Loading...
02/22/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER February 22, 1996 Present: Alex Plisko Otto Gans William Johnson William Schwob Mark Jonnatti 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. B. Continued Variance Requests B1. (cont. from 1/11/95) Emanuel & Dimitra Kotakis, TRE (Kotakis Auto Body Shop) for variances of (1) 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, (2) 5 ft to permit a wall zero ft from a street right-of-way where 5 ft is required, and (3) to the landscaped buffer to allow zero landscaped buffer between a wall and a street right-of-way at 1411 Court St, Sec 15-29-15, M&B 31.06, 31.08, & 31/09, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 96-02 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. The request for these three variances was continued from the January 11 meeting, at the request of the representative, Ms. Mantzaris. The Board had suggested revising the application relating to the location of a six foot high wall along Court Street. Ms. Mantzaris agreed to contact staff within one week to work out details and allow time for staff report preparation. The applicants met with staff to review their options. They did not indicate to staff whether they wished to pursue an alternative location or proceed with the original request. Staff did not support approval as requested. If the applicants wish to pursue an alternative location, staff recommended a continuance to March 28, with the applicant being directed to contact staff within one week. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the applicant met with City Environmental Management personnel and was unable to reach a mutually acceptable alternative due the configuration of their retention area. He requested the Board hear the original request today. The Board concurred. Mr. Cline described the location and history of conditions on the property, specifically, the chain link and block fence along Court Street. He said it is important the existing fencing remain for safety, security, aesthetics, and to allow the applicants reasonable use of their land. He said nine burglary reports have been filed since 1990 and the applicants have a liability to protect the customers’ vehicles left for repairs. He said the fencing and landscaping benefit aesthetics by screening the view of wrecked cars from the street. He said he had photographs of other properties where wrecked cars could be viewed from the street. Mr. Cline stated Environmental Management objected to the placement of the perimeter landscape buffer in the City right of way setback. He requested allowing the fence to remain, stating the applicants will comply with any landscape plan desired by the City and will sign an agreement to remove said landscaping from the right-of-way when or if it becomes necessary. Mr. Cline submitted four photographs, a burglary report, and two letters in support of the application. In response to a question, Mr. Cline said the fence was constructed in 1989. He said the cinder block wall alongside the entrance supports the gate. He clarified the two foot high block wall at the base of the fence was added to keep vandals and thieves from driving cars through the fence. Discussion ensued regarding the applicants’ concern moving the fence behind the retention area would not allow sufficient secured area to conduct their business. It was indicated vehicle parking is not allowed in any retention area, whether or not it is dry. The applicant was strongly urged to move the fence behind this green space. It was noted the existing retention appears to be larger than what is depicted in the aerial photograph of the property. Further discussion ensued regarding the possibility of determining the required size of the retention area and reconfiguring it to facilitate moving the fence. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. The two letters of support submitted earlier were read into the record. In closing, Mr. Cline listed special circumstances supporting approval: 1) the large retention area restricts the use of the property; 2) crime is not uncommon for a car body shop in a residential neighborhood; 3) the request is not based on economic gain nor materially injurious to the community; and 4) the existing fencing provides a safety and aesthetic benefit and is not easily moved due to the unusual topography of the retention area. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the history and use of the property. Individual members expressed concerns as follows: 1) the property is not being used in accordance with previous conditional use and variance approvals; 2) the applicants have not adhered to assurances they expressed at previous hearings; 3) existing landscaping needs repair; 4) storing vehicles in dry retention areas is illegal; and 5) the request does not conform with the City’s plan regarding the appearance of main thoroughfares. Two members felt the location of the fence and landscaping in the right-of-way is not harmful to the neighbors or community, provides an aesthetic benefit and should remain. It was felt the applicants should work with staff to reconfigure the site rather than allow the existing fence to remain in its present location. It was noted attractive retention areas are considered beneficial in many commercial districts. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances 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 and variances have been granted to allow maximum use of the property by the applicant for the specific business, with no commensurate efforts by the applicant to correct unsuitable conditions; 2) the strict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings and no hardship has been established; 3) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and will be materially injurious to surrounding properties, and detrimental to the welfare of the public and the major improved artery. The motion was duly seconded. Members Plisko, Gans, Johnson, and Jonnatti voted "Aye"; Member Schwob voted "Nay." Motion carried. Mr. Cline stated the applicant had worked with City Environmental staff. He felt a misunderstanding had occurred regarding the Board’s direction to work with staff. He said now the applicant understands the need to reconfigure the site or reduce the retention area. He asked the Board to hold their decision in abeyance until the applicant can meet with an engineer. Member Johnson moved to reconsider the motion to deny V 96-02. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding whether to reconsider the decision or let it stand. It was indicated reversing the decision and continuing the item to a later date would require the applicant to pay for readvertising. Allowing the decision to stand would allow the applicant to consider whether or not to reengineer the site and file a new variance application. It was indicated refiling requires payment of a new application fee. It was felt the cost difference was not significant enough to constrain the applicants from filing a new application for lesser variances, if they desire. Some members expressed reluctance to continue the item, indicating they did not feel confident the applicant had put forth sufficient effort to resolve the difficulties associated with this case. Consensus was not to reconsider, and allow the denial to stand. Member Johnson withdrew the motion to reconsider. The seconder concurred. Motion withdrawn. B2. (cont. from 1/25/96) 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 This item was continued from the meeting of January 25, as neither the applicant nor a representative appeared to present the request to the Board. Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant is requesting the variance to allow an existing six foot fence to remain. It was indicated existing conditions favor approval. Staff recommended approval, subject to two conditions. John Prahl, president of Canco, the general contracting firm representing the applicant, apologized for their failure to appear at the previous meeting. He stated they misunderstood the requirement. He said, about two years ago, a deteriorated wooden fence behind the dealership was replaced with the current six foot chain link fence. He indicated building plans approved in 1987 showed the wooden fence, so they thought it was legal until they pulled the current building permit in December, 1995. He requested allowing the six foot fence to remain for the safety and security of customers’ vehicles. Mr. Prahl stated the property is well maintained and the fence will have little, if any, impact on the public because of its location to the rear of the property adjacent to the unimproved Third Avenue South right-of-way. He indicated they have worked diligently with staff throughout the various processes and no one has expressed any problems with this request. 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. Approval Of Minutes - February 8, 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 G. Board And Staff Comments Mr. Shuford arrived at 2:23 p.m. G1. Telecommunication Towers Siting Mr. Richter referred to a handout containing background information and requested Board input. Due to recent FCC changes, staff anticipates an increase in requests from Personal Communication Service (PCS) providers to locate telecommunication facilities in the City. Mr. Richter stated telecommunication towers are allowed as utility facilities in all but two City zoning districts with conditional use approval. He highlighted Code requirements regarding use, height limits, setbacks, and permitting. Mr. Richter said legislation limiting municipality jurisdiction to regulate tower sites was defeated. Discussion ensued regarding probable tower heights and configurations. Consensus was staff is moving in the right direction regarding this issue. G2. Rules and Regulations Ms. Dougall-Sides distributed copies of the revised rules and received Board comments. It was indicated the new language accurately reflects the Board’s intent. Mr. Richter said he will revise the agenda format in accordance with the new agenda sequence. Member Johnson moved to approve the amended Rules and Regulations of the Board as submitted in writing to each member by Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. G3. Minor Variance Report Mr. Shuford submitted the report, stating he approved 13 of the 15 minor variances considered during the past year and forwarded two through the standard variance process. He felt the process has been successful. In response to questions, Mr. Shuford felt comfortable the established parameters for minor variances are satisfactory. He said the same application process is used. Staff review, site inspection, and the official decision are concluded in about three days after receipt of the application. Member Plisko expressed concern a minor variance of 10 parking spaces approved for the City Marina complex increases an earlier parking variance granted by the Board. He requested a code amendment restricting this practice in the future. He felt it was not appropriate for staff to grant minor variances for City property and requested an amendment directing City variance requests to the Board. Mr. Shuford agreed with both points, stating he will draft an amendment. G4. Updates a. Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Mr. Shuford reported staff is in the process of finalizing the City’s EAR in compliance with State mandate for cities to review their comprehensive plans every five years. He highlighted the review process and what is being done to update various elements of the comprehensive plan. b. Design Guidelines Mr. Shuford circulated a copy of the downtown design guidelines draft being prepared by the City’s Design Review Board (DRB). The DRB is working in joint participation with a number of local agencies to draft guidelines. After completion of downtown guidelines, the Board will draft guidelines for Clearwater beach, then North Greenwood. He explained the DRB, under the guidance of Design Planner Don McCarty, will provide public education regarding Clearwater’s development regulations and make decisions and recommendations regarding architectural design practices. Staff is aware that design review adds another level of bureaucracy to the development process, so they will strive toward a rapid turnaround to sustain their high level of customer satisfaction. In response to a question, he said although DRB decisions are enforceable, but the guidelines are designed to be flexible rather than onerous. G5. Board Presentation to City Commission Mr. Richter reported staff is compiling data for inclusion in the report. He invited the Board to add topics of special interest. Member Schwob requested the Commission be reminded of the Board’s interest in hearing sign variance requests. He felt this will lighten the Commission’s work load. Mr. Shuford reiterated the Commission will hear sign variance requests through the end of the amortization period before deciding whether to transfer jurisdiction back to the Development Code Adjustment Board. Discussion ensued regarding this issue. Consensus was to bring the offer forward during the annual report to the Commission. Member Gans questioned the status of the City Commission’s interest in hearing appeals of DCAB decisions. Mr. Shuford stated the City Commission hears design review and alcoholic beverage conditional use permit appeals. DCAB decisions are not subject to Commission reversal at this time. In response to a question regarding appeal notification, Ms. Dougall-Sides said few, if any, DCAB appeals were filed last year. She will inform the Board when their decisions are appealed, and will forward copies of the hearing officer’s final order when it is received. Other Comments Member Johnson reported outdoor cafe seating recently approved for Britt’s restaurant is covered with a roof not shown on their plan. He mentioned landscaping is sparse and he has observed cars parallel parked on the front sidewalk. Mr. Shuford will investigate. Mr. Richter stated this meeting marks the end of Member Plisko’s second term on the Board. He thanked Mr. Plisko for his years of loyal service to the City. Mr. Shuford echoed the sentiment and reported Mr. Plisko has been appointed to the Design Review Board. He said he looks forward to continuing work with Mr. Plisko in that capacity. H. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m. Chair Development Code Adjustment Board  Attest:   Board Reporter