Loading...
01/25/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER January 25, 1996 Present: Alex Plisko Otto Gans William Johnson William Schwob Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member   Leslie Dougall-Sides John Richter Gwen Legters Assistant City Attorney Senior Planner Board Reporter  Absent: Joyce Martin (resigned) Board Member   To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. 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. A. Variance Requests A1. (cont. from 11/9/95) Jacqueline S. Latimer for variances of (1) 8 ft to permit a swimming pool 17 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 2.3 ft to permit a garage addition 15 ft from a street right-of-way where 17.3 ft is required at 1050 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 68, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-53 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a garage and a swimming pool in the front yard of the irregularly shaped property. While it is unusual to locate a pool in a front yard, it was indicated supporting circumstances apply. Staff felt any adverse effect of the pool location could be mitigated by installation of dense landscaping screening completely around the pool. He noted a variance will not be necessary for the Eldorado Avenue setback if the applicant files a deed restriction forfeiting access to Eldorado Avenue. Staff recommended approval with four conditions. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, distributed photocopies of a tax map of the neighborhood. He stated the area was platted 50 years ago and he pointed out numerous unique features of the site which set it apart from the surrounding properties. He said the applicant wishes to reorient the garage toward Bay Esplanade to facilitate straight entry. He noted the new garage alignment will be consistent with existing neighborhood conditions. Mr. Cline explained details of the irregular lot shape, lack of yard space and unique street orientation. He indicated the proposal has been scaled down from previous requests and the variances are minimal. He said the pool is needed because Mrs. Latimer’s doctor has ordered her to swim for physical therapy as a result of an accident. He explained she is not able to use other swimming pool facilities because she is allergic to chlorine. He agreed with the recommended conditions of approval and asked staff to modify condition #3 to indicate screening may be a combination of fence, berm and landscaping. He pointed out the City Traffic Engineering department commented the proposal will not create traffic movement or sight obstruction. Mr. Cline said the proposed pool site can easily be considered a rear yard due to its surroundings and orientation away from other residences. Discussion ensued regarding proposed placement of the garage. In response to a question, Mr. Cline stated the pool will not have a screen enclosure. Patti Stough, architect for the project, displayed an aerial photograph of the neighborhood, explaining the unique orientation of the subject property, surrounding rights-of-way and the City park to the north. Discussion ensued regarding features of surrounding residential properties and the nearby yacht club. Mr. Cline submitted a copy of a letter from adjacent property owner Lee Arnold, in support of the application. Deborah Kynes, attorney, spoke in opposition to the request on behalf of the owners of six nearby properties. She read their names and addresses into the record. She expressed objections to the pool in front of the house and the landscaped berm, indicating an undesirable precedent would be set. A letter to this effect was submitted to the Board in their information packet. She stated neither the City nor acts of God have changed the lot since it was purchased, so the applicant has a self-imposed hardship. Ms. Kynes withdrew an earlier objection to the garage, stating it is an important accessory structure. She stressed a pool is a luxury, not a requirement. Two of the property owners represented by Ms. Kynes spoke in opposition to the request, expressing concerns the unprotected pool is a safety hazard for the neighborhood children because the applicant is frequently away from home. The felt the proposal will negatively impact the aesthetic surroundings. Three letters of objection were submitted and read into the record by Ms. Kynes. Two of the letters were from previously mentioned clients. The third letter was from the Carlouel Home Owners Association. Mr. Cline spoke in rebuttal to the opposition, restating his reasons supporting approval. Regarding the safety factor, he stated the applicant will install an automatic pool cover to protect the pool and the neighbors. In response to questions, it was not known if the cover is insurable, but Mr. Cline stressed it will meet code. He stated the accident requiring Mrs. Latimer’s physical therapy happened after she purchased the subject property. Board discussion ensued regarding the application. One member acknowledged the hardship, but expressed concerns the site is overdeveloped and does not meet all the standards for approval. One member supported the need for the pool, but was reluctant to approve the request in light of neighborhood objections. Two members supported the request, stating the variances are minimal and in line with existing conditions. It was felt the safety issue is adequately addressed and the pool will not be visually obtrusive, if recommended conditions are met. Member Johnson moved to deny Variance #1 because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gans and Johnson voted "Aye"; Members Plisko and Schwob voted "Nay." Motion failed due to a tie vote. Variance #1 in case V 95-53 was continued to the meeting of February 8, 1996. 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 and carried unanimously. Mr. Cline stated he will bring more specific plans and specifications for swimming pool security to the next hearing. A2. (cont. from 12/14/95) 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 Mr. Richter indicated this item was continued from December 14, 1995, to allow the applicant to furnish information requested by the City Engineering department. The requested information was submitted after the deadline for preparing the staff report. He asked the Board if they wished to hear the item, or wait for the staff recommendations. Consensus was to continue. Member Schwob moved to continue V 95-60 to the meeting of February 8, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. A3. (cont. from 1/11/96) 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 gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated significant shore erosion has exposed a lateral sewer line that must be addressed and stabilized quickly. He stated the proposal has been approved by the State Department of Environmental Protection and the City Commission. Staff recommended approval with five conditions. Andy Nicholson, with the consulting engineering firm representing the applicants, addressed the Board. He submitted 44 photographs of the eroded shoreline on the site. He stated the main project is to build a revetment for erosion protection. He explained the effect of the project on the City’s vegetative buffer requirement. Mr. Nicholson stated the City Commission considered the proposal consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan as long as mitigation is put in. He explained mitigation will be in the tidal zone and will extend the entire width of the property. Mr. Nicholson explained conditions in the area and the City’s involvement in the history of the site. He listed many ways this application meets the standards for variance approval. He felt enjoyment of riparian rights carries with it the responsibility for maintaining the coastline and fixing problems as they occur. He stated this proposal will benefit the public greatly. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Member Gans 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; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; 3) the revetment structure shall be underlaid with filter fabric; 4) the west end of the structure shall be constructed to provide attenuation of wave energy at Thornton Road by continuing the 4:1 slope perpendicular to the shoreline at the west property boundary; and 5) the waterward limits of the revetment shall be staked in the field prior to construction. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. A4. Richard R. Dimmitt (Dimmitt Cadillac) for a variance of 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high chain link fence, where a maximum height of 4 ft is allowed at 25191 US 19 N, Sec 32-28-16, M&B 32.10, zoned P & CH (Preservation & Highway Commercial). V 96-08 Brief discussion ensued regarding the background of the item and conditions imposed on the conditional use approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Neither the applicant nor a representative appeared to present this item. As no one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request, the item was continued to the end of the public hearing agenda. No one had arrived before the end of the meeting and consensus was to continue the item to the second meeting in February. Member Johnson moved to continue V 96-08 to the meeting of February 22, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. A5. Clearwater Christian College Private School, Inc. for a variance of 25 ft to allow a building zero ft from a preservation line where a 25 ft vegetative buffer is required at 3400 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 16-29-16, M&B 11.01, zoned P/SP (Public/SemiPublic). V 96-09 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a new two story dormitory on a wetland area of the campus. This requires a fill permit from the State and a variance to the City’s vegetative buffer requirement. The City Environmental Management Group recommended approval as adequate stormwater retention is provided and the area does not contain beneficial plant species. In addition, the applicant has agreed to remove a large area of harmful Brazilian pepper plants to benefit the public. Approval with two conditions was recommended. Dixie Walker, architect for the college, addressed the Board. He stated they have received site plan approval. The process of obtaining the fill permits requires City approvals to be in place. He stated the proposal extends across jurisdictional lines, but does not encroach into the waterline and will have no impact on surrounding properties. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the new building in relation to existing buildings. It was indicated the college is not well known and comes as a pleasant surprise to many. 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. A6. Tom Sehlhorst (Via Veneto Italian Ice) for a variance of 6 parking spaces to permit 3 parking spaces where 9 parking spaces are required at 611 Palm Bluff St, Building “D”, Palm Bluff 1st Addition, Lots 28 & 30, zoned CI (Infill Commercial). V 96-10 Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to sell Italian ices, snacks and drinks from an existing building along the Pinellas Trail. Given the nature of the proposed use and location, it was indicated additional parking is not likely to be needed. Staff recommended approval with two conditions. Jerry Boudreaux, one of the business owners, addressed the Board. He stated they wish to use the property for storage of the freezers needed to operate their wholesale business. The small public sales area would only be open evenings and weekends, selling prepackaged snacks and drinks. He felt 99 percent of the clientele would arrive from the trail. In response to a question, he said no food will be prepared on the site. Discussion ensued regarding parking spaces, limited vehicular access to the property and operation of the business. It was indicated a tour of the facility showed warehouse storage with restroom facilities and a small area to sell ices and candy bars. Member Gans 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; 2) the requisite occupational license shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) this variance is granted for the operation of the Via Veneto Italian Ice business in accordance with the applicants’ December 19, 1995 written statement of intent as submitted with the variance application, and will expire upon the termination of the aforementioned business. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Time Extension Requests B1. Frank C. Kunnen, Jr (Clearwater "19" Commerce Center) for variances of (1) 133 ft to permit a communications antenna 199 ft high where 60 ft is permitted; and (2) 78.5 ft to allow a setback of 21 ft where 99.5 ft is required at 22067 US 19 N, Clearwater "19" Commerce Center Park, Lot 1, zoned IPD (Industrial Planned Development). V 95-34 In a letter dated January 9, 1996, Project Manager Suzanne Urash requested the extension because of a decision to install new technology becoming available for their system. Member Schwob moved to grant a time extension to July 13, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Land Development Code Amendments C1. Ordinance 5970-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; Amending Section 42.21, Code of Ordinances, to provide for improved clarity concerning the application of landscaping and parking standards for non conformities; providing an effective date. Mr. Richter gave the background of the ordinance and presented written staff recommendations. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated Central Permitting Director Shuford proposes to change language in the title and text of the ordinance related to non-conforming height. Member Schwob moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5970-96 to the City Commission with language changes in the title and text as suggested by Mr. Shuford. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval - January 11, 1996 Member Gans 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 thanked Ms. Martin for her years of loyal service to the Board. Board Rules and Regulations Consensus was to suggest changes today and ask Ms. Dougall-Sides to prepare a draft for review at the next meeting. Any changes or suggestions could go for approval and signature at the second meeting in February. Discussion ensued regarding conduct of a meeting when a Board member declares a conflict of interest due to professionally representing and/or having personal interests in a case. It was felt the professional who declared the conflict should not be required to leave the room, but remain available to answer any direct technical questions of the remaining Board members. Discussion ensued regarding election of officers. Consensus was to agenda the election for the first meeting each January. Officers would be nominated and elected at that meeting for a one year term. It was indicated the persons with the highest seniority may not necessarily be elected. Discussion ensued regarding details of timekeeping and order of the agenda. Member Plisko felt board members should wait to be recognized by the Chair before speaking to an item. Ms. Dougall-Sides was asked to draft language for the requested updates for presentation at the next meeting. Member Plisko suggested the standard time limit for obtaining a building permit should be increased from six months to one year. Consensus was to follow this suggestion for a trial period. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:59 p.m.