Loading...
05/26/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD May 26, 1994 Members present: Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair Otto Gans John B. Johnson Joyce E. Martin Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II Patricia Sullivan, Board Reporter Absent: Alex Plisko, Chair The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. Ms. Martin led the Pledge of Allegiance and the invocation. Ms. Whitney outlined procedures and advised anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. She 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. Time Extensions 1. (3rd request for a time extension) Howard R Jimmie (Howard Jimmie's Truck Parts) for variances of (1) 15 feet to permit a zero feet wide landscape buffer between an industrial use and residential zoning district; (2) 43 feet to permit development on a lot with a width of 57 feet at setback line; and (3) 15 feet to permit a building zero ft from a side property line abutting a residential zone at 609 Seminole St, J.H. Rouse's Sub, Blk 3, Lots 19 thru 21, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). V 9256 Howard Jimmie stated he purchased a parcel at Garden and Eldridge last week. After he purchases one more house, he reported he will own almost two city blocks. He said a supermarket chain has expressed interest in developing the property. He said he will complete his final plans for building on the property within six months. John Richter, Senior Planner, reported a variance for the property was approved in November 1992. Of the five conditions set, the one not been met is the issuance of a building permit. Staff recommends granting the extension. Mr. Gans expressed the Board's need to consider if a hardship exists. Mr. Jimmie explained the condition that he dismantle his junk business and remove all vehicles on the property caused him a serious hardship. He can now only store demolition equipment there and noted he lost his livelihood. Mr. Johnson questioned how many extensions could be offered. The Assistant City Attorney indicated there was no limit. Extensions were approved at Board's will. Ms. Whitney questioned if Mr. Jimmie could accomplish his negotiations within three months. Mr. Jimmie said he originally filed for a one year extension. He stated if only a six or three month extension is approved, he will be forced to expedite his activities. Ms. Whitney expressed no opposition to a six month extension since Mr. Jimmie is making improvements to the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson questioned if the board could grant a six month extension with a proviso that no additional extensions will be permitted. Mr. Gans recommended a three month extension would be adequate. Mr. Lance, Assistant City Attorney, stated all extensions are approved based on the Board's vote. He indicated including a proviso will offer a strong expression of the Board's direction. Mr. Gans moved to grant a three-month time extension to August 12, 1994 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(s) shall be obtained within three (3) months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) no additional extensions will be granted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. (1st request for a time extension) Paul B. Lokey for a variance of 9.5 feet to allow construction of stairway 15.5 feet from street right-of-way where 25 feet is required at 831 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 39, Lot 3 and riparian rights, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 93-38 Tom Nash represented Mr. Klein for Mr. Lokey. He stated Mr. and Mrs. Lokey are working with their builder and face standard problems in determining their exact plan. He requested a six month time extension. Mr. Gans moved to grant a six-month time extension to November 27, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Public Hearings 1. Tad J. & Jan A. Humphreys for a variance to permit a 23 ft boat to be parked or stored in a required setback area from a street right-of-way where a 20 ft length is permitted at 1824 Emory Drive, College Hill Park, Lot 13, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 94-22 John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting, reported the applicants are requesting a variance to the Land Development Code (LDC) to permit a 23 foot long boat to remain at its present location within the setback area from a street right-of-way on a residential property. The boat is parked on the north side of the single family house at 1824 Emory Drive. According to the application, the boat has been parked at this location for more than five years without adversely impacting adjoining properties. City Code does not permit a boat longer than 20 feet to be parked or stored, in whole or in part, within any required setback area from the street right-of-way of a residentially zoned district. The applicants contend the physical configuration of the site has caused them unnecessary hardship to comply with the Code requirements. They assert that to relocate the boat to the south property line would cause them financial hardship and would damage their yard, destroy an oak tree planted by the City, demolish an existing fence, and force the relocation of an existing light pole. Upon the site visit, staff observed the six foot wooden fence surrounding the subject property is setback 25 feet from the front property line. The fence to the south separates the applicants' swimming pool from the neighbor's and serves as a barrier against children accessing the pools. The fence was constructed during Spring 1990 by contract to the Fence Factory. Staff verified City records that no permit was granted for the fence. Action is being taken to bring the applicants to comply. A permit for the swimming pool was granted in 1978. The Traffic Engineer had not comments with this request. The surrounding area is primarily residential. Four adjacent neighbors wrote in support of the request. Staff feels it in unlikely the applicants can move the boat further inside to the rear of the property due to the location of air condition units, a water softener system, and a wood gate along the north property line. An alternate location to the south may not be feasible due to associated site constraints. Staff feels the request for a variance arises from conditions unique to the property and recommends approval subject to three conditions. Tad Humphreys stated the boat will fit on the south edge of his property but did not feel it was reasonable for him to be forced to park it there. He said he violated the code for five years without realizing he was not in compliance. He noted neighbors have offered no objections to the boat remaining where it is. Mr. Gans questioned if there were any neighborhood deed restrictions against boats. Mr. Humphreys stated the deed restrictions expired before he purchased his house 12 years ago. He noted more than three boats are parked in his neighborhood. In response to a question, he said his boat is eight feet wide. Mr. Johnson questioned why no permit had been issued to construct the fence. Mr. Humphreys explained he thought the contractor he hired had obtained all necessary permits. He discussed the problem with the contractor on May 25, 1994, and the contractor indicated he would apply for a permit that day. Mr. Humphreys apologized for this oversight. Mr. Gans noted it was the contractor's responsibility to obtain permits. Ms. Martin questioned if the Humphreys ever move their boat. Mr. Humphreys indicated they move it when they use it and when they need to maintain their grass. Mr. Johnson expressed concerns that the nonconforming boat is a violation of code. He felt that front yards in nice areas are not suitable for storing large boats. He expressed surprise that neighbors did not object. He noted the yard was well kept but felt the boat added nothing to the neighborhood's ambiance. He recommended the boat be stored in a marina. Ms. Martin agreed. She, too, was struck by the boat's large size. Mr. Gans questioned if the Humphreys use their garage. Mr. Humphreys indicated they park a car in their one car garage. He stated the boat sits two or three feet back from the sidewalk. He also noted if the fence is removed, two swimming pools will be exposed and pose a danger to neighborhood children. He reiterated that his neighbors have not complained. Mr. Johnson stated parking the boat in its present location is a violation of the law. Mr. Gans reviewed the standards of approval and noted the request does not meet any approved standards. He did not feel the board had authority to approve this variance because all problems are caused by the applicant. He stated a portion of the fence could be moved to the rear to protect the pools and still permit access to the boat if it were parked on the south side of the property. He noted there are nine feet between the house and fence. He felt the boat was injurious to surrounding properties. Ms. Whitney questioned if it was possible to store the boat out of sight on the south side of the property. Mr. Humphreys indicated it would fit there but would not be out of sight because of its height. He expressed opposition to that alternative. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated they have met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the request for the variance is based in part on the desire of the applicant to avoid investing money to move the fence, the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to other property in the area; the granting of the variance would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05 (general); and there is space on the property to store the boat properly. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. James W. Moyles, III for a variance of 16.74 feet to permit an awning 8.24 feet from a street right-of-way (Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.) where 25 feet is required at 2200 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.12 less roads, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 94-23 John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting, reported the setback variance is requested placing an awning along the storefront of an existing retail store, Allied Discount Tires at 2200 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The proposed awning is designed to project two feet from the building. With regard to the street front setback requirements, the subject property was built within 10.24 feet of the street prior to current development code and is nonconforming. The awning would be within 8.24 feet of the right-of-way (Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard). Without the benefit of a setback variance, the applicant cannot place any awning in front of the property. The awning is needed to improve the property and shade the workplace from the sun. Staff feels the request is minimal and recommends its approval with three conditions. Ron Bennett, of Allied Tire, spoke on behalf of property owner, Mr. Moyles. He stated his business has occupied the building for 45 days. He said Allied Tire worked with code enforcement prior to drawing up plans and signing the lease. He noted the business upgraded the property by striping the parking lot, and painting and modernizing the look of the building. They discovered problems regarding the set back when they prepared to install the awning. He stated it would not obstruct the traffic's view at the corner and will make the building appear more attractive. Mr. Gans questioned how high the awning would be. Mr. Bennett stated the bottom of the awning would be at least 12 feet above the ground and will wrap around the building's corner. Mr. Johnson noted the awning would not protect the building's interior from the sun. He suggested the purpose of the awning was to make the building more noticeable. Mr. Gans felt the awning would dress up the building. Ms. Martin questioned why staff's report indicated the request was incompatible as proposed regarding potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Mr. Richter noted that statement was incorrect and caused by a typographical error. Mr. Johnson expressed concerns that the building was already a non conforming structure. He spoke against allowing another non conformity on the property. He did not think a hardship existed. Ms. Whitney expressed no objection to the request and felt the awning would enhance the appearance of the building and make the business easier to find. Ms. Martin expressed concerns regarding problems with sight restrictions and questioned if the awning would pose a vision problem at this busy intersection. Mr. Richter noted the Traffic Engineer would have objected had he considered this a problem. He stated a substantial triangle of vision exists at the intersection. He suggested any sight restrictions would be caused by parked vehicles. Mr. Richter reported the signage permitted for this corner property includes two freestanding and two affixed signs, each a maximum of 64 square feet large. Mr. Gans questioned if the affixed signs could be located on the awning. Mr. Richter indicated they could. Mr. Gans suggested it would be better for the business to affix signage directly to the building. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated they have met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the variance is not the minimum; the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to other property in the area; and the granting of the variance might endanger the public safety. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Johnson and Gans and Ms. Martin voted "Aye," and Ms. Whitney voted "Nay." Motion carried. The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered: ORDINANCE NO. 5617-94 OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING SECTION 42.26, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR WIRE FENCES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Richter explained the ordinance. It was noted the correct ordinance number is 5627-94. Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5627-94 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 5618-94 OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING SECTION 40.463, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO ESTABLISH CHURCHES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 40.465, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO ESTABLISH USE LIMITATIONS FOR CHURCH USES IN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Richter explained the ordinance. He stated the ordinance would allow churches in storefronts up to ten percent of the total gross floor area of any shopping center or commercial center structure. Mr. Gans questioned if the ordinance provided for adequate parking. Mr. Richter said the ordinance limited size due to parking concerns. Mr. Johnson expressed concerns that under this ordinance, substantial property could be removed from tax roles. He recommended the maximum size of the church be limited to 10,000 square feet. It was noted the correct ordinance number is 5626-94. Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5626-94 to the City Commission with the proviso that a maximum size of 10,000 square feet be allowed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Approval of Minutes of May 12, 1994 A correction was made to the first paragraph of page three to remove a redundant phrase. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of May 12, 1994, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. III. Board and Staff Discussion Mr. Richter requested direction from the Board. He referred to the property at 600 Mandalay Avenue and noted a series of variances were requested on March 24, 1994. A variance with six conditions was granted to permit the rental of bicycles and scooters. Mr. Richter reported the owner now wants to sell the business. One condition specified the variance was for this business only. Mr. Richter questioned if the new owner would need to file for a new variance. He noted no violations have ever been issued against the business by Code Enforcement. Discussion ensued. The Board expressed concerns that City Codes have been violated at that address. Mr. Richter stated this matter should not be influenced by alleged code violations. Mr. Lance noted some businesses could operate at that location without variances. It was the consensus of the Board that the variance was granted for this specific business and a new owner would need to reapply. Mr. Richter referenced the May 20, 1994, memorandum from Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director, regarding the Variance Standards Code Amendment (Ordinance No. 5557-94). He noted the City Commission had adopted the standards on first reading. Mr. Gans expressed appreciation to Mr. Shuford for relating the Board's recommendation regarding the definition of hardship to the City Commission and their acceptance of the Board's suggestions. Ms. Whitney and Mr. Gans discussed procedures related to "Time Extensions." Mr. Gans noted an applicant is not required to appear for the first extension request. Ms. Martin expressed concerns regarding visibility at intersections. She stated she was distressed by the number of intersections obstructed by shrubbery, signs, and parked vehicles. She questioned if there were any enforceable ordinances that address this problem. Mr. Richter indicated he would research the code and report back to the Board. Ms. Whitney questioned the progress of Pelican Walk. It was indicated the developers are negotiating with Eckerd Drug Store for additional vehicular access. Mr. Gans questioned the proposal for a single board. Mr. Richter reported the ordinance is in draft form now and is scheduled to go to the City Commission for receipt and referral in mid June. Concerns were expressed regarding merging the Development Code Adjustment Board with the Planning and Zoning Board. Consensus was that these changes were related to alcohol beverage uses. Discussion ensued. Consensus was against merging the two boards. They felt it more appropriate for the boards to remain separate. Mr. Gans expressed concerns regarding inconsistencies and poor communication. He noted questions raised by a second board sometimes raises new issues and changes the second board's way of thinking. Mr. Richter stated he would relay the Board's concerns to Mr. Shuford. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Chairman