Loading...
11/09/1995DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER November 9, 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 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. Jacqueline S. Latimer for variances of (1) 13 ft to permit a swimming pool 12 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 10 ft to permit a garage addition 15 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1050 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 68, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-53 Attorney Harry Cline requested a continuance on behalf of the applicant. He stated the parties interested in this application are not able to appear together until January 25, due to schedule conflicts. Member Schwob moved to continue item V 95-53 to January 25, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. HBE Florida Corporation (Adam's Mark Caribbean Gulf Resort) for variances of (1) 44.5 ft to permit a band shell to remain 5.5 ft from the Gulf of Mexico where a 50 ft setback is required, (2) 7 ft to permit sundries hut to remain 43 ft from the Gulf of Mexico where 50 ft is required, and (3) 9 ft to permit bandshell to extend 9 ft seaward of the CCCL (Coastal Construction Control Line), where no structure seaward of the control line is allowed at 430 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd White-Skinner, Lots 33, 34, 35, and part of Lot 36, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-55 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff recommendations. He stated the applicants are requesting variances for two existing structures to remain in their present locations on the hotel deck. He detailed conditions on the site and noted the structures were placed without building permits. The sundries hut is small and has minimal impact on the site. The band shell is situated to deflect sound away from the condominiums to the south and does not adversely affect any view of the Gulf. Staff supported approval of the variances with three conditions. Staff comments indicate locating the band shell seaward of the CCCL requires approval of two variances by the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection.) After reviewing the proposal, the City Building Official felt placement of the band shell seaward of the CCCL does not pose a safety hazard. Encroachment into the setback from the Gulf of Mexico requires another variance approval from the BAA/BF. In response to a question regarding a new section of six foot wood fence on the site, Mr. Richter stated a nonconforming wood fence may be repaired without bringing the entire fence into compliance. It was thought the fence has existed for almost ten years. Tom Montgomery, the applicants’ representative, verified the existing section of new fence was built to repair damage by Hurricane Opal. Mr. Montgomery stated, in response to noise complaints from the neighbors in 440 West Condominiums, the applicants contracted a sound survey by a professional consultant. As a result, the band shell was moved to its current location and orientation for the best possible noise mitigation. He said readings were taken before and after the move and show a marked decrease in decibel levels, which are within a normal range. Referring to two presentation boards, Mr. Montgomery displayed photographs and a drawing of the existing layout. One member stated the Police Department measures decibel levels in response to noise complaints and questioned the maximum allowable decibel level. He thought maximum noise levels were set for the Holiday Inn Surfside and questioned what standard they use. Mr. Richter said the Code refers to loud and raucous noise, not to a numerical standard. This was confirmed by the Assistant City Attorney. Discussion ensued regarding placing the band shell across the CCCL. The Board did not feel this to be necessary and discussion ensued regarding alternatives. Mr. Montgomery stressed their findings show the current location is the best for noise mitigation. He said any adjustment would allow more noise to bounce off the hotel toward the condominiums. Mr. Montgomery said he reviewed the application with a certain State official, who indicated administrative approvals would be granted if DCAB approved today’s variances. One member was troubled by this statement, indicating the referenced State official has denied similar requests in the past. It was pointed out the band shell is on skids and can be moved. That was the reason the applicant gave for not originally permitting the structure. Mr. Montgomery said some concrete slab repair is necessary since Hurricane Opal and he consented to reexamine placing the band shell behind the CCCL in conjunction with the slab work. Bill Bretches, General Manager of the Adams Mark Caribbean Gulf Hotel, spoke in support of the application. He said they are trying to create an aesthetic amenity for guests while being responsive to the needs of the community. He stated, after the band shell was moved to its present location in 1991, noise complaints decreased 600 percent and have continued to decline. He said he is currently negotiating band contracts and would like to know soon if decibel limits are imposed, so he can write them into the contracts. Samuel Vaszquez and Gary Tikriti, 440 West Condominiums property manager and resident, respectively, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Vaszquez read two letters from residents stating they did not feel the band shell provides a suitable noise buffer. One letter detailed noise level measurements used by traffic engineers; the other suggested the band shell be relocated to the northwest corner of the hotel deck. Mr. Vaszquez noted the number of noise complaints crossing his desk has declined and he felt very few residents still feel the noise level is unacceptable. Mr. Tikriti explained it is not the overall volume, but the booming bass vibrations that continue to disturb him until 10:00 p.m. every evening. He said the bass level is not diminished by noise buffering. He complained his frequent telephone calls to the hotel office have done nothing to reduce the problem. Mr. Bretches responded to the opposition, stating he will address the bass concern. He said he usually switches to a two piece band at this time of year and the situation should ease as the music moves to the upper deck restaurant area. Mr. Montgomery expressed concern the decibel numbers referenced in the first letter are not valid for his operation. He said he will instruct and monitor the bands to ensure they are not playing too loudly. In response to a question, Mr. Montgomery said moving the band shell involves very little cost or effort. He restated his willingness to reevaluate the band shell location. Discussion resumed regarding hours of operation and conditioning variance approval to offset noise concerns. One member felt the hotel management should consult with the neighbors and the police to keep the music within acceptable levels. Another member pointed out that heavy traffic and outdoor entertainment are normal conditions of life on the beach. A third member felt a compromise to accommodate both the property owner and the neighbors was reasonable. Member Gans moved to grant variance #1 for 35.5 feet to permit a bandshell 14.5 feet from the Gulf of Mexico and variance #2 for 7 feet to permit a sundries hut 43 feet from the Gulf of Mexico, 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, special circumstances exist, related to the particular physical surroundings, that are peculiar to such land or buildings and deserve special study, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are 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 request for variances. 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 the variances being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit for the sundries hut shall be obtained within thirty days from the date of this public hearing; 3) the requisite building permit for the bandshell shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 4) it is suggested that, prior to finalizing repairs to the existing band shell’s foundation, the applicants consult with interested parties such as representatives of the neighbors at 440 West Condominiums and the Police Department and submit a letter to this effect with the building permit application. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Gans moved to deny variance #3 as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because: 1) no special circumstances exist 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 reasonable use of the land or buildings; 3) the variance is based exclusively on 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 will be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Daniel W. Cockerham for a variance of 25 ft to permit a structural setback of zero ft from a street right-of-way; where 25 ft is required to allow a room addition at 1735 Sunset Drive, North Shore Park, Blk 7, Lots 10, 11, 12, and part of Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-56 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff recommendations. He stated the applicant is reapplying for a variance that was already approved, and for which the time limit expired. The proposal to construct a second story addition directly over an existing garage has not changed. No diminishing of open space is proposed and no changes in the neighborhood have occurred. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated the existing structure is nonconforming with reference to the street right-of-way. A variance is needed to construct a second story addition to an already non-conforming structure. Discussion ensued regarding whether a Unity of Title was filed and if it is necessary. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated a Unity of Title is not on file at this time and she did not feel it is legally necessary in this case. She suggested alternatives more appropriate to the proposal, such as administrative lot division or additional conditions prohibiting conversion to a multi-family dwelling. Mr. Cockerham, the owner/applicant, stated completion of his project was delayed when the builder took a trip out of the country, then Mr. Cockerham lost track of time and his variances expired. He said he is only requesting the same thing as before. He affirmed the property is all under one title. 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Time Extension Requests 1. Gary H. & Mary L. Dworkin for variances of (1) 3 ft to permit a structural setback of 22 ft from a street right-of-way (Magnolia Drive) where 25 ft is required; (2) 11 ft to permit a structure 4 ft from a rear property line where 15 ft is required; and (3) 5 percent to permit 40 percent of open space for the lot where 45 percent is required at 415 Magnolia Drive, Harbor Oaks, part of Lots 78 & 80, zoned RS-6 (Single Family Residential.) V 95-27 Member Plisko questioned if he was allowed to vote on the extension as he declared a conflict of interest at the original public hearing. Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated Member Plisko may vote as this is a procedural issue. Member Gans moved to grant a six month time extension to May 25, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval - October 26, 1995 Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously Board and Staff Comments Discussion ensued regarding variances being granted for construction seaward of the CCCL. Concern was expressed with recent approval by the BAA/BF to build a house across a buried seawall. The placement of the seawall in relation to the CCCL was not known. A question was raised regarding whether the DCAB should have jurisdiction. Mr. Richter was requested to investigate. Instances of other variance approvals seaward of the CCCL were cited. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.