Loading...
01/11/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER January 11, 1996 Present: Alex Plisko Otto Gans Joyce Martin William Johnson William Schwob Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member   Leslie Dougall-Sides John Richter Gwen Legters Assistant City Attorney Senior Planner 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. Maxine J. Callan for a height variance of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence to be located in a secondary street setback area at 600 Lake Forest Rd, Hillcrest Estates 1st Addition, part of Lot 13, zoned RS 6 (Residential Single Family). V 96-01 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicants wish to replace an existing, deteriorated six foot tall wood fence enclosing the side and rear yards of their single family home. The property is a corner lot and the owner wishes to maintain the six foot height throughout. The variance is needed because fence height in side yard setbacks is limited to four feet. Staff indicated conditions support the request because Sharkey Road is an unimproved right of way adjacent to this property. Approval with two standard conditions was recommended. A question was raised regarding whether the City has long range plans to develop Sharkey Road. Mr. Richter responded the road has been in its current condition for at least four years and no development plans appear to be forthcoming. Mr. Richter stated landscaping is required by code, so it is not necessary to place a landscaping condition on the variance. Maxine Callan, the owner/applicant, stated the existing fence has been up since 1974 and is in need of replacement. In response to a question, she stated the new fence is a vertical wood shadowbox design. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. 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. 2. Emanuel & Dimitra Kotakis, TRE (Kotakis Auto Body Shop) for variances of (1) 8 ft in height to permit a 14 ft high wall where 6 ft maximum height is allowed, (2) 3.5 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high wall, where a 2.5 ft maximum height is allowed within a setback area adjacent to a street from which the property is addressed, (3) 5 ft to permit a wall zero ft from a street right-of-way where 5 ft is required, and (4) to the landscaped buffer to allow zero landscaped buffer between a wall and a street right-of-way at 1141 Court St, Sec 15-29-15, M&B 31.06, 31.08, & 31.09, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 96-02 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the property is developed with an auto body shop enclosed with nonconforming and unpermitted fences and walls. On August 17, 1993, the applicants received conditional use approval for outside storage of vehicles and parts. A rear setback variance was granted August 26, 1993. Staff expressed concerns the variances are not minimum nor in the public interest. It was indicated placing walls in violation of height, setback and landscaping requirements next to a public thoroughfare have an adverse visual impact. Staff felt conditions do not support the request and did not recommend approval. Elefteria Mantzaris addressed the Board on behalf of her parents, the applicants. Mrs. Kotakis was present in the audience and acknowledged her daughter was authorized to present the case. Ms. Mantzaris explained the body shop experiences recurring problems with trespassers vandalizing and stealing cars left overnight. She said the first variance is for the existing 14 foot rear wall that prevents anyone from climbing in unobserved at night. The remaining variances are to legitimize an existing four foot chain link fence on top of a two foot high block wall along Court Street. She said this type of barrier is needed because thieves steal cars at night, driving them through chain link fences and gates. She submitted four photographs of the subject property. In response to questions, Ms. Mantzaris affirmed the adjacent building to the rear conceals the 14 foot high wall from view. She said the value of cars and equipment stored outside overnight ranges from $10,000 to $50,000. Discussion ensued regarding storage of vehicles on a grassy area intended for water retention. Ms. Mantzaris said she needs somewhere to store abandoned vehicles during the 45 days required to process disposal. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Discussion ensued regarding the application. The history of the property was explained for the benefit of newer members. One member understood the 14 foot wall was supposed to have been removed at the time the 1993 variance was granted. It was indicated the reason for requesting the previous variance was to construct buildings to secure vehicles left overnight. One member felt, as the new buildings are being used for purposes other than vehicle storage, the security problem is a self-imposed hardship. Referring to the photographs, concern was expressed with the location and appearance of the chain link and block fence in the right of way setback along a major thoroughfare. Concern was expressed with vehicles being parked in the retention area inside. It was recommended the applicant either lower the fence to 2.5 feet or move it back to the 25 foot setback required by Code. Ms. Mantzaris expressed concern with both options, fearing for security and loss of enclosed yard space. It was explained parking is not allowed in the retention area and she was strongly urged to move the fence behind this green space. Discussion ensued regarding alternative site configurations. It was questioned if this is a high crime area, or if the vandalism is directed specifically at this business. Mr. Richter stated a police report was not submitted with the file. He pointed out conditions of the conditional use approval require that all service activities be conducted indoors and all vehicles stored inside or in the southwest corner of the property. Member Schwob moved to grant the 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the property shall be properly and safely maintained according to fire code standards. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Johnson and Schwob voted "Aye"; Members Plisko and Martin voted "Nay." Motion carried. Further discussion ensued regarding how to reconfigure the front of the site to allow a fence tall enough to secure the property. Ms. Mantzaris requested a continuance to allow time to work with staff to and submit an alternative plan. Mr. Richter requested Ms. Mantzaris to contact his office within a week and she agreed. Member Johnson moved to continue consideration of variances #2, #3 and #4 to the meeting of February 22, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Sam & Joann Kampouroglou for a variance of 2.2 ft to permit a storage building to be located 2.8 ft from a side property line where a 5 ft setback is required at 801 Willowbranch Ave, Druid Acres 2nd Addition, Part of lot 31, zoned RS 8 (Residential Single Family). V 96-03 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the variance is needed for a storage building constructed without a permit in a setback area. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Discussion ensued regarding City and State building codes. Sam Kampouroglou, the owner/applicant, stated he obtained a permit in 1992 to construct this building. He explained he made an honest mistake when he located it according to a survey that was later found to be inaccurate. In response to a question, he said he is selling the property and the sale is contingent upon receiving this variance approval. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Dewaine A. & Adrienne J. Olson for variances of (1) 2 ft to permit a swimming pool enclosure to be located 5 ft from a side property line where a 7 ft setback is required, and (2) 2 ft to permit a swimming pool enclosure to be located 5 ft from a rear property line where a 7 ft setback is required at 1324 Dickenson Dr, Morningside Estates, Unit 4, Lot 406, zoned RS 6 (Residential Single Family). V 96-04 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicants wish to replace a swimming pool enclosure in the same location as a previously existing enclosure. Staff felt the variances are minimal and recommended approval with three variances. Dewaine Olson, the owner/applicant, stated the pool and enclosure were there when he purchased the home in 1977. He stated he recently had the house painted and the roof replaced. He explained the aluminum enclosure was deteriorated and pulling away from the house. He said he had it torn down late in 1995, before he realized permission would be needed to replace it. He read the dates his vacation request is going before the City Commission and said the neighbors have indicated no objections. He distributed copies of drawings and specifications from the screen contractor. He said the requested variances are needed to rebuild the screen enclosure. In response to questions, Mr. Olson said the enclosure will be built exactly in the same location. He said the diving board is to be eliminated, so the screened peak may not be needed. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. One letter of objection was submitted by the property owner to the rear. In response to a question, Mr. Olson stated he was not aware of the objection. From the content of the letter, one member thought the neighbor who wrote in objection did not understand 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; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The property owner shall secure approval to vacate the portion of the drainage and utility easement where the enclosure is proposed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 5. Asa J. & Katherine G. Lewis (Suncoast Inn) for a variance of 25 ft to permit zero ft of vegetative buffer adjacent to a jurisdictional wetland where a 25 ft buffer is required at 20162 US 19 N, Sever Park, part of Lot 3, and Sec 18-29-16, M&B 44.04, zoned OG (General Office) & proposed RM 8 (Multiple Family Residential). V 96-05 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant proposes to add a third story to an existing 51 unit motel. The resulting 26 new units will require 78 parking spaces. The property owners propose to expand the existing parking lot toward the north, into a jurisdictional wetland area. In a memo dated December 27, 1995, City Water Resource Engineer Michael Quillen recommended approval, stating the area of encroachment contains very low quality wetland. He stated Environmental Management has worked closely with the applicant to lay out this site plan. Staff recommended approval with two conditions. Walter Walker, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board. Ms. Dougall-Sides verified an affidavit of authorization was submitted by Mr. Walker on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Walker detailed the surrounding uses and conditions on the site. He explained the environmental conditions are met. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. 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) 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 time parameters set forth by the Development Review Committee for the associated site plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. Stanislaw & Kazimiera Budzinski (Britt’s Cafe) for a variance of 3 parking spaces to permit elimination of 3 required parking spaces to allow construction of outdoor cafe at 201 S. Gulfview Blvd, Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 48-52, & 98, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 96-06 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to add a deck for outdoor seating in front of the restaurant along Gulf Boulevard. The proposal requires removal of three parking spaces. He said circumstances favor approval of the variance, because the City has established relaxed parking and other standards for desirable outdoor uses. Outdoor cafes are considered desirable to enhance the ambiance and appeal of the beach. Staff recommended approval with five conditions. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board. He gave an overview of the area, history and conditions of the property. He stated the proposed deck will be enclosed by a 30-45 inch high railing. It will not be elevated above the restaurant floor level. He said removal of dangerous nonconforming backout parking spaces along Gulf Boulevard will benefit the community. He stated the proposal will enhance the beach community in conformance with recent ordinances supporting outdoor restaurants. The appearance will reflect the aesthetics of its surroundings. Mr. Cline submitted photographs of two neighboring establishments with outdoor restaurant seating. Discussion ensued regarding landscaping and remaining parking on the site. Mr. Cline explained concrete next to the street will be removed. It was indicated staff did not support the applicant’s proposal to put landscaping on City right-of-way between the sidewalk and the street. Two members felt this area should have grass or a low ground cover. A question was raised if the City is encouraging outdoor cafes because of plans to create additional public parking lots. Mr. Richter was not aware of any plans in this direction. Brief discussion ensued regarding previous conditional use and variance requests by the applicant. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Four letters from neighboring business owners were submitted in opposition to the proposal and copied to the Board. The letters expressed concern with loss of parking spaces in the vicinity. Mr. Cline spoke in rebuttal, stating he was not previously aware of these letters. He noted they were written by the applicant’s competitors. While the Board agreed much of the business will be from pedestrian trade, concerns were expressed with any further reduction of the substandard parking situation on the beach. 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) 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; 3) The outdoor cafe shall be landscaped around the perimeter subject to the approval of the City's Environmental Official; 4) The outdoor cafe shall not have an area greater than 25 percent of the indoor area of the restaurant; and 5) The outdoor cafe, including the deck and enclosure, shall comply with all standards of the outdoor cafe ordinance and all other City Code requirements. The motion was duly seconded. Members Plisko, Johnson and Schwob voted "Aye"; Members Gans and Martin voted "Nay." Motion carried. 7. Grande Bay Apartments, LTD Partnership for a variance of 25 ft vegetative buffer width to provide no vegetative buffer between upland property and Preservation zone at 2909 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, William Brown’s Bayview Sub, Lots 6, 13, 14, and parts of Lots 5 & 15, together with a portion of vacated Rogers St on north side of Lots 13-15 & submerged land, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential). V 96-07 Mr. Richter stated staff has requested a two-week continuance to allow time for the City Commission to look at the site plan and tie up loose ends. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Member Johnson moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 25, 1996. The motion was duly seconded. Members Plisko, Martin, Johnson and Schwob voted "Aye"; Member Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. C. Land Development Code Amendments 1. Ordinance 5963-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 42.06, Code Of Ordinances, to provide for revised requirements for transfers of development rights; providing an effective date. Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. Discussion ensued regarding transfer of development rights to contiguous properties. Questions were raised regarding the term “contiguous” and discussion ensued. Ms. Dougall-Sides affirmed it is not included in Code definitions. Concerns were expressed with leaving the term open to interpretation. Staff was strongly urged to define “contiguous.” A question was raised regarding language in the last paragraph on page three of the ordinance. It was indicated this seems to imply transfer of development rights to a noncontiguous property may be allowed if not inconsistent with the long range plan. Member Gans moved to endorse Ordinance 5963-96 to the City Commission with the recommendation the word “contiguous” be defined in the Code of Ordinances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval - December 14, 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 Follow-up on Board requests for information Mr. Richter stated staff investigated signs announcing future construction. He said they are allowed, one per store frontage, only as long as the building permit is valid. Members requested staff inspect two locations where this type of sign may be in violation: one at the southeast corner of Drew Street and Myrtle Avenue for the A to B School; the other on Bayway Boulevard next to the yacht club, advertising boat slips for rent. Annual Board Report to the City Commission Mr. Richter stated DCAB’s report is scheduled for the City Commission meeting of April 16, 1996. He suggested members begin to prepare their comments and requests to be included in the report. Member Gans requested a list of minor variances granted by Mr. Shuford in his capacity. Mr. Richter said this is already underway. Election of Officers Member Johnson moved to nominate Member Gans as Chair. The motion was duly seconded. There were no other nominations for Chair. The motion carried unanimously. Member Johnson moved to nominate Member Schwob as Vice Chair. The motion was duly seconded. There were no other nominations for Chair. The motion carried unanimously. Members Gans and Schwob were declared elected as Chair and Vice Chair, respectively, effective March 1, 1996. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:14 p.m.