04/25/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
April 25, 1996
Present:
William Schwob (arrived 1:02 p.m.)
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Gwen Legters
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
Absent:
Otto Gans
Roberle Pratt
Chair
Board Member
The meeting was called to order in City Hall at 1:00 p.m. by Member Johnson. A ten minute recess was called to await a quorum. The meeting reconvened at 1:07 p.m. followed by the
Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. The Vice Chair outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process. He advised an affirmative vote of all three members present is required to approve
variances and a two week continuance may be requested.
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
A. Time Extension Requests
A1. 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). VR 96-07
In a letter dated April 15, 1996, applicant’s representative Andrew Nicholson requested a six month extension of the time allowed to obtain a building permit. This will allow time
to obtain the County environmental permit currently in process.
Member Jonnatti moved to approve a time extension to January 25, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
B. Continued Variance Requests
B1. (Cont. from 3/28 & 4/11/96) L.O.M., Inc. for variances of (1) 5.5 ft to permit a structural setback of 7.5 ft from a side (south) property line; (2) 3 ft to permit a structural
setback of 13 ft from a rear property line; and (3) 2 parking spaces to allow 30 parking spaces rather than 32 parking spaces at 309 S Gulfview Blvd, Lloyd-White-Skinner, Lots 60, 61,
62, 108 and 109, together with part of Lot 107, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). VR 96 19
After lengthy discussion of this case at the March 28 meeting, the applicant’s
representatives requested a continuance to address concerns raised by the board regarding the site plan. Another continuance was requested on April 11 to complete site plan redesign.
The revised site plan was not available for staff review prior to today’s hearing.
Mr. Richter provided background information and verbal staff recommendations. Staff felt conditions support the request for variances #2 and #3, and recommended approval with four
conditions.
Staff did not recommend approval of variance #1. The applicant was encouraged to meet the south side setback and work with the adjacent property owner to remove an unsightly masonry
wall, creating a nice open space to view Clearwater beach.
In response to questions, Mr. Richter said the amended variance requests were advertised. He acknowledged increasing the south setback would result in a reduction in building space.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, summarized the proposal, stating the applicant wishes to consolidate several small properties, creating a mixed use of upscale retail
and restaurants in one development. He listed the applicable floor area ratios, stating the proposal is far below the maximums allowed by code. The current proposal reduces the square
footage even more, shifting the buildings to the south and eliminating the need for two variances on the north side. In compliance with board direction, they eliminated the open space
variance, creating the need for a parking variance. They are constrained by the irregularly shaped lot, and feel orienting the buildings toward the beach is reasonable use of the land.
He expressed concern with staff’s suggestion regarding the south side setback, stating adequate vista exists and the adjacent Americana property will suffer no adverse effects. Mr.
Cline summarized conditions in the surrounding community and how the code criteria are met by this proposal.
Stephen Fowler, architect representing the applicant, distributed copies of an amended site plan, showing a net loss of 450 square feet from the previous plan. He explained why the
board’s suggestion to flip, or mirror the plan did not work due to site geometry. Discussion ensued regarding the rear setback and shading calculations. He said about seven feet of
the Beach Place Motel to the north will be shaded during December and January.
No one was present to speak in support of the request.
Four people spoke in opposition to the application. Jim Berfield, Anne Garris, Kenneth Rosenow, and Evelyn Gibson expressed concerns with the long term negative impacts of continuing
to grant variances on Clearwater beach. They each challenged the applicant to develop the property without variances. It was indicated many business and residential property owners
are opposed to granting variances along Gulfview Boulevard. Mr. Rosenow was concerned the applicants have not discussed the proposal with the neighbors. He felt the pedestrian nature
of the area would be better served by granting a parking variance and meeting all setback and open space requirements. Mrs. Gibson was strongly opposed to a parking variance, stating
her residential area directly behind the subject property is frequently flooded with illegally parked vehicles.
One letter was submitted in opposition to the application and copied to the board.
Mr. Cline responded to the opposition, restating facts supporting the proposal. It was
indicated attempts were made to work with the neighbors, but it is not possible to satisfy everyone.
Mr. Fowler responded to questions regarding the square footage calculations of the bridge and mezzanine. He clarified the gross floor area on the final site plan should be stated as
12,750 square feet. He did not object to one member’s suggestion to prohibit outdoor activity on top of the one-story structure.
Board discussion ensued. In response to a question, Mr. Richter affirmed development requirements have been studied more carefully on Clearwater beach than in other parts of the City.
He said time did not permit the amended site plan to be routed to other City departments for review, but he did not feel objections were likely. One member expressed concern with the
south side and rear setbacks, stating the new development requirements attempt to reclaim open space lost over the years. While the variances are minimal, another member agreed with
the concern that incremental variances result in long term open space loss. The third member pointed out the proposal is less intrusive than what currently exists, but expressed concerns
with the strong public opposition. The board expressed no concerns with the parking variance. The majority advocated reducing building area in favor of external open space.
Member Johnson moved to grant 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 four conditions recommended by staff, plus a condition prohibiting outdoor activity on top of the one-story building. There was no second.
Member Jonnatti moved to deny Variance #1 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. There was no second.
Mr. Cline requested the board continue Variance #1 to the next meeting.
Member Johnson moved to continue Variance #1 to the meeting of May 9, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Johnson moved to grant Variances #2 and #3 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 these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained
within one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) The property shall be designed with a tropical seascape theme and the design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review
Board prior to the issuance of
permits; 4) The previously applied for variances shall be null and void; and 5) The top of the one story building shall not be occupied for outdoor activity. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
B2. (Cont. from (4/11/96) Barnett Bank for variances of (1) 4 percent to allow 26 percent open space for the lot where 30 percent is allowed; and (2) 16 paved parking spaces to allow
48
paved parking spaces where 32 parking spaces are allowed to be paved at 2150 Cleveland St, Professional Business Complex, Lot 3 together with the West 70 ft of Lot 1, zoned OL (Limited
Office). VR 96-23
This item was continued from the previous meeting to allow time for the applicant to improve the site design and gather information to support the parking variance request.
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to create additional parking to serve bank customers. The applicant
was responsive to staff’s objection to placing six parking spaces over a stormwater retention area, and reduced the request accordingly. As a result, variance #1 was reduced from 4
percent to 3 percent open space. Variance #2 was reduced from 16 to 10 parking spaces. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions.
John Steinway, with the architectural firm representing the applicant, restated the request outlined by staff. He said branch banking business has grown into a broader range of services
than existed when the development regulations were created. As a result, many bank branches are looking at increasing their parking provisions. He concurred with staff’s recommendations.
The board indicated this is an attractive area along Cleveland Street in terms of landscaping. They supported the plan to add parking downtown.
No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request.
Member Johnson moved to grant Variance #1 for 3 percent to allow 27 percent open space, and Variance #2 for 10 paved parking spaces to allow 42 paved parking spaces, 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 these variances 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; 3) The applicant
shall coordinate location of the handicapped parking spaces with the Traffic Engineer; and 4) No parking spaces shall be constructed over the retention area. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
B3. (Cont. from (4/11/96) James E. & Jeanne B. Wagner for a separation distance variance of 11 ft to permit an adult care living facility to be located 1189 ft from an existing Level
I Group Care where 1200 ft is required at 2345 Nursery Rd, Pinellas Groves Sub, SW 1/4, a portion of Lot 19, lying in Sec 19-29-16, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-24
This item was continued from the previous meeting due to failure of the three board members present to reach a decision. With the same three members present today, the applicant was
asked whether she wished to proceed or request a continuance to the next meeting. Numerous citizens were present to speak to this item. Judith Beezhold, the applicant, requested a
four week continuance to May 23, as she is scheduled to attend a seminar on May 9.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item B3 to the meeting of May 23, 1996. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. New Variance Requests
C1. David R. & B. Carree Dargo, Howard A. Wells, Carl A. Benker, Jason E. & Lena R. Wilson, Gordon L. & Carol A. Townsend, Luzmarina M. Hutchins, Leonardo Andriani, Mary E. Curry, and
Frederick J. & Jean Rousseau for variances of (1) 6 ft to permit patio additions 19.25 ft from a side (south) property line; (2) 6 ft to allow a patio structure within 19 ft of Clearwater
Harbor; and (3) 25.5 ft lot width to permit construction on a 124.5 ft wide lot where 150 ft is required at 301 Island Way, Pelican Port, Lots 1,2,3,4,6,7,8, and 9, zoned RM 20 (Multiple
Family Residential). VR 96-25
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct modestly sized second story decks outside their townhouse
units. Staff felt the proposal will enhance the building, providing visual relief from the strong vertical building line and elevated heat pumps outside each unit. He said the decks
will not adversely affect neighboring properties nor obstruct any views. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
David Dargo and Fred Rousseau, representing the Pelican Court Homeowners Association, said the tenants wish to be able to step outside their second-story sliding glass doors to enjoy
their view and to facilitate evacuation in case of emergency. He pointed out the only egress they have currently is through the parking garage. He said the proposed 6 x 8 foot decks
will be attractive, constructed of white painted aluminum, and minimal, extending from the building only 32 inches farther than the existing heat pumps. Mr. Rousseau presented a letter
indicating City Fire Marshal James Goodloe had said balconies would enhance the safety of the units in case of emergency.
Mr. Dargo displayed a model of the proposed deck design and submitted four enlarged photographs depicting the locations of the proposed decks in relation to the heat pumps.
In response to a question, it was indicated an incomplete building permit for a dock and davit adjacent Unit H is not related to the current request.
One person spoke in opposition to the request. Robert Biggers, tenant association president of adjacent Dearborn Towers, objected to additional encroachment into the open space. He
did not agree the proposed decks would ease the unsightly appearance of the heat pumps. He submitted a two page letter in opposition and a photograph of an existing wooden deck behind
unit #5.
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) 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 these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained
within
one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) The deck behind Unit #5 shall be brought into conformance with the appearance of the new decks; and 4) The decks shall not be screened,
enclosed, or covered with roofs.
C2. City of Clearwater for a variance of 42 inches in fence height to permit a 72 inch high fence in a setback adjacent to a street from which property is addressed at 1301 North Betty
Lane, Part of "Park" portion of Pinebrook Sub, Unit 2, zoned OS/R (Open Space/Recreation). VR 96-26
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to build a six foot tall chain link fence to secure an existing pump
station. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
Claude Howell, Civil Engineer representing the City, said the fence is needed to secure City equipment and protect the public from the electrical equipment. In response to questions,
he described the previous and existing sewage pumping systems. He said the fence height will not impact the view from Betty Lane because street level is elevated to raise the adjacent
bridge above the 100-year flood elevation.
No one was present to speak in support of the request.
Thomas Floyd, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the request. He expressed concern the lift station was built in front of his 1315 North Betty Lane property without notification
to him. If this variance is approved, he requested a landscape buffer to screen the neighbors’ view of the equipment. In response to questions, Mr. Floyd discussed conditions existing
in the area.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item C2 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 these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building
permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The Parks and Recreation Department shall plant appropriate landscaping materials to visually
screen the fence from surrounding property owners. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Minutes Approval -- April 11, 1996
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.
Board and Staff Comments
1. Rules of Procedures and Policies
2. Board Procedures - Pinellas County Board of Adjustment
3. Discussion on Lobbying Ordinance and Ex Parte Communications
Ms. Dougall-Sides suggested deferring consideration of the above discussion items until a full board is present. Board and staff concurred. It was indicated prearranged travel plans
and a death in the family have kept Ms. Pratt from attending her first two meetings. The Board sent their regards to Mr. Gans, with hopes for a quick recuperation after his unexpected
hospitalization.
Member Schwob questioned to whom the board may address legal questions that arise during meetings if Ms. Dougall-Sides cannot be present. She stated attorneys are usually available
in the Legal Department office during normal business hours.
In an April 23 memo from the City Clerk, it was noted the board’s annual report to the City Commission was rescheduled to October. It was believed this was the first available slot.
It was indicated another board member is expected to present the report if the Chair is not available.
Miss Kayce Jones, a student visiting City Hall for the day, was introduced and welcomed to the meeting.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
Board Reporter