Loading...
02/08/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER February 8, 1996 Present: Alex Plisko Otto Gans William Johnson William Schwob Mark Jonnatti Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member   Scott Shuford Leslie Dougall-Sides Gwen Legters Central Permitting Director Assistant City Attorney 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. B. Continued Variance Requests 1. (cont. from 11/9/95 & 1/25/96) 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 at 1050 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 68, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-53 Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He noted this item was continued from the previous meeting due to a tie vote. Staff felt the proposed small pool, placed in the front yard close to the home, was a minimal request. It was indicated the pool will not extend closer than the existing home to the Bay Esplanade right-of-way. Staff recommended approval with four conditions. A question was raised regarding the compatibility of the pool with its surroundings. Mr. Shuford stated staff feels screening the pool with landscaping reaching six feet in height at maturity will mitigate any potential impact. Harry Cline and Patti Stough, attorney and architect, respectively, presented the proposal on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Cline addressed the Board while Ms. Stough displayed an aerial photograph of the subject property and surroundings. Mr. Cline stated it is reasonable to build a pool in Florida and this is the only location for a pool on the property. Mrs. Latimer needs to swim for therapy and cannot use other pools due to an allergy to chlorine. He stated the request is minimal, reasonable, and not for economic gain. The request has no impact on its surroundings and is not materially injurious to the neighborhood. As the applicant proposes to screen the pool from view with a combination wall and landscaping buffer, he did not feel this request differs from the other side yard pools throughout the City. Mr. Cline addressed safety concerns expressed at the last meeting, stating the pool will be fully insured. He distributed copies of a sales brochure for an automatic pool safety cover the applicant proposes to install. He asked that the Eldorado Avenue access restriction stop 30 feet from the western corner of the property, because access is sometimes needed for maintenance. Referring to the aerial photo, Mr. Cline explained conditions and orientation of surrounding properties. He reiterated the pool will have no impact in the neighbors. He stated the nearest neighbor, Mr. Arnold, submitted a letter in support at the last meeting. In response to questions, Ms. Stough demonstrated a landscape plan showing locations and dimensions of the proposed fence/wall/landscape barrier. She stated the Latimers come and go throughout the year and are at home more than half of each year. Regarding pool size, she stated the 10 by 40 foot pool is standard for a lap pool. She pointed out an above-ground pool could be placed in the yard without screening of any kind, but they prefer a more aesthetically pleasing and durable pool. Three persons spoke in opposition to the request, as follows: Deborah Kynes, attorney, gave a lengthy presentation in opposition to the request. She stated she represents owners of seven homes in the vicinity. She cited concerns the pool would compromise the neighborhood character, violate setback requirements, and endanger public safety. She distributed packets containing copies of four letters from neighborhood property owners in opposition to the request. She also included copies of a letter from the president of Metco Companies, Inc. stating a front yard pool with a landscape buffer does not meet insurance industry standards for insurability. She stated the proposal creates a self imposed hardship and the request should be denied. Ms. Kynes submitted two photographs of the subject property. She also submitted a photograph of a vacant lot at Eldorado Avenue and Island Drive, where she said a previously existing front yard pool had been filled in. Two neighborhood residents of homes outside the 200 foot radius, expressed concerns regarding neighborhood aesthetics and public safety. They did want to set a precedent for front yard pools. Five photographs of the northeastern portion of the subject property were submitted for the record. One member questioned if the pool would be more acceptable if it were protected with a screen enclosure. Ms. Kynes stated she had never seen one in a front yard. Mr. Shuford stated a structure of this nature would have to meet setback requirements. Mr. Cline responded to the opposition, stating he did not feel the request poses more of a threat to public safety than the nearby Gulf of Mexico. It was indicated proper adult supervision of children would be more effective than barriers homeowners construct to protect their properties. Thomas P. Latimer, the owner/applicant, stated the subject property is his permanent residence. In response to a suggestion he build a pool on the next door property owned by Mrs. Latimer, he stated that is a rental they wish to sell. Board discussion ensued regarding the application. In response to a question regarding a precedent, Ms. Dougall-Sides stated each case must be decided on its own merits. She responded to questions regarding structure non-conformities. Concerns were expressed the request is not in harmony with the Land Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, nor insurance standards. Concern was expressed that variances were granted for work on the property that has not been finished after three years. Support for the pool was expressed by members who felt a pool is an attractive addition to a home. It was noted the only resident within 200 feet of the subject property who responded supports the request. Member Johnson moved to deny the variance as requested 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, Johnson and Jonnatti voted "Aye"; Members Plisko and Schwob voted "Nay." Motion carried. 2. (cont. from 12/14/95 & 1/25/96) 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. Shuford gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He noted this item was continued from previous meetings to allow time for review and recommendation by City Environmental Management and subsequent preparation of the staff report. He stated the applicant wishes to build a group care facility on a property currently used as a drainage retention pond. It was indicated circumstances support approval of both variances, subject to four conditions. In a letter dated January 19, City Water Resource Engineer Mike Quillen indicated the three main areas of concern have been addressed by the applicant. Environmental Management recommended approval, stating the project should not have an adverse impact on water quality, flood storage or wildlife habitat. Mr. Quillen recommended one condition which was incorporated into the staff report. Discussion ensued regarding the history of the property. It was indicated due to water collecting on this portion of his property, the former owner decided not to develop it, but to allow it to be used as a collection area for water from the surrounding properties. Time passed, the property was not developed and was eventually sold in a tax sale. Questions were raised if the current owner knew this history when he purchased it. Discussion ensued regarding density, parking and ADA requirements. Robert Root, the owner/applicant, distributed copies of a booklet containing an analysis and illustrations of the proposal. He gave an overview of the contents of the booklet and distributed copies of a drawing showing how he proposes to locate the building on the existing property. He listed the agencies that have already reviewed and approved his proposal. Mr. Root responded to Board questions regarding the history of the property, how he came into possession and how he developed his plans. In response to a question regarding exactly what he proposes to build, Mr. Root indicated his plans could change based on the Board’s decision. Discussion ensued regarding the Board’s standard condition that variance approval is tied to specific building plans. Concern was expressed the amount of parking provided is not adequate for a 12 bed facility. Discussion ensued regarding parking provision in the immediate area. No one was present to speak in support of the request. Four persons spoke in opposition to the request. The president of the adjacent condominium complex spoke on behalf of numerous residents present in the audience. She explained conditions in the immediate area, the need for adequate drainage from the Villas property, and concerns regarding the impact on their property if development is allowed next door. She expressed a concern construction debris would be thrown into the water. If approved, she requested a condition the subject property be fenced during construction to lessen the negative impacts of noise and debris on the Villas property. One condominium resident spoke, concurring with their president. A former Villas property manager expressed strong opposition, stating the proposal would be materially injurious to the condominium property. Another Villas resident felt the proposal, to be partially built on stilts, would be incompatible with residential dwellings in the area and detrimental to the community. Five letters and a petition from the property owner and numerous residents of the Villas at Countryside were submitted in opposition to the request. Concerns were expressed with disturbing the cypress swamp wetland, waiving the 25 foot vegetative buffer, non-adherence to setback requirements, and possible property devaluation. Mike Quillen, Water Resource Engineer with the City’s Environmental Management Group, addressed the Board. He responded to questions and provided technical and scientific data regarding the physical characteristics of the existing retention pond. He explained how the water quality benefits of the pond could be improved, stating he has worked extensively with the applicant to create a plan for accomplishing this. He said the applicant has agreed to remove non-beneficial vegetation and plans to provide additional retention elsewhere on his property. He indicated this will ensure flooding of neighboring properties will not result from the proposal. Mr. Quillen responded to questions regarding the reasons for the 25 foot landscaping buffer requirement. He stated buffers normally protect wetlands from development encroachment and allow access for maintenance. He did not feel the requirement applies to this proposal. Explaining the history of the pond, he stated it began as an excavation offered by the City to provide temporary retention while work was being done downstream. He indicated the downstream work was never done. After several years, the excavation has become established as a wetland environment. Since the wetland exists, he said they want to protect and preserve it, rather than fill it in, as was originally planned. Based on the potential for water quality improvement under the proposal, he stated Environmental staff supports the request. Board discussion ensued regarding the proposal. Some felt it is based on economic gain, and would be injurious to well established surrounding properties by increasing the danger of flooding. Concerns were expressed with impact on the community, building a residential structure on stilts, and the amount of public opposition expressed. Points expressed in support of the application included improved water quality and retention and conformance with parking requirements. It was not felt the applicant is seeking financial gain, but reasonable use of his property that was originally designed for a six unit residential structure. Having stilts at the rear of the property, unseen from the street, was not felt to be a problem. It was indicated the primary objections to the vegetative buffer variance have been adequately addressed by experts. It was felt the number of agencies that have given their approvals over the past four years indicates the applicant has been diligent in his efforts to cooperate with requirements. Mr. Shuford suggested language for a fence condition to protect the neighboring property from construction activities, if the application is approved. Member Johnson moved to deny the variances as requested 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 Johnson and Schwob voted "Aye"; Members Plisko, Gans and Jonnatti voted "Nay." Motion failed. Member Gans 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) The 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 in accordance with the time frame specified by the Development Review committee upon approval of the site plan; 3) Prior to issuance of a building permit, copies of approved permit modifications from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) shall be submitted to the City of Clearwater Environmental Management Official; 4) The building shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the neighboring condominium buildings. Elevation drawings shall be submitted to the City Design Planner for review and shall be subject to approval of the Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 5) If not precluded by any ingress or egress easement, the property shall be permanently enclosed with an opaque fence or wall in a manner conforming to the approved plans and the Land Development Code prior to the initiation of any construction of the principal structure or pond improvement. The motion was duly seconded. Members Plisko, Gans and Jonnatti voted "Aye"; Members Johnson and Schwob voted "Nay." Motion carried. The meeting recessed from 3:40 to 3:52 p.m. C. New Variance Requests 1. Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America, Inc. for variances of (1) 19.9 ft to permit an addition 15.1 ft from street right-of-way where 35 ft is required, and (2) 7% to permit 48% open space for the front yard where 55% is required at 1910 Douglas Ave, Sunset Point 2nd Add, Blk G, Lots 23 - 27, less road, together with Lots 39 - 42, zoned P/SP (Public/Semi-Public). V 96-11 Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to replace the covered entry on the east side of the church with an addition that will house a new altar, relocating the entry to the west. It was indicated the property does not presently conform to setback or front yard open space requirements. Approval of the request will result in little change. Staff recommended approval with two standard conditions. George Nikitakis, representing the applicants, verified the small community church wishes to change the orientation of their existing building for religious reasons. He said they did not build after they received variances in 1992, because of the expense of construction contractors and because they felt they needed more land. He indicated they have since acquired two more lots and the parishioners are going provide construction labor. Questions were raised concerning traffic ingress/egress and circulation. Mr. Nikitakis explained the site layout, stating access will be on the east from Douglas Avenue. He said Springtime Avenue to the west is very narrow and adjacent residents expressed concern with it being used for vehicular access. Mr. Nikitakis said they will block the western parking lot entrance during services to prevent its use. 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) The 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; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Douglas Swift & Teri L. Betz for a variance of 9.3 ft to permit an addition 15.7 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1701 Sunset Dr, Bayview Heights, Blk 2, Lots 3 & 4, zoned RS 8 (Residential Single Family). V 96-12 Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a 340 square foot addition to an existing single family residence. The proposal was found to be architecturally sound and in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Douglas Swift, the owner/applicant, stated they wish to expand the kitchen and refurbish the laundry area. He said the small addition will follow the lines of the existing house, correcting some structural problems and improving the appearance. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Three letters of support were submitted by nearby residents, indicating the neighbors are pleased with the applicants’ efforts to improve their property and the neighborhood. 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) The 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 one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Clearwater Bay Marina, Inc./Howard & Amanda LeVasseur for a variance of 3.5 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 2.5 ft is allowed within the structural setback area from which the property is addressed at 900 N Osceola Ave, J.A. Gorra Sub, Blk 2, part of Lot 1, and all of Lots 2 & 3, together with vacated portion of Nicholson Street adjacent to the south property line of said Lot 3; Sue Barco Sub, part of Lot 1 & 22, all of Lots 13, 14, and 23, together with vacated unnamed street adjacent to East property line of said lots; filled submerged land, submerged land, riparian rights; and F.T. Blish’s Sub, Lots 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 & Des. land adjacent to Lot 10 on West, zoned CR 24 (Commercial Resort) and P (Preservation). V 96-13 Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to retain an existing six foot high chain link fence on the east side of the marina property. While the fence was built without permits, staff felt existing conditions support allowing the fence to remain for safety and security. Staff recommended approval with four conditions. Mr. Shuford reported a typographical error in condition #4, stating the correct section number is 42.26(9)(f). Ed Armstrong, attorney representing the applicant, stated the fence is needed for safety and security. He said the marina is considered an attractive nuisance to children. Howard LeVasseur, the owner/applicant, stated the fence does not impact the surrounding commercial properties or block anyone’s view. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Mr. Armstrong submitted 58 letters in support from marina customers requesting approval of the fence. 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; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within 30 days from the date of this public hearing; 3) No slats or other material shall be placed in the fence that would obstruct visibility through the fence; and 4) The placement of barbed wire atop the fence shall be subject to review and approval of the building official in accordance with code section 42.26(9)(f). The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Alpha Beach Resort, Inc./Quality Inn for a variance of the 20% clear space requirement to permit zero percent clear space where 20% is required at 655 S Gulfview Blvd, Bayside Sub No. 5, Blk C, Lots 8-11 and riparian rights, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 9614 Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and presented written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant is converting part of the ground floor area adjacent the lounge into a miniature “food court” as an amenity for the guests. The variance is needed to allow modification of the parking lot. Outdoor cafe seating will replace four backout parking spaces along Gulfview Boulevard. Fourteen parking spaces will replace the shuffleboard court on the south side of the lot. It was felt circumstances favor approval. No clear space exists on the property as it is presently developed. The addition of conforming parking and removal of unsafe backout parking will allow the applicant to proceed with improvements to enhance the hotel. Staff recommended approval with two conditions. In response to a concern regarding the reported number of existing parking spaces, Mr. Shuford stated this will be verified as part of the site plan review process. Ed Armstrong, attorney representing the applicant, described the parking lot modifications and problems associated with backout parking. He responded to a concern the justification stated on the application does not give enough detail. Stephen Fowler, architect representing the applicant, provided clarification regarding the redevelopment and the locations of existing parking spaces. One member reiterated his concern the number of spaces represented on the plan does not appear to correspond with physical number of parking spaces. Mr. Fowler and Mr. Armstrong indicated they will work with staff to ensure parking requirements are met. One Board member noted the proposal will enhance the appearance and safety of the property. 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 one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. Land Development Code Amendments 1. Ordinance 5971-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 35.11, Code of Ordinances, to revise the Definition for Utility Facilities to include Police Substations; amending Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish Conditional Use Permit Supplementary Standards of Approval for Utility Facilities/Police Substation Subcategory Uses; amending Section 41.171, modifying caption to Table Of Additional Requirements For Temporary Uses Table and clarifying that Temporary Parking Lots are Commercial Only and adding a category and establishing requirements for Police Substation as Temporary Uses; providing an effective date. Mr. Shuford gave the background of the ordinance and presented written staff recommendations. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the ordinance. Member Schwob moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5971-96 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. Approval Of Minutes - January 25, 1996 Member Schwob moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously F. Chairman's Items Member Plisko reported his term expires at the end of the month. G. Director's Items 1. Telecommunication Towers Siting 2. Board Rules and Regulations Mr. Shuford suggested continuing these items to the next meeting because no new variance requests are scheduled. He also requested discussion of the Minor Variance Report, updates on the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and the Board’s annual report to the City Commission. Consensus was to agenda these items for discussion at the February 22 meeting. H. Board And Staff Comments New member Mark Jonnatti was introduced and welcomed to the Board. I. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.