Loading...
11/30/1995DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER November 30, 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. City of Clearwater (Clearwater Airpark) for a variance of 13 ft to permit a structural setback of 22 ft from a street right-of-way where 35 ft is required to allow airplane hangers at 1000 N Hercules Ave, Replat of Marymont Sub, a portion of Tract A, zoned PS/P (Public Semi/Public). V 95-57 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff recommendations. He stated the applicant proposes to construct two new hangars at the south end of the airpark in accordance with the master plan approved by the City Commission in 1989. He explained setback requirements and site conditions. The new hangars are designed to conform to the available space, in alignment with other existing hangars. Staff felt the proposal is consistent with continuity of the facility and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Glen Bahnick, City Staff Engineer, explained the proposal in relation to site constraints and the existing hangars. Responding to questions, he said the new hangars will be enclosed and will accommodate 17 aircraft. He stated many aircraft owners are on the waiting list for hangar space. Mr. Bahnick responded to questions regarding cleanup of the north end of the property, formerly used as a City landfill. He said City Environmental and Engineering groups are actively working with the State to remediate underground contamination. While he acknowledged buildings cannot be constructed on the area to be cleaned, it was the City Commission’s desire to proceed with construction on the southerly portion while actively remediating the landfill problem. The north end can still be used for tiedowns and taxiways. Concern was expressed the proposal is based on economic gain due to the large number of potential customers. Mr. Bahnick reiterated the project simply aims to renovate the airpark in compliance with the approved master plan. He stressed the new hangars are an integral part of refurbishment, not expansion. The intent is to modernize and beautify the facility, making it more attractive to the public and thus better able to be self-supporting. Discussion ensued regarding negotiations currently underway for a new contract agreement with the Fixed Base Operator (FBO). Concern was expressed with overgrowth on the site. Staff was strongly urged to include routine grounds maintenance as the responsibility of the FBO instead of the City. Mr. Bahnick said this is already under negotiation. Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated this is a reasonable and typical term of lease agreements. Discussion ensued regarding enclosed versus open hangars. One member felt it was a safety advantage to store aircraft out of the weather. Three area residents spoke in opposition to the request as follows: Syd Snair, 40 year resident, spoke on behalf of the Clearview Lake Homeowners Association. He stated the airpark represents a marginal nuisance and they question whether it is beneficial to the community. He indicated they are willing to live with the facility as an airpark, but strongly object to improvements leading to expansion. Tom Christopher expressed concern with noise and accidents, as his home is in the flight path of the low flying aircraft. He felt the purpose of the airpark was for storage and routine maintenance of craft. He objected to expansion and construction of a longer runway, expressing concern with attracting larger aircraft and more accidents. Betty Hunt expressed concern with the noise level and potential for airplane crashes. She said she did not object to the airplanes as much as the increase in car traffic. Mr. Bahnick responded to concerns, stressing the proposal is not an expansion. He indicated the facility has not been upgraded for many years and this plan is a way to work toward improvements that can be accomplished with available funds. He said a longer runway is not part of this plan, but has been discussed as a safety consideration for the distant future. In response to questions, he estimated the number of annual takeoffs and landings, reported hours of operation are sunup to sundown, and said about 125 airplanes use the facility. Discussion ensued regarding landscaping improvements. Mr. Bahnick reported crepe myrtle trees have been planted all along Hercules Avenue from Grand Avenue to Airport Drive. While no landscaping code requirements are associated with this request, one member stressed improved landscaping and maintenance is needed. In response to a question, Mr. Bahnick said the areas between taxiways are grass. Staff was requested to pursue additional landscaping improvements and placing responsibility for grounds keeping with the lessee. Board discussion ensued. It was felt the proposal has been studied and approved and should be supported as being in conformance with the master plan. Enclosed hangars were felt to benefit safety, improve aesthetics and mitigate any repair noise. As long as hours of operation and construction standards are upheld, no public detriment was found. However, concerns were expressed with neighborhood safety, noise, additional traffic and increasing a non-conformity. 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. Members Gans, Johnson and Schwob voted "Aye"; Members Plisko and Martin voted "Nay." Motion carried. 2. John & Cathy Tecco for a variance of 2 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 4 ft is allowed within the structural setback area from which the property is not addressed at 3236 San Jose St, Del Oro Groves, Lots 36, 37, 38, and part of Lot 35, zoned RS-4 (Single Family Residential). V 95-58 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to reposition a portion of the six foot tall side yard fence, moving it 13.5 feet closer to the street right of way on the corner lot. Fence height is restricted to four feet in this area. He detailed neighborhood conditions which support approval of the variance. Staff recommended approval with two standard conditions. He responded to a question regarding a six foot fence on a property across the street. John and Catherine Tecco, the owner/applicants, displayed photographs and drawings of the neighborhood and the proposal, explaining how it fits into the surroundings. Mrs. Tecco stated they used copies of aerial maps to draw the scale representation of their proposal. Mr. Tecco explained how the house is situated, stating more than 30 feet of side yard will remain between the side fence and the sidewalk. They explained the reason for extending the fence is to create a protected play yard for their two small children, away from the busy street and their open swimming pool. Mrs. Tecco said the additional two feet in height is needed to help buffer the children’s bedrooms from noise, road dirt and exhaust fumes from the large volume of traffic coming in from McMullen Booth Road. The applicants submitted a petition with seven signatures representing five neighboring properties in support of the application. 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. 3. Pelican Oil Corporation (Amoco Service Station) for variances of (1) 43 ft to permit a new canopy supports 132 ft from the center line of the right-of-way of US 19 where 175 ft is required; (2) 2 ft to permit a new canopy supports 33 ft from street right-of-way from which the property is not addressed from where 35 ft is required, and (3) 29% to permit front yard open space of 21% where 50% is required at 18698 US 19 N, Sec 19-28-16, M&B 41.12, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). V 95-59 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to renovate and open for business a currently unoccupied gas station. The existing building is to be refurbished and the site redeveloped by reconfiguring driveways, traffic circulation, parking, service islands and a sheltering canopy. He described at length the conditions associated with each of the variances. Regarding open space, he particularly noted the plan increases the existing five percent to twenty-one percent. He reported the City Environmental group endorsed the plan as an improvement to the site. The City Traffic Engineering department noted driveway width exceeds requirements and reducing driveway width would increase open space without any adverse effect on safety or maneuverability. Staff recommended approval with three conditions. Mr. Richter responded to questions concerning canopy overhang and service islands. In response to questions concerning code requirements, he affirmed that if the variances are denied, the gas station use could resume as it presently exists, without any improvements. Mr. Tim Bauer, of Tampa Bay Engineering, represented Pelican Oil Corporation. He said the proposal would bring the property up to company standards, rehabilitate the site and make it safer and more attractive. He referred to an artists rendering of the existing site, comparing it to a second drawing illustrating the proposal. He explained the design modifications at length, stating he worked extensively with Traffic Engineering and Environmental to ensure conformance with the current code. Concerns were expressed with the extent of the building renovation and retaining a driveway behind the building. It was felt to be more beneficial to rebuild the convenience store farther back on the site. Mr. Bauer stated the driveway serves an open bay, or tunnel, which was a drive through car wash. They wish to retain the drive, as new owner may decide to install another car wash. In response to a question, he said an aluminum building has been removed from the property and will not be replaced. George Price, Engineering Services Manager for Pelican Oil, further explained their plans for the facility. He described proposed modifications to create a convenience store and office area, driveway reconfiguration and projected business volume. He stated it was his understanding if the existing building was torn down, they would not be allowed to construct another gas station with a canopy and similar building. It was not known where he received this information. Mr. Price also noted the proposed improvements will enhance the safety of the site. In response to a question, Mr. Price explained the difference between service bays and islands. He said raised islands are no longer being used. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request Discussion ensued regarding site constraints and the previous business. Concern was expressed with sacrificing green space to fit in three fueling locations and two driveways. It was felt two fueling locations and one driveway would be adequate for amount of business projected. The present location of the building was felt to be overutilization of the site. Member Schwob 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) 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 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) as part of the plan review and permitting process, City staff is directed to look for reasonable design options to increase the front yard open space, including decreasing the width of the driveway access and increasing the width of landscape buffer strip. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Johnson and Schwob voted "Aye"; Members Plisko and Martin voted "Nay." Motion carried. Minutes Approval - November 9, 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 Director's Items Mr. Richter was recently requested to investigate the location of the seawall in relation to the CCCL (Coastal Construction Control Line) along a certain section of Clearwater Beach. He distributed copies of an aerial photograph with a drawing of the CCCL superimposed. It was indicated construction of the new house in question across a buried seawall does not appear to be seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Richter responded to another Board request for information regarding a new fence section constructed on the Adams Mark Caribbean Gulf property. He said a permit check indicated the original fence was properly built before 1981. Repair of an existing nonconforming fence is allowed by code. Board And Staff Comments Member Gans requested to be notified when the parking garage ordinance opposed by DCAB is to go before the City Commission. Member Schwob noted the applicant in today’s third item will likely go before the Planning and Zoning Board with a conditional use request for alcoholic beverages in the convenience store. If that is the case, he pointed out the landscaping requirements will be examined again. Member Plisko questioned a large new sign and refurbished store front at the Pick Kwik store on North Fort Harrison Avenue and Chestnut Street. He expressed concerns that an oak tree was chopped down and part of the stormwater detention area was filled. Staff was requested to investigate if the work was permitted and if the sign is in compliance with the City’s sign code. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Chair Development Code Adjustment Board  Attest:   Board Reporter