Loading...
08/24/1995DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD August 24, 1995 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chair Otto Gans, Vice Chair William Johnson William Schwob Members absent: Joyce Martin Also present: Pam Akin, City Attorney John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department Gwen Legters, Board Reporter The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined procedures and advised anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal through the City Clerk Department 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. A. VARIANCE REQUESTS 1. Lionel G. James, Edson F. Denny, Joel T. Brannen, Howard D. & Lynda B. Cowden (Walgreens Drug Store) for a variance of 22 parking spaces to permit 74 parking spaces where 96 parking spaces are required at 1801 Gulf to Bay Blvd , Sec 13-29-15, M&B 32.17, 32.18 & 32.22, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 95-42 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation. The applicant proposes to build a new Walgreens Drug Store on the southeast corner of Keene Road and Gulf to Bay Boulevard, with a drive-through facility to offset the need for some of the parking spaces. He stated a proposed code amendment, if adopted, will reduce the parking requirement for a number of uses, including indoor retail. He said the appearance of the property will be improved by enhanced setbacks, open space and landscaping. Staff recommended approval, subject to two standard conditions of approval. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, gave an overview of the non-conforming conditions existing in the general area. He said the proposal is to raze the site and construct a conforming 15,900 square foot building with two drive-through service lanes and a traffic stacking area to mitigate the need for some of the parking spaces. Mr. Cline indicated a drug store is a not typical retail environment, because there is more storage and a smaller percentage of retail floor area, and customers do not have the tendency to stay and browse. He felt the request is minimal, and will benefit the community. He noted there have been no objections to the proposal, and it has been previously endorsed by the Development Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning Board. In response to questions, Mr. Cline pointed out the location of the package liquor sales area and said the proposal is virtually the same as the new Walgreens store on East Bay Drive. One Board member stated he patronizes that store and has never experienced parking problems. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Schwob 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. 2. Duane A. & Nancy J. Barton for variances of (1) 2 parking spaces to permit 5 parking spaces where 7 parking spaces are required; (2) 5 ft to permit 0 ft of perimeter landscaping along the north property line where 5 ft is required; and (3) 13 ft to permit a driveway width of 11 ft where 24 ft is required to allow conversion to office use at 514 Brookside Dr., Brookside Sub, Lot 3, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 95-43 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation. He stated the applicant wishes to convert the single family into an office. Detailing existing conditions on the subject property, he said there is no reasonable means of providing additional conforming parking. Concerns were expressed the narrow 11 foot driveway on the north side of the property adjoins the driveway on the neighboring property, and lacks space for a landscaping buffer in between. Mr. Richter said the applicant and City Traffic Engineering Department have studied the plan and now propose a driveway that curves away from the north property line in front of the building. The Environmental Management Group recommended a wider landscaping buffer, and/or a fence along the southerly boundary. Mr. Richter stated staff recommends approval of the variances, subject to five conditions of approval. Discussion ensued with regard to the configuration of the driveway, parking, and landscape buffering. A concern was expressed that variances to driveway width are not usually considered. There was also concern that a narrow, curving drive was not safe to oncoming traffic. Mr. Richter stated the Traffic Engineer did not feel there was a safety issue except regarding conditions in the street right-of-way. Alan Goldsmith, realtor representing the applicant, stated the current plan is the result of lengthy negotiations with the Traffic Engineer, concerning the property to the north of the driveway. It was felt a buffer or small island between the two drives would be the only way the two drives could be parallel, as the adjacent property owner would not agree to a shared drive arrangement. Mr. Goldsmith said the property has been on the market since 1989. He said Mr. Barton lives out of town and has expressed concern the property has deteriorated because he is unable to maintain it. Mr. Goldsmith said the prospective buyer would not use the property for a busy public use, but as a small daytime office and tool storage for his painting and repair business. It would also provide overnight parking for his commercial vehicle, which is not allowed in his residential neighborhood. He did not feel any public traffic would be associated with the use. A question was raised regarding the building’s correct size. A previous variance application stated the house was 1,344 square feet, while. The current request states it is 1,500 square feet. Mr. Goldsmith said he is the agent for the buyer and could not account for the difference. He said Mr. Barton did not proceed with construction after receiving the previous variance. Mr. Goldsmith did not think the footprint had changed. Kim Frank, residential property owner within 200 feet of the proposal, spoke in opposition to the application. She expressed concern that a commercial use this close would hinder the sale of her residential property. She also expressed concerns with not knowing what type of business could occupy the site in the future, increased traffic and residents’ safety. Two letters from property owners within 200 feet were submitted in opposition to the application. In response, Mr. Goldsmith stated the subject property has suffered break-ins and vandalism because it is vacant and not well maintained. He felt the neighborhood would benefit by having a local owner to clean up and care for the property. Discussion ensued with regard to conditioning approval based on the ownership or use of the property. Questions were raised about the City’s occupational license process and if any safeguards regulate the type of future businesses allowed. Additional discussion related to how conditions of approval are enforced. Concerns were expressed with the proposed conversion from residential to commercial use in view of the small size of the lot and non-conforming parking proposal. Discussion resumed regarding relocating parking to the north side of the lot, or creating a narrow driveway with no buffer. It was indicated the building could be reconfigured. Without the garage, a driveway could be accommodated. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Johnson moved to deny the variances 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 strict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings; and 2) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code, and has the possibility of being materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and safety. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for variances of (1) 9.5 ft to permit a structure 15.5 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 18.35 ft to permit a minimum lot width of 51.65 ft where 70 ft is required at 1344 South Michigan Ave, Lake View Heights Sub, Blk D, Lot 24, zoned RM 8 (Multi-Family Residential). V 95-44 4. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for variances of (1) 9.5 ft to permit a structure 15.5 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 18.10 ft to permit a minimum lot width of 51.90 ft where 70 ft is required at 1151 Howard St., Carolina Terrace Sub, Blk E, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-45 Agenda Items A. 3, V 95-44 and A.4, V 95-45, having the same applicant, were heard together. Mr. Richter gave the background of the cases and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He stated the two properties, located a half mile apart, are similar in terms of substandard lot width and street setbacks. Many properties in the area have similar non-conformities. Staff recommended approval subject to two standard conditions. E.J. Robinson, Construction Specialist for Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Service (CNHS), stated they are in partnership with the City of Clearwater and the Challenge 2000 program to provide housing for low and moderate income individuals. He said this program has built more than 50 homes in these two areas. Today’s proposals are for homes to enhance the area and serve two single parent families. Mr. Robinson responded to Board questions, stating CNHS is a non-profit agency. He said about 85 percent of those assisted are single parents, although that is not a prerequisite. There is a waiting list due to the problem of obtaining affordable lots. The program provides for CNHS staff to monitor the homes and follow up with new homeowners for 12 months regarding any needed construction details and reminders about regular pest control. After that, the City’s Community Response Team in the area monitors the property. He stated a minimal amount of sod and shrubbery are provided for the homes and they are looking at increasing the amount of this contribution. The Board felt this to be a great program and a benefit to the community. It was noted home ownership is a strong incentive. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Schwob moved to grant the variances as requested in cases V 95-44 and V 95-45 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 conditions unique to the properties and not caused by the owners or applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on the applications for variances 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 requests for variances regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in these variances 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. 5. Charles W. & Brenda N. Walter for variances of (1) 3.5 ft to permit a 6.0 ft high wall in setback adjacent to addressed street where 2.5 ft is allowed; (2) to permit a 6.0 ft high wall within a waterfront setback where none is allowed; (3) 3.0 ft to permit a wall setback of 0 ft from a street (Magnolia Dr.) right-of-way where 3.0 ft is required; and (4) 3.0 ft to provide 0 ft of landscape buffer where 3.0 ft is required at 208 Magnolia Dr., Harbor Oaks, Lot H & submerged land in front, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential). V 95-46 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a six foot high concrete wall in the same location as an existing fence in the waterfront setback. Staff recommended approval of the first three variances, however did not support a variance to the landscape buffering requirement outside the proposed wall. It was felt an existing hedge outside the chain link portion of the fence should be continued. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated policy is to allow lighting and decorative finials up to 18 inches higher than the maximum wall height. Patrick Maguire, attorney representing the property owner, discussed the existing wall condition and submitted photographs for the record. He said the proposal will be similar to the existing wall on the property across the street to the south, being of the design needed to maintain the historical nature of the neighborhood. He expressed concern with providing landscaping outside the western section of the wall between the driveway and the sea wall. He stated the area between the street and the wall is solid concrete and a City representative has expressed concern that cutting the pavement for landscaping could allow water to undermine the wall. Charles Walter, property owner, responded to questions regarding existing conditions and what is proposed. It was indicated the proposal is to replace sections of a concrete wall damaged in the 1993 No Name Storm. Mr. Walter said replacement of the wall parallel to the sea wall is being delayed pending other action. Only a segment of the east-west wall is being addressed at this time. Regarding deteriorated sections of chain link fencing, Mr. Walter said he is having a fence contractor look it over and he will repair whatever is damaged that does not require a variance. He indicated this is difficult because of the shrubbery interwoven with the fence. Discussion ensued regarding the small driveway. Mr. Walter said the curb cut was done for a maintenance drive and later converted by the City to a handicapped ramp. Although he said no cars would be parked inside the west end of the property, he did not want to block off the gate. He indicated access to the lower portion of the property was useful and will be needed to clear out the remainder of the City dock debris still in his yard. In response to a question, Mr. Walter said he has a continuing problem with the public using the former City dock area at night and leaving trash. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the application. The meeting recessed from 3:00 to 3:03 p.m. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member 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 unique to the property, and not caused by the owner or applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) This variances are based on the application for variances and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant’s request for variances. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for variances regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in these variances 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) a landscape buffer shall not be required in the westerly area of the wall from the gate to the water. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - None. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 10, 1995 Member Schwob moved to approve the minutes of August 10, 1995 in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. CHAIRMAN’S ITEMS - None E. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS - None F. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Gas thanked Mr. Richter for following up with legible street names on the Board’s property location maps. Mr. Gans also thanked City Attorney Akin for attending in response to his inquiry about legal department representation for the Board. Ms. Akin stated a regular attorney is soon to be provided on a consistent basis. Responding to issues raised earlier in the meeting, she stated she would look into granting variances conditioned on ownership and report to the Board. Regarding the Infill Housing Program, she said it is a wonderful program and she felt Alan Ferri, Director of City Economic Development would welcome an opportunity to meet with the Board for a brief presentation. Consensus was to invite Mr. Ferri to address the Board regarding the program. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m. Chair