Loading...
12/14/1995DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER December 14, 1995 Present: Alex Plisko Chair Otto Gans Vice Chair Joyce Martin Board Member William Johnson Board Member William Schwob Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Central Permitting Senior Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Variance Requests 1. Robert L. & Linda L. Root, TRE (Avilla Group Care Facility) for variances of (1) 25 ft to permit 0 ft of vegetative buffer where 25 ft is required; and (2) 7 ft to permit a 5 ft structural setback from a side (west) property line where 12 ft is required to allow a new building at 2436 Enterprise Rd, Sec 31-28-16, M&B 12.05, zoned RM 16 (Multiple Family Residential). V 95-60 Senior Planner Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to develop the property with a two story group care facility west of an existing drainage retention pond. The property is undeveloped and the pond is a wetland under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP.) He detailed the requested variances, stating environmental issues associated with the proposal have been raised by Tom Miller, Assistant Director of Engineering/Environmental. In a memo dated November 29, 1995, Mr. Miller indicated City Environmental staff cannot recommend approval until volumetric calculations and cross sections are provided showing additional storage volume, treatment and attenuation volumes and a revised mitigation planting plan. Staff recommended continuation until the applicant provides requested information. He requested sufficient time for staff to research and analyze the new information and prepare the next staff report. Mr. Richter handed out copies of the memo from Tom Miller and fourteen letters in opposition from neighbors and residents of the nearby Villas At Countryside condominiums. It was noted many people were in the audience wishing to speak in opposition to the application. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated staff reports and recommendations are not routinely sent to surrounding property owners, so most of those in attendance were not aware a continuance was being requested. Member Schwob moved to continue this case to the meeting of January 25, 1996 to allow time for the site plan to be updated and for Environmental Engineering to make a recommendation. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Ciro L. & Ann M. Gaccione for a variance of 2 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum height is allowed in a structural setback from a street (Charter Oak Dr) right-of-way where the property is not addressed from at 2057 Red Cedar Lane E, Charter Oaks, Lot 36, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-61 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. It was indicated the applicant wishes to relocate and extend a six foot high wood fence to enclose a 20 foot wide portion of the south side yard along Charter Oaks Drive. The proposal would bring the fence within six feet of the sidewalk in the Charter Oaks Drive right-of-way. The reasons stated in the application were for greater enjoyment of the property by the owners and their pets and to include two large oak trees within the enclosure. The applicants felt the location on a dead end street and the existence of other six foot fences in the neighborhood support approval. Staff expressed concern the application and evidence do not clearly support three of the standards for approval. It was indicated several homes in the area face Charter Oaks Drive and a six foot fence in the right of way would diminish the openness and appeal of the street. He stated most of the homes in the neighborhood conform to the fence code. Two exceptions are six foot fences in the right-of-way along Montclair Drive, a heavily traveled collector road. Staff did not recommend approval. Ann and Ciro Gaccione, the owner/applicants, gave a brief history of their application process. They restated the above reasons for requesting the variance. Mrs. Gaccione explained how the proposal meets each of the standards for approval. They feel the location of their property on a dead end street abutting an undeveloped property makes it unique from other corner properties in the neighborhood. As the proposal is solely for their enjoyment, no financial gain is indicated, and the neighbors across Charter Oak Drive have stated they do not object. Mrs. Gaccione stated sixteen large bushes and three mature trees outside the fence will obscure it so it will barely be seen. In response to a question, Mr. Gaccione said the additional height is needed to help contain their three cats. He explained how he constructs a poultry wire device inside his fence to discourage the cats from climbing it. Owners of the two properties directly across Charter Oaks Drive submitted letters in support of the application. Both letters indicate the proposal would have no negative impact on their properties or the surrounding area. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. One member expressed concern that allowing this deviation from Code would invite others to do the same. He did not feel conditions of the property are unique and allowing this nonconformity would be detrimental to a neighborhood essentially in compliance. Another member did not agree with this analysis. He stated the location on a dead end side street abutting undeveloped land distinguishes it from other corner lots in the middle of the subdivision. It was indicated the existing heavy shrubbery and no objection from the adjacent property owners were also mitigating factors. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated a four foot high fence in the proposed location would not require a variance. 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request 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. Members Plisko, Martin, Johnson and Schwob voted "Aye"; Member Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. 3. Tio Pepe's Inc./E & R Properties, Inc (Tio Pepe Restaurant) for variances of (1) 5 ft to permit a 2 ft wide landscape buffer where 7 ft is required; and (2) 2 ft to permit a fence height of 8 ft around a dumpster enclosure where a maximum height of 6 ft is allowed at 2930 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 14.04 and 14.05, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 95-62 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant proposes a 1,300 square foot expansion at the northwest corner of the restaurant. The variances will allow the parking, service, and dumpster areas to be redesigned to accommodate the expansion. He described special circumstances that support the variances. Staff recommended approval with three conditions. Art Shand, architect representing the applicant, stated they have read and concur with staff recommendations. Discussion ensued regarding various aspects of the proposal, including restaurant acoustics, dumpster height and landscaping materials and locations. In response to a question, Michael Patterson, architectural associate, and Jesus Exposito, the owner/applicant, explained why they are requesting an eight foot high dumpster enclosure when six foot is standard. Mr. Patterson said the enclosure walls are to be constructed of an expensive tile, in keeping with the architectural style of the property. They felt six foot walls were more likely to be climbed by trespassers, leading to tile breakage. In addition, he said another restaurant in the area has an eight foot high dumpster enclosure. Discussion ensued regarding this claim, which could not be verified. It was indicated no variances have been granted for eight foot high enclosures. Mr. Exposito said he prefers the additional height to better screen the dumpster from view by the western property owner because he wishes to be a good neighbor. In response to questions, Mr. Shand stated landscaping on the west side will not be changed. He stated landscaping currently exists between the dumpster and the property line. He said a parking space beside the dumpster is not required, but will be retained because the restaurant is busy and needs as many spaces as possible. It was indicated a variance was requested a few years ago as a result of the FDOT property taking along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Member Schwob moved to grant Variance #1 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 variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request 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 and 3) Landscaping the area affected by the new construction shall meet with the approval of the City’s Environmental Official. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Schwob moved to grant Variance #2 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 variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request 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. Members Gans, Johnson and Schwob voted "Aye"; Members Plisko and Martin voted "Nay." Motion carried. 4. Roger W. & Teresa Werder for a variance of 1.67 ft to permit a driveway 1.33 ft from the west property line at 615 Woodlawn St., Leona Smith's, Blk A, Lot 1, zoned RM 8 (Multiple Family Residential). V 95-63 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicants wish to reconstruct the existing driveway of their single family residence. The proposal will alleviate flooding that results from the slope of the driveway from the street down to the home. He explained existing conditions support the variance. Staff recommended approval with two standard conditions. Ed Whitson, representing the applicant, stated the proposal is to replace a currently existing driveway in the same location. The appearance is to be upgraded from asphalt to concrete and the grade lowered so water can be channeled away from the house. Discussion ensued regarding the subject property and a neighboring property also owned by the applicant. It was indicated he has made many improvements to the appearance of his properties. In response to a question, it was not known if a temporary canvas structure on one of the properties has been permitted. One letter was submitted in support of the application and copied to the Board. Member 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 variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request 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. 5. Tom Falone III (Clearwater Firearms) for variances of (1) 8 parking spaces to permit 45 parking spaces where 53 parking spaces are required; (2) 1 percent to permit 14 percent of total open space for the lot where a minimum of 15 percent is required to allow a new retail/restaurant development at 1916 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec. 13-29-15, M&B 24.01 and 24.02, Skycrest Unit D, Blk B, part of Lots 5 & 6, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 9564 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to demolish the westernmost 3,700 square feet of an existing L-shaped commercial building. Additional parking and open space for the remaining rectangular building can be created as a result of the demolition. Mr. Richter detailed existing and proposed conditions on the site. He explained the parking and open space calculations are based on proposed gross retail sales area of about 4,400 square feet and a bagel shop area of about 2,400 square feet. He said staff did not feel this minor parking shortage would be a problem with this use as a bagel shop. It was indicated the additional open space will be beneficial along Gulf To Bay Boulevard. Staff recommended approval with two standard conditions. Discussion ensued regarding the number of existing and proposed parking spaces. It was noted the reported figures do not agree with the parking plan. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding a non-exclusive parking easement for 18 parking spaces belonging to the subject property being granted to the adjacent Kinder-Care in 1978. Tim Bauer, representing the applicant, explained, due to a paperwork error, staff had found it necessary to split in half the 18 parking spaces, allowing nine spaces to be included in the calculations for each property. This was verified in a June 27, 1995 letter from Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford to Greg Nowak. Mr. Bauer produced a copy of the letter and Mr. Richter read it into the record. Discussion continued and additional questions were raised. Tom Falone, the owner/applicant, clarified the history of uses and parking on his property and the adjacent Jewish Community Center, formerly Kinder-Care. He explained Clearwater Firearms will be closed for good, that portion of the building demolished, and the property redeveloped. He said he has committed to lease the retail area to B&B Stereo in January, when they are displaced by the new Walgreen’s development. He did not feel a parking conflict will arise because of the dissimilarity of the three uses, their hour of operation and the low intensity parking needs of each. He said the proposal will clean up the corner and greatly enhance the property. In response to questions, Mr. Richter stated an ordinance reducing retail parking requirements was adopted recently. Ms. Dougall-Sides said, as administrative authorization was granted in writing and the property owners consent to the solution, the Board may safely base their decision on the split parking easement calculations as indicated. Mr. Bauer and Mr. Falone displayed two drawings, one of the existing property and one of the proposal. It was indicated no curb cuts are intended on Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Greg Nowak spoke in support of the application, stating he represents Mr. Falone in this development. He said he has participated in developing numerous other improvements along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. No one else was present to speak to the request. Member Johnson 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request 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 parking space calculations shall be according to the letter from Scott Shuford to Greg Nowak, dated June 27, 1995. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Approval Of Minutes - November 30, 1995 Member Martin moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously Director's Items Mr. Richter noted parking passes have been issued for the first quarter of 1996. Mr. Richter responded to concerns expressed at the last meeting regarding recent sign construction at the PickKwik on North Fort Harrison and Court Street. He said Environmental Management issued a notice of violation after they determined oak trees were illegally topped and stormwater retention partially filled. The property owner was required to replace what was cut with additional plantings and remove fill material from the retention. Mr. Richter said the Community Response Team investigated and determined the sign complies with size safety and setback requirements. Mr. Richter said a permit was obtained. Member Plisko requested a copy of the boundary survey, expressing concern the sign is too close to the sidewalk and it is unclear where the property line is located. Concern was expressed sign contractors should be held liable for knowing and adhering to Code. It was felt property owners should be able to depend on professionals to follow the law. Mr. Richter will investigate how enforcement is accomplished. Board And Staff Comments Member Martin questioned the reason fence and wall heights are in two foot increments. It was indicated building materials are usually precut to standard lengths; however, odd sizes are available. Member Schwob raised a question regarding case V 95-64, above. He questioned what assurance the City has that a more intensive retail use will not go in if the applicant does not follow through with the bagel shop. It was indicated increasing the sales area would require less parking, while another kind of restaurant would require more parking. Discussion ensued regarding parking requirements. Mr. Richter asked the Board to keep their packets for case V 95-60 until it is heard in January. Member Johnson asked that staff provide an aerial photograph of the wetland area with the proposal superimposed. He said it is difficult to see the area where construction is proposed to encroach into the retention area because pedestrian access is limited in the wetland and a big cypress head extends up to the office building, blocking view. Discussion ensued regarding conditions on the property. Member Plisko questioned how long signs advertising future construction are allowed to remain. He expressed concern this type of sign often remains long after construction is finished, and acts as advertising for the new business. Staff is to investigate. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:58 p.m.