft the amendment. The item will then be scheduled for discussion and formal adoption. In response to a question regarding parking in front yards, Mr. Shuford stated an amendment was adopted relating to multiple family and nonresidential uses. He said he is working on better regulations for single family, duplex and triplex uses. Concern was expressed with the difficulty in finding obscure locations when there is no major arterial road on the map for reference. Staff was requested to provide the appropriate portion of a street-finder map with the application packet. Discussion ensued concerning a letter from Commissioner Deegan to Chairman Plisko pertaining to redevelopment on Clearwater Beach and the appeal process. Mr. Shuford stated he will have fresh copies of the redevelopment plan after the Commission meeting of April 21. Concerning the appeal process, it was indicated the Commissioner inquired of several boards their opinions of having the Commission replace the State Hearing Officer in considering appeals. Mr. Shuford stated the dilemma is choosing between a local appeal process versus a State Officer who might not be attuned to local issues and conditions. As an alternative, a suggestion was made to have a local hearing master to arbitrate as an interim step before going to a State appointed Hearing Officer. Members of the Board expressed an interest in a formal meeting to voice their opinions. Mr. Shuford is to provide additional information on the Hearing Master approach. Discussion ensued regarding streamlining the approach of the development process, combining certain functions and having the applicant only paying one fee. Mr. Shuford stated staff was directed in the past to ensure the fees covered all costs; however, the current City Commission has more of a pro-development philosophy. Concern was expressed there was a complaint about a business on Clearwater Beach renting vehicles without a license and the complaint being brought to the City but never resolved. Mr. Gans indicated he would investigate and report to staff if necessary. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.