10/10/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 10, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwob
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Ron Stuart
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.
C. New Variance Requests
C1. Lawrence H. Dimmitt, II requesting: (1) a setback variance of 17 ft to allow a swimming pool without a screen enclosure 8 ft from Bruce Ave right-of way where a minimum setback of
25 ft is required; (2) a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a 6 ft high masonry wall within the setback area from the Bay Esplanade right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed;
(3) a landscape buffer variance of 3 ft to allow a zero ft wide landscape buffer strip where a minimum of 3 ft is required; and (4) a landscape variance of 50 percent to waive the planting
requirement of shrubs along 50 percent of the exterior length of a wall at 1015 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub, Blk 273, Lot 6 and part of Lot 5 zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential).
VR 96 64
In a letter dated October 4, 1996, architect Alex Plisko requested a continuance on behalf of the applicant. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Schwob moved to continue Item C1, VR 96-64 to October 24, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C2. Bayview Baptist Church of Clearwater, Inc. for a setback variance of 22 ft to permit a building to be located 13 ft from a street right-of-way where a minimum setback of 35 ft is
required at 201 Meadow Lark Lane, Bayview City Sub, Block 2, Lots 6-8, Block 3, Lots 1-8, together with abutting vacated Kentucky Avenue and alley in said Block 3, zoned P/SP (Public/SemiPublic).
VR 96-65
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a new building on the irregularly shaped property, already
developed with a church. He detailed existing conditions regarding right-of-way, setbacks, drainage and landscaping, stating the proposed building will not affect any of the existing
tree cover. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
City Building Official comments stated they did not object to the new building, but noted the applicant has not paid the traffic impact fee or obtained the required Certificate of Occupancy
for the existing building. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated the Central Permitting is addressing the matter and those conditions to not apply to the variance request.
Ms. Dougall-Sides concurred, stating because the matter has not come before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board, she assumed staff is working with the property owner.
Walter Campbell, Pastor of Bayview Baptist Church, stated the new structure is needed for temporary use as Sunday school classrooms and office space. In its proposed location, the
new building will not have to be moved when the main building is expanded in the future. He indicated this will give them breathing room, and a chance for the church to grow while becoming
more financially stable. His congregation numbers approximately 200. In response to questions, he stated has been working with the City and has received a time extension regarding
the Certificate of Occupancy and impact fee.
Blaine Yoquelet and Lisa Kadlet, area residents, spoke in opposition to the application. They expressed concerns the existing sheet metal building is not consistent with the area and
creates an eyesore that adversely affects surrounding property values. Concerns were expressed trees were removed for the first building and required landscaping has not been completed.
Ms. Kadlet questioned the wisdom of allowing a second building before all requirements are met for the first building. They questioned if sufficient parking exists for 200 people and
strongly objected to any further expansion on the subject property. Mr. Yoquelet submitted a letter reiterating some of the above concerns. Mr. Richter responded parking appears adequate,
and will be verified during site plan review.
Rev. Campbell explained the proposed building is a 24 by 60 foot mobile home type structure set up with offices, a kitchen and bathroom. He clarified it is a temporary structure that
will be removed after completion of future church expansion. He will improve the front of the existing building to create a more traditional church appearance. He hopes to build a
steeple, cover the front with stucco brick, build a canopy and repaint the structure within the next two years, as finances permit. He has been in the current location only since June,
1996, and has received a time extension for installation of the required 12 trees and 300 plants. He responded to questions regarding the days and times of services and planned activities,
to help the board get a feel for the type of impact the church has on the neighborhood.
Discussion ensued regarding site configuration and conditions in the area. One member indicated the majority of surrounding property is under County jurisdiction, and a variety of
uses exist, including a trailer park, in proximity to the subject property. Mr. Richter affirmed the zoning is consistent for the proposed use. One member shared the concern that sheet
metal buildings are not compatible with the surrounding residential property and questioned whether this is a routine practice in the City. Mr. Richter responded it is not routine,
but code does not preclude sheet metal buildings. He suggested passing this concern along to the City Commission.
One member acknowledged the existing structure appears plain, but he did not consider it unattractive, nor inconsistent with conditions he observed in the surrounding neighborhood.
He hoped the congregation will be happy in their building as they make the planned improvements. The majority felt the proposal should have a more positive impact on the neighborhood
once the landscaping is completed. One member agreed with the proposed location, in view of site constraints. Staff was requested to work with the applicant toward augmenting landscaping
around the mobile facility to remediate its temporary look, and to keep the lines of communication open throughout completion of the project.
Member Schwob moved to grant the variance(s) 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 variance shall take effect when the Certificate of Occupancy, the impact fee is paid, and the landscaping requirement is
met to the satisfaction of City staff; 4) the applicant shall work with staff to provide landscaping to minimize the temporary appearance of the facility; and 5) the variance is granted
with the understanding this is a temporary building and the variance will continue for a time period not to exceed, either the life of the structure, or the use as a temporary structure
for church purposes, whichever is shorter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The chair reiterated the appeal process for the benefit of the speakers in opposition.
C3. HRE Properties (Countryside Square Shopping Center) for variances of: (1) a parking variance of 27 spaces to allow 952 spaces where 979 spaces are required; and (2) an open space
variance for the lot of 3 percent to allow 22 percent where a minimum of 25 percent is required at 25683 US 19 N and 2555 Countryside Blvd., Countryside Village Square, Lot 7, less road
right-of-way, together with Lots 5 & 8 less SW 46.75 ft. for road right-of-way, zoned CC (Commercial Center). VR 96-66
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to expand three areas of an existing shopping center, a total of 7,000
square feet. He explained the necessary variances, stating staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. In response to a question,
he said an original plan included some of the outparcels in the parking space tabulations, but outparcels are not included in the documents before the board today.
Member Jonnatti declared a potential conflict of interest regarding this case.
Todd Pressman, agent, spoke on behalf of the applicants, pointing out the areas of proposed expansion on the site plan. He profiled open space, access easements, and parking provisions,
stating a substantial FDOT right-of-way taking removed 45 parking spaces from the
development. In response questioning, Mr. Pressman did not know the proposed uses of the three expanded areas, but indicated the proposal will provide needed aesthetic improvements.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Discussion ensued with Mr. Pressman regarding existing conditions in the development.
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance(s) 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; 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. Members Gans, Johnson, Schwob, and Stuart voted "Aye"; Member Jonnatti abstained. Motion carried.
C4. Bellwether Properties of Florida (Steak ‘n Shake Restaurant) for a setback variance of 40 ft to allow a structure 35 ft from Countryside Blvd. right-of-way where a minimum of 75
ft is required at 2566 Countryside Blvd., Sec 30-28-16, M&B 41.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center). VR 96 67
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to build a 3,600 square foot Steak ‘n Shake restaurant on a leased outparcel
on the south side of Countryside Mall along Countryside Boulevard. The new construction will be set back further than the existing building, which will be demolished. He responded
to questions regarding setback, perimeter drive, landscaping, and open space requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions.
AnneMarie “Bemmie” Eustace, with the development firm representing the applicants, stated she concurred with the staff report and requested clarification regarding the required 10 foot
landscaping buffer required along Countryside Boulevard. She explained the variance is needed to allow construction of their restaurant without alterations to the prototype. They are
working with mall personnel regarding parking lot improvements. Ms. Eustace circulated a color photographs of the proposed restaurant
Discussion ensued regarding traffic and drive-through circulation and proposed landscaping within the confines of the lease lines. Board members suggested additional landscaping rather
than pavement striping in “no-drive” areas, to soften the impact of the drive-through lane on the side facing Countryside Boulevard. It was not known why Traffic Engineer’s review and
comments were not included in the board packets.
Ms. Eustace agreed to examine the turning radii and work with City and mall staff to see where additional landscaping may be provided, but emphasized the drive aisle widths and parking
lot layout are at the mall’s discretion. Board members felt additional landscaping should be a condition of approval, in order to increase the likelihood it will be accomplished. It
was indicated, if the applicant makes a good faith effort, but is unable to comply because of
mall restrictions, the applicant has the option of requesting reconsideration of the condition. One member who lives in the neighborhood, stated the establishment will be a welcome
addition. Ms. Eustace estimated construction will be completed within 90 days after obtaining the necessary approvals.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Jonnatti moved to grant the variance(s) 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) A landscape buffer averaging 10 feet in width shall be provided along Countryside Boulevard in the project area; and 4) The two
striped landscaping areas along Countryside Boulevard shall be configured for landscaping planter areas, the two interior striped areas shall be investigated for inclusion as planter
areas, and the applicant will work with staff to ensure the specifications of the City Traffic Engineering Department are met concerning whether the two interior planters are feasible.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D. Land Development Code Amendments
D1. Ordinance 6091-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; creating Section 42.36, Code of Ordinances, to establish site lighting restrictions for
residential and nonresidential properties; providing an effective date.
Mr. Richter requested a continuance to November 14, stating staff is in the process of amending the ordinance as requested by the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Dougall-Sides said
she will be working on the revisions.
Minutes Approval - September 26, 1996 - Approved as corrected
The minutes were corrected to reflect that Member Stuart had voted in favor of the motion on page 2. Member Schwob moved to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments -- Introduction and Comments by City Leadership Group
Mr. Richter recognized members of the City of Clearwater Leadership Group who observed the meeting as part of the City leadership training program. Individual group members introduced
themselves and Clearwater Police Officer William Farias acted as spokesperson, profiling how the program provides leadership training to City employees.
Member Gans was pleased Ms. Dougall-Sides has returned and he wished her a quick recovery from her recent injury.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
Board Reporter