Loading...
12/08/1994 MINUTES DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Thursday, December 8, 1994 - 1:00 p.m. Commission Chambers, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater FL Members present: Alex Plisko, Chair Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair Joyce E. Martin Otto Gans John B. Johnson Also present: John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Dept. Sally Demarest, Board Reporter The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:03 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation, Mr. Plisko 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. 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. The minutes of November 10, 1994 meeting were approved with one correction. The following variance requests were considered: A. (cont from 9/22/94 & 10/27/94) Grande Bay Apartments, Ltd. (Beach Club Apartments) for a variance of 25 ft to permit 0 ft of vegetative buffer to allow placement of an erosion control revetment structure at 2909 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Brown's Bayview, Wm., Lots 6, 13, 14, and parts of Lots 5 and 15 together with vacant alley between and submerged land, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential). V 94-56 Mr. Richter indicated the applicant has requested continuance of this item until January, 1995. Representing the property owner, Mr. Andrew M. Nicholson, Challenger Enterprises, Inc., P.O. Box 285, Safety Harbor, advised that a site plan amendment is scheduled for presentation before the City Commission for receipt and referral on January 19, 1995, and he requested a subsequent January date for appearance before the Board. Ms. Whitney made a motion to continue this item to the January 26, 1995, meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 1. Nell M Lokey & Donald O. Mc Farland Trustees/Estate of Earle B. Lokey (Lokey Oldsmobile) for a variance of 16 ft to permit a structural setback of 9 ft from a street (Gulf-to-Bay Blvd) right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 2339 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 31.05 & 31.06, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 94-67 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He said the variance request is for the arch, mounted on two concrete slabs, six inches high, at the two entrances to the dealership premise. The slabs serve as display areas and the arches help identify entrances from the highway. Responding to a questions from the Board, Mr. Richter indicated the large sign presently on the property does not meet the City sign code, and a permit has been issued for replacement. There will be no lettering on the arches. Attorney Donald McFarland, 311 S. Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, representing the applicant and Co-trustee of the Estate of Earle B. Lokey, owner of the land, verified that signage is the subject of a pending application to the City for review. He indicated the property is undergoing massive renovations, and the Oldsmovile Division of General Motors has recommended installation of the proposed arch structures. He distributed photographs of other General Motors dealerships where similar arches were constructed. Mr. McFarland said there is no interest in lighting or lettering on the arches. He explained the arches have been helpful to the flow of traffic because they are used by customers to identify the location of the driveways. The applicant, Paul B. Lokey, 311 S. Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, said a variance has been obtained, new signs are being installed on Decmebeer 15, 1994, and the two remaining signs will conform to code. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant the variance 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, 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 six months from the date of this public hearing; 3) there shall be no lettering or internal illumination of these arches, except for lighting directed downward on a display vehicle; and 4) signage shall be brought to code within the next thirty (30) days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. William L. & Dorothy G. Wood for a variance of 3.85 ft to permit a structural setback of 21.15 ft from a street (Stewart Blvd) right-of-way where 25 ft is required to allow a garage addition at 1440 Stewart Blvd, Morningside Estates Unit 6B, Lot 547, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 94-68 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the applicant was not present at the meeting. At the direction of the Chairman, the meeting recessed at 1:27 p.m. for Mr. Richter to attempt to contact the applicant. He returned at 1:34 p.m. and said he was unable to make contact by telephone. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Johnson moved to deny the variance(s) as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because: 1) There are not special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; 2) the strict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings; 3) the variance is based exclusively upon a desire for economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner; and 4) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and comprehensive plan and will be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Star Enterprise (Texaco) for variances of (1) 5 ft to permit a structural setback of 30 ft from a street (Drew St) right-of-way where 35 ft is required; (2) 34 ft to permit a structural setback of 1 ft from a street (Frontage Rd U.S. 19) right-of-way where 35 ft is required; (3) 2 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum height is allowed in a structural setback area from a street (Drew St) right-of-way where the property is not addressed; (4) 2 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum height is allowed in a structural setback area from a street (Frontage Rd U.S. 19) right-of-way where the property is not addressed; (5) 4 ft to permit a fence setback of 1 ft from a street (Frontage Rd U.S. 19) where 5 ft is required; and (6) 5 ft to provide 0 ft of landscape buffer where 5 ft is required at 21466 U.S. 19 N., Sec 18-29-16, M&B 11.01, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). V 94-69 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the request is for a groundwater and soil remediation system. The proposed system construction will consist of trailer-mounted equipment with a four foot panel box and associated six foot high security fence. DOT has condemned the existing facilities at the location for the proposed Drew Street overpass, construction to begin early in 1996. He noted staff recommends removal of the equipment and fence within seven days after the completion of the cleanup process, and added the Community Response Team will be responsible for enforcement. Mr. Jerry Isaacs, 650 S. Northlake Boulevard, Altamonte Springs, representative for Texaco, owner of the property, described the temporary structure which will be located on the premise for 1 to 1-1/2 years. The State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection will inspect the premise and determine when existing contamination is down to an acceptable level. Mr. Isaacs said the contamination was caused by a line leak from the tanks to the dispensers which has since been repaired. The existing service station will be removed and a retention pond will occupy the site. The proposed remediation system will be "pump and treat", with a new air sparging system which cleans the soil. There were no documents or persons present in support of or opposition to the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance 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 variance arises from a condition unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant 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 six months from the date of this public hearing; 3) the requisite conditional use permit shall be obtained by the applicant from the Planning and Zoning Board; and 4) the trailer-mounted equipment and the associated fence shall be removed within seven days at the completion of the cleaning up process as determined by Environmental Management; 5) obtaining of the conditional use permit by the Planning & Zoning Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. William W. & Lorraine N. Gilkey for a variance of 12.7 ft to permit a structural setback of 12.3 ft from a street (Ridgewood St) right-of-way where 25 ft is required to allow a new carport at 407 Edgewood Ave, Glenwod Estates Addition, Lots 18 & 19, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-70 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the proposed carport would extend 18 ft. from the existing structure thereby encroaching on the structural setback area. Staff finds the conditions required for approval of a variance are not satisfied in this circumstance and may have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. The applicant and owner of the premises, Mr. William Gilkey, 10300 S. Duncan Avenue, Clearwater, indicated there are two other carports in the subdivision, both of which are over 25 ft. In his presentation he distributed pictures and explained three drawings of the proposed carport. He pointed out the existing concrete slab and the 80 ft. right-of-way, placing the carport 32' from the curb. He said the carport would be of quality construction and in harmony with the neighborhood. Speaking in opposition, Warren Thompson, 1560 Ridgewood Street, Clearwater, said he purchased his property in August, leaving a St. Petersburg neighborhood with carports and garage rooms for this more asthetically pleasing area. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance(s) as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because: 1) There are not special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; 2) the variance is based exclusively upon a desire for economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner; and 3) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and conprehensive plan and will be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Upon the vote being taken, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Gans and Ms. Martin voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney and Mr. Plisko voted "nay". Motion carried (3-2). 5. William J. & Bette J. Buckler for a variance of 2 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum height is allowed in a structural area from a street (Enterprise Rd) right-of-way where the property is not addressed at 2470 Parkstream Ave, Countrypark, Blk A, Lot 1, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 94-71 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the request is for a six ft. high fence to join an existing six ft. high subdivision wall on the north side of the property. The applicant's swimming pool and family are viewed from Enterprise Road and the existing four ft. fence height allowed by code does not give them enough privacy from public view. The applicant, Mrs. Bette Buckler, 2470 Parkstream Avenue, Clearwater, described the premise. She said the windows are large, the family is easily viewed from Enterprise Road, and the variance is needed for privacy and security. She offered two letters of support from next door neighbors. Inspections of the premise by Board members revealed that the curve of the road creates an extraordinary condition where the view is "wide open". There were no further documents or persons present in support of or opposition to the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant the variance 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 variance arises from a condition unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant 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; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. Olga Chartrand for a variance of 2 ft to permit a structural setback of 3 ft from a side (north) property line where 5 ft is required to allow a pool enclosure at 330 Leeward Island, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit No. 1, Lot 52, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-72 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the proposed pool enclosure will be constructed to follow the existing covered concrete patio and will extend 4.3 feet to the north property line. The applicant, Mr. Wayne Millington, 330 Leeward Island, Clearwater, noted a discrepancy in the owner/applicant name and asked that the record indicate that the former surname of his wife, Chartrand, be changed to Millington. The applicants purchased the premise a year ago. Mr. Millington distributed sketches and asked to change the request for two feet to a one foot variance. His neighbors to the north have no objection to the request. Responding to questions, he indicated he submitted no former variance requests, this being the first. There were no documents or persons present in support of or opposition to the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant a variance of one (1) foot 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 variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant 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; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 7. James P. & Betsy C. Seifert for a variance of 3.57 ft to permit a structural setback of 1.43 ft from a side (west) property line where 5 ft is required to allow a room addition at 1306 Lakeview Rd, Ardmore Place Replat, Lot 98, zoned RM 8 (Multiple Family Residential). V 94-73 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the the premise is located on a 5,000 square foot lot, and the request is for a 16 x 16 foot family room which will replace a 3.6 x 6.5 foot metal building. The proposed addition will align with the existing building. Speaking for the applicant, Mr. Bobby Elder, Turnkey Additions, 11324 118th Place North, Largo, described the addition which will allow the property owner to access the existing laundry room at the rear of the house. The metal building and carport appearing on the plot plan were discussed. The absence of a walk was noted. There were no documents or persons present in support of or opposition to the application. A neighbor wrote a letter of concern for fire safety due to proximity of the house to the side property line. Mr. Richter said the City's Building Department indicated fire concerns will be offset by special construction techniques. Concern was expressed with adding a non-conformity to another non-conformity. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance 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 variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant 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; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 8. City of Dearborn/Dearborn Housing Bureau (Dearborn Towers) for variances of (1) 15 ft to permit a structural setback of 25 ft from a street (Island Way) right-of-way where 40 ft is required; (2) 75 ft to permit a waterfront side (south) setback of 5 ft where 80 ft is required; and (3) 56 ft to permit 24 ft of continuous clear space where 80 ft is required to allow replacement of existing carports at 223 Island Way, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit No. 2, Lots 6-9, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential). V 94-74 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the reconstruction of the carports is due to the age of the original structures and the damage incurred by the no name storm in 1992. The applicant proposes to replace the existing framework with new ones and with aluminum steel panel. He said the existing frames could be replaced if the cost did not exceed 50% of the replacement cost. Mr. Rocco Capabianco, President, Geoscience & Materials Engineers, Inc., 157 Stevens Avenue, Oldsmar, representing the applicant, indicated the destroyed carports were built in the 1960's and the residents would like the amenity replaced. Replacement will conform as closely as possible with the former structures. The property manager was available at the meeting to answer questions, and several residents were present. There were no documents or persons present in support of or opposition to the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to grant the variance 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, 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 six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the reconstruction work shall be limited only to the location and size of the two existing carports. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 9. S. Murphy Enterprises, Inc. (Belleair Wash Center) for variances of (1) 5 parking spaces to permit 13 parking spaces where 18 are required; (2) 18 ft to permit a structural setback of 7 ft from a street (Belleair Rd) right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (3) 18 ft to permit a structural setback of 7 ft from a street (S. Highland Ave) right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1498 Belleair Rd, Sec 23-29-15, M&B 33.07, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 94-75 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the site was formerly developed with a gas station which no longer exists. The applicant is proposing to redevelop this site as an air-conditioning business and a self-service car wash. Speaking for the applicant, Mr. Ronn Ginn, Architect, Box 11965, St. Petersburg, defined "structure" as it appears in the code and took exception to its use as it applies to this request for vacuum islands. He distributed drawings and described the size and scope of the two setback variances. Mr. Ginn indicated he had met with Planning, and Traffic Engineering and the resultant plan is a compilation of all the ideas. He asked for a reasonable interpretation of the word "structure" and offered examples of similar approved "structures", i.e. telephone booths, air-conditioning condensing units, mail boxes and water backflow devices. Addressing the parking variance, Mr. Stephen Murphy, 9225 Ulmerton Road, Unit 1-J, Largo, the owner, referenced the synopsis of his operation. He said his nine trucks were always on the road, did not park at the business, were taken home at night, and the required parking spaces would be vacant. Mr. Ginn submitted and described the landscape plan. A error in the size of the dumpster was noted. Opinion was expressed that the property was being over-used. Responding to a question from the Board, Mr. Richter gave calculations which result in the requirement of 18 parking spaces. Mr. Murphy said he owns the property and both buildings, has eight parking spaces alotted to him, and he is presently leasing space in the Live Oaks Center. There were no documents or persons present in support of the application. There were no documents in opposition to the request. Joseph D'Costa, representing Dr. D'Costa, owner of the medical practice and building across the street from the proposed redevelopment, stated the density of the neighborhood and the group home on the west side of his property cause a parking problem on his property, located in the County. In the ensuing discussion the unusual situation of trucks going home at night was mentioned, and concern was expressed for future use of the property. The appearance of hoses and other vacuum island equipment would be unsightly and not well-maintained. The opinion was expressed that the location is primarily an air-conditioning service location, and the property is overbuilt. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the setback variance(s) nos. 2) and 3) as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because: 1) There are not special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; 2) the trict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings; 3) the variance is based exclusively upon a desire for economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner; and 4) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and conprehensive plan and will be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being take, Ms. Whitney, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Gans, and Mr. Plisko voted "aye"; Ms. Martin voted "nay". Motion carried (4-1). Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny variance no. 1) as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because: 1) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and conprehensive plan and will be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 10. Financial Protection Inc. (Castaway Inn) for variances of (1) 8 percent to permit 17 percent of open space for the lot where 25 percent is required; and (2) 2 ft to permit 10 ft of clear space where 12 ft is required to allow a new swimming pool at 139 Brightwater Dr, Bayside No. 2, Lot 10, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 94-76 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the proposed swimming pool is to be located on the east side of the property which is the only green area and clear space available. The existing building is L-shaped, predates the current code and offers the only available area for pool construction. The applicant, Mr. Dale Mallek, 139 Brightwater Drive #1, Clearwater Beach, owner of the five rental units, described the premise. He stated the 8 x 20 foot swimming pool will be for the personal use of his family, and will be exactly the same as the next door neighbor's pool. The pool equipment will be located alongside the building and is ecologically safe. He said concrete would be removed in favor of open green space. There were no documents or persons present in support of or opposition to the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant the variance 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 variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant 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; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed at 3:35 p.m., reconvening at 3:44 p.m. At this point, Dean Rowe, of Rowe Architects, 100 Madison Street, Tampa, presented a model, plans and full review of the Clearwater City Services Center to be located on the Bilgore property for the information of the Board. In his detailed presentation he relayed plans for a 70,000 sq. ft. office building; a 83,000 sq. ft. police head-quarters building; 500-car garage; central air conditioning plant; and renovations to the present City Hall. The following are Board and Staff comments: It was questioned whether changes to the code would alleviate the variances most often requested, i.e., increased fence height and decreased parking spaces. Mr. Richter responded that code changes are presently being considered. It was agreed that it would be difficult to standardize sign height due to sight and vision requirements. It was noted that the issue of outdoor cafes has not yet been finally resolved by Ordinance of the City Commission. The variance for the concrete wall at Frenchy's Rockaway Grille was mentioned. Mr. Richter relayed the nature of the violation will indicate the amount of time the Community Response Team will take to respond and remedy a violation. Generally violations are corrected in the shortest amount of time possible, tailored to the specific case. He noted some situations can be immediately corrected; others, such as removal of permanent structures will take much longer. Also, there is a process to follow which ensures the City and violator are treated fairly. Having no further business before it, the Board wished all a Merry Christmas and adjourned at 4:10 p.m.