Loading...
05/23/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER May 23, 1996 Present: William Schwob 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 by the Vice 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. A. Time Extension Request 1. Gary H. & Mary L. Dworkin for variances of (1) 3 ft to permit a structural setback of 22 ft from a street (Magnolia Drive) right-of-way where 25 ft is required; (2) 11 ft to permit a structure 4 ft from a rear property line where 15 ft is required; and (3) 5 percent to permit 40 percent of open space for the lot where 45 percent is required at 415 Magnolia Drive, Harbor Oaks, part of Lots 78 & 80, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 95-27 In a letter dated May 3, 1996, the applicants requested a second six month time extension to complete coordination of architectural development and interior design. Alex Plisko, project architect, was present to represent the applicants. Member Johnson moved to approve a six month time extension to November 25, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Continued Variance Requests 1. (Cont. from 4/25/96) 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 1 Group Care where 1200 ft is required at 2345 Nursery Rd, Pinellas Groves Sub, SW ¼, a portion of Lot 19, lying in Sec 19-29-16, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-24 In a letter dated May 23, the applicant requested a continuance to the meeting of June 13, 1996 due to having only three board members in attendance today. Five new letters were submitted in opposition to the proposed group care facility. Member Johnson moved to continue Item B1 to the meeting of June 13, 1996, at the request of the applicant. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. New Variance Requests C1. City of Clearwater/Municipal Marina (Daisy Mae Charters) for a variance of 4 parking spaces to permit zero additional spaces where 4 additional parking spaces are required at 25 Causeway Blvd, City Park Sub, Lots 10 thru 13 and Water Lot 1, zoned P/SP (Public/SemiPublic) and P (Preservation). VR 96-35 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to increase the number of passengers he is authorized to carry aboard his charter fishing boat from six to eighteen. This would require four more parking spaces at the marina where none are available. A recent City staff study indicates a parking deficiency of 259 spaces at the City marina. While acknowledging the applicant’s position, staff felt increasing the deficiency was not in the public’s best interest. It was indicated the application does not appear to comply with the standards for approval. If the variance is granted, staff recommended four conditions. Al Galbraith, attorney representing the applicant, did not agree with staff’s analysis that a parking deficit exists. He distributed copies of three handouts: 1) a staff report to the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the November 14, 1995 application Z95-17, for a sky tower on Clearwater beach; 2) Marine Advisory Board minutes of May 8, 1996; and 3) a list of new or upgraded vessels at Clearwater marina. Mr. Galbraith referred to the first handout, noting staff’s recommended endorsement of a plan that did not meet parking requirements for Clearwater beach. In the second handout, the Marine Advisory Board made a motion requesting Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford to rescind his April 25, 1996 directive regarding marina parking variances. The third handout indicated the net increases in the number of passengers on other commercial vessels docked at the Marina. Mr. Galbraith requested the board to vote for fairness. Dan Hood, the charter boat captain, responded to questions regarding the parking needs of his passengers and crew. He noted corporate charters require less parking. He is seeking Coast Guard approval for 15 fishing passengers. He has a masters license and is in the process of making the necessary safety improvements to get his boat certified. Discussion ensued regarding parking availability at the marina. Mr. Richter indicated Harbormaster Bill Held did not give a specific recommendation in this case, but indicated marina parking is generally available except during weekends and special events. Mr. Richter indicated the reference to Mr. Shuford’s directive concerned granting no further parking variances at the Clearwater marina. Mr. Galbraith suggested granting the request with conditions limiting the applicant’s parking usage to a certain number of spaces during weekends and special events. He said the applicant could advise his passengers to carpool. Capt. Hood agreed, stating he issues parking passes to all day visitors and could keep his requirement down to no more than the six passenger and two crew spaces they are currently using. Board members felt they did not have sufficient information to reach a decision due to the differing opinions being expressed regarding the parking need. Further discussion was held in abeyance pending a recommendation from the Harbormaster. Mr. Richter left the meeting from 1:45 to 1:51 p.m. to telephone Mr. Held, who arrived at 2:02 p.m. Discussion resumed after the conclusion of Item C3, below, but is reported here for continuity. Harbormaster Bill Held stated he had been receiving many requests from charter boat owners seeking to increase their passenger carrying capacity. He asked the Central Permitting Department to study marina parking requirements. When he learned of the deficit, he sent a letter informing all marina tenants that he would no longer consider requests to increase passenger capacity. Since that notice was issued, he received no more requests to expand until now. He said times of peak demand are during weekends, spring breaks and special events, and the answer to whether or not a parking problem exists depends on whom you ask. Parking spaces are frequently vacant during off-peak times, but a commercial captain complained of receiving a parking ticket this week. Mr. Held stated Capt. Hood’s request is extremely minimal, but hesitated to recommend approval because he did not want to invite a flood of new requests. Discussion ensued regarding all day versus half day charter trips and the procedure to obtaining parking passes. Mr. Held indicated it would create severe difficulty for marina personnel if they tried to enforce parking restrictions, because of heavy use of parking by beachgoers. Mr. Galbraith pointed out Capt. Hood has offered to restrict his parking use to six passenger spaces plus two crew spaces, but did not want to be limited to two trips per month. He asked that recommended condition #4 be changed to read, “The operator shall issue no more than six parking permits per trip.” Mr. Richter agreed, if granted, a parking restriction would be preferable to attempting to limit the number of trips, but did not change his recommendation. 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) 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 maximum capacity for the charter fishing boat service shall be 18 passengers; and 4) The operator shall issue no more than six parking permits per trip. There was no second. Mr. Held stated parking permits are purchased in blocks of 50 by anyone wishing to have them. One member pointed out, under the circumstances, there is no way to monitor for enforcement. He said it is not the board’s place to decide whether or not a parking problem exists and felt the board should deny the request in light of the evidence. Member Johnson withdrew the motion on the floor. Member Johnson moved to continue Item C1 for further study by staff whether or not a parking problem exists. He explained to the applicant the board should have a full complement of members at the next meeting. As Capt. Hood indicated a schedule conflict on June 13, Mr. Johnson set the date for June 27, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. Edward M. Halleran & Stephen Sika for a variance of 3.7 ft to allow a structure 21.3 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1834 Venetian Point Dr, Venetian Point Sub, Blk A, Lot 6, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-36 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to enlarge his single family home by extending the garage forward to align with an existing masonry wall. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Steve Sika, the owner/applicant, stated he wishes to add a bedroom to his home to accommodate his parent as she becomes less able to take care of herself. Referring to a drawing and a photograph of the property, he explained the expansion and where utilities, wiring, and piping will be brought into compliance. The applicant was commended for his presentation and the appearance of his home. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Member Jonnatti 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 the 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. C3. Lawrence E. Johnson & Lisa Cowley for variances of (1) 3.5 ft in height to allow a 6 ft high fence where 2.5 ft is allowed; (2) 7.6 ft to permit a carport 2.4 ft from the rear property line where a 10 ft setback is required; and (3) 14.8 ft to allow a carport 10.2 ft from a street right-of-way where a 25 ft setback is required at 35 Juniper Way, Mandalay Sub, Blk 59, Lot 8, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential).  VR 96-37 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to demolish the Florida room on the south side of an existing single family home, and construct a carport on the southeast corner of the home. The existing garage will be converted into a bedroom, bathroom and utility area. A wall is proposed along the west property line for privacy and separation from the activities on the neighboring property. The applicants complain of parking, trash receptacle, noise, and other disturbances from the adjacent property and supported their claims with photographs and a police indecent report. Staff noted few properties in the neighborhood have six foot fences in the front yard. He proposed a compromise, to drop the six foot fence height to 3.5 feet within 10 feet of the Juniper Way right-of-way, similar to an existing fence to the east. Staff did not support the setback variances, stating a new carport 10.2 feet from the right-of-way will unfavorably affect the appearance and continuity of the neighborhood. Board members noted the adjacent property to the west appears to be a multi-family dwelling. Mr. Richter stated all property in this area is zoned single family. He agreed the property to the west looks completely different and is out of character with most other properties in the area. He pointed out fence heights are standard throughout the City regardless of property use. Lisa Cowley, the owner/applicant, responded to staff’s recommendation regarding fence height. She said her property is unique because of the adjacent structure to the west, which appears to be used as a two-story triplex. She complained sometimes more than 12 people reside there and create a terrible impact on her enjoyment of her property. She did not feel the carport would impact the view any more than the cars typically parked in driveways along Bruce Avenue. She explained how the carport will be designed and painted for minimal visual impact. In response to questions, Ms. Cowley said she will landscape the wall with bougainvillea. She intends to plant shrubs and hibiscus along the front to help prevent the neighbors from parking their cars and throwing trash cans on her property. One member stated there are better choices than bougainvillea if screening landscaping is desired. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. The applicant submitted a petition with approximately 18 signatures in support of the request. One letter was received in opposition. Ms. Cowley indicated the opposers do not live in the vicinity and would not be impacted by the request. Staff was asked to pursue code inspection and enforcement concerning the property to the west of the subject property. 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 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 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) A 6-foot high fence shall be constructed to within 10 feet of the Juniper Way right-of-way, and the fence height shall be lowered to 3.5 feet within the 10 foot area adjacent to the right-of-way. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board members did not support a carport encroaching into the Bruce Avenue right-of-way when paved parking could be created on the west side of the property and shaded by palm trees. Ms. Cowley said she had an alternate plan to create such a parking area, if this variance is not approved. She indicated the rear setback variance will still be needed to replace a structural support when the Florida room is demolished. The Florida room must be removed because it is structurally unsound. Member Johnson 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) 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 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Johnson moved to deny Variance #3 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 and carried unanimously. Discussion of Item C1 resumed at 2:26 p.m. on pages two and three, above. C4. L.O.M. Inc, (V.I.P. Parking) for variances of (1) 30 unpaved parking spaces where 30 paved parking spaces are required; and (2) 5 ft to permit zero landscape buffer where 5 ft is required at 449 N Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater Beach Park Sub, Lots 29 thru 32, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). VR 96-38 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to use this undeveloped property for a commercial parking lot. The applicant has requested waiving the paving and landscaping requirements to facilitate future development. Staff does not support waiving the requirements because, with no development timetable, the lot could remain substandard for years. Staff felt conditions do not support the request, and the application is not in the best interest of Clearwater beach or the City. Thomas Hersem, attorney representing the applicant, explained they wish to use the property to create a 30 space parking lot to supply a critical need for temporary parking for adjacent businesses on Clearwater beach. This will enable better maintenance of the lot and avoid the trash dumping they have experienced in the past. He said they are asking only for a 90-day waiver of the requirements. They received a $10,000 estimate for paving and did not want to spend that amount for a 90-day parking lot. The required landscaping would eliminate 10 of the 30 necessary spaces. Three letters were submitted by neighbors in support of the application, indicating the property has been clean, well maintained and supervised since the lessee began using it for parking. A May 23 memo from City Solid Waste Director, Robert Brumback, stated the current unpaved condition of the lot is suitable to support City garbage trucks. Discussion ensued regarding code requirements for temporary parking lots. Mr. Hersem stated they have a City permit for temporary parking that expires June 18. He reiterated he is seeking a variance only for 90 days from June 18. After that time, he said they would be able to pave and landscape in compliance with code. Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides said the Code does not list extension periods in the table of temporary uses. She said extending temporary administrative approval by variance may not be appropriate. If the board favored the request, she suggested making a recommendation that staff grant a 90-day extension of the temporary parking permit. Mr. Richter clarified, if an extension is granted administratively, the applicant is to pave and landscape in conformance with code in 90 days from June 18, or discontinue all parking on the subject property. Mr. Hersem concurred. 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 and carried unanimously. Member Johnson moved to recommend that staff grant an additional 90-day administrative permit for temporary commercial parking use on the subject property, effective June 18, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C5. George Nicovic (George’s Chevron) for variances of (1) 25 ft to permit a exhaust tower height of 75 ft where 50 ft is permitted; and (2) 20.5 ft to permit a structural setback for an exhaust tower 3.25 ft from a rear property line where 23.75 ft is required at 1755 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Suburb Beautiful Sub, Lots 3 and 4 zoned CG (General Commercial). VR 96-39 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to increase the height of an existing exhaust tower related to a soil and groundwater cleanup system on the property. The added height will help dissipate the odors produced during the cleanup process that are causing a nuisance condition for the neighborhood. As the equipment is already in place, he suggested a condition the building permit be obtained within 30 days. He recommended removal of the cleanup equipment within two weeks of completion. Jim Duncan, engineer in charge of the groundwater cleanup, explained the equipment and the process, mandated and paid by the State. The residents and surrounding businesses want the groundwater cleaned up, but are unable to tolerate the odors 24 hours a day. He has reduced his run time to daytime hours while most of the neighbors are away at work. This will significantly increase the time needed to complete the project, originally estimated at seven years. Once the project is complete, he must wait for the State to test water samples and approve the project as complete. He requested to be allowed to keep the equipment in place until the State determines no more cleanup is needed at the site. In response to a question, he verified the large plume of contamination is the result of leakage from underground fuel tanks moving with the groundwater. He said neighbors with shallow wells often smell gasoline when they irrigate. Mark and Sherry Schleben, property owners two parcels away, expressed concern the strong odors resulting from the cleanup operation are harmful to Mrs. Schleben, their child, and the other people who are home during the day. They asked the board to table the request to allow time to investigate if the fumes are harmful and to collect information of other cleanup methods that less seriously impact the neighbors. Mrs. Schleben described the smell as a heavy gasoline and diesel odor that nauseates them and forces them to stay inside with doors and windows shut. Mr. Duncan responded to questions regarding the technology, stating he is an environmental engineer. He chose this cleanup method from among a number of others because it is faster and he hoped to be able to catch the contamination before it migrates further into the groundwater. He said 95% of gas station cleanup is done using this state of the art system, which can be fitted with a weather station that restricts the system to operate only when the wind blows in a particular direction, if needed. He did not know how much time this would add to cleanup since it was weather dependent. He anticipated a taller tower would reduce the odor by half. He was willing to install a weather station if the taller tower does not ease the problem for the neighbors. If the problem persists, he suggested the neighbors contact the State to obtain information regarding a protocol that exists for dealing with this type of issue. 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The exhaust tower and other equipment used for this cleanup shall be removed within 60 days following completion of the cleanup. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C6. GTB Ventures Co, for a variance of 99 parking spaces to permit 126 parking spaces where 225 spaces are required at 2458 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 13.06, zoned CG (General Commercial). VR 96-40 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to open a restaurant having an entertainment area exceeding 15 percent of the gross floor area. The alcoholic beverage ordinance requires this use to be classified as a nightclub and requires more parking than would a restaurant. Staff feels the establishment will be operated as a restaurant, which would require 90 parking spaces. The applicant provides 126 parking spaces and has more than enough space to provide the handicapped parking need indicated by the City Traffic Engineer. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Richter reiterated he did not feel the establishment would be operated as a bar and was comfortable with a condition to monitor whether the music and entertainment negatively impacts the neighbors. David Green, Construction Manager for Homestyle Harmony, stated this family oriented business was never intended to be a nightclub. He anticipated total beer consumption at less than 7 percent, but said they do not serve anything in the area that is dedicated to entertainment. He explained it is set up theater style for patrons to view a show put on by the staff of waiters. They propose to be open from 4:00 to 9:00 p.m. and gave a breakdown of the anticipated patron load at various times of the evening. They do four shows a day and are always out of the restaurant by 11:00, which includes cleanup time. Mr. Green played a two minute videotape segment of a local television news broadcast, showing highlights of their Sarasota operation. He pointed out they do not operate as a tavern, but as a restaurant with a staff of singing waiters who entertain and encourage customers to join in the singing. He said 60 to 80 percent of the clientele are parties of eight or more with reservations. The restaurant caters to theme parties, weddings, and church parties, all of which tend to carpool, so he did not feel the parking variance would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. A member’s question regarding the type of menu was answered by the clientele depicted in the video. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. One letter in opposition was submitted by a neighboring commercial property owner complaining the variance is excessive and overflow parking will negatively impact adjacent properties. Mr. Green stated all the surrounding property owners with whom he spoke supported the request. Board members fully supported the operation and felt the code was remiss in placing this business in the nightclub category. One member suggested sending invitations to seniors communities to promote the business. Mr. Green indicated this has been done. 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) 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 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 applicant shall provide handicapped parking as determined appropriate by the Traffic Engineer; 4) The applicant shall plant one tree of at least 8 feet in height at planting, in proximity to Gulf to Bay Boulevard; and 5) This variance is limited to this use and shall conclude when Homestyle Harmony closes. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C7. David I. & Virginia Ramos for a variance of 5 ft to permit a wooden deck zero ft from a side property line where 5 ft is required at 851 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 8, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-41 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a 588 square foot deck on the north side of their single family residence. The setback variance is needed as the deck is elevated 2.5 feet above grade on one corner due to the slope of the yard. The deck will be shielded from view by a fence that encloses the yard and should not adversely affect other properties. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Virginia Ramos, the owner/applicant, hoped the board would grant the variance because the deck is already built. She said she was not aware a permit was needed until she was cited by the roof inspector. She obtained a permit the next day and has since removed the scrap lumber from the driveway. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Board members complimented Ms. Ramos for the appearance of her house and yard. 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) 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 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. Land Development Code Amendments D1. Ordinance 6028-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code, amending Section 45.23, Code of Ordinances to exclude City owned property from eligibility for minor variance consideration and to exclude any property from eligibility for minor variance consideration where variances are granted in excess of specified limits; to allow minor variances for freestanding sign setback up to five feet; providing an effective date. Consensus was to table this item until June 13, 1996 when Member Gans returns, because it is an area of special interest for him. Minutes Approval -- May 9, 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 Vice Chair Schwob reported Members Pratt and Gans have indicated they will attend the next meeting. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.