Loading...
01/09/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER January 9, 1997 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 Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. in Harborview Center Meeting Room #6. 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 11/14/96) John & Sandra S. Ladd for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the St. Thomas Dr. right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is allowed at 1529 S. Fredrica Ave, Brookhill Unit Two, Blk C, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-68 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating this item was continued from November 14 to allow time for the applicant to install perimeter landscaping at the board’s direction. While the applicant’s selection of rose bushes is unusual and will not totally screen the fence, roses should serve to distract the eye, providing adequate care is taken to ensure the plantings thrive. In a January 6 memo, City Water Resource Engineer Mike Quillen noted high maintenance problems with the proposed rose shrubs, but recommended acceptance, as the shrubs will be reinspected periodically. Replacement will be required if the shrubs decline or die. Mr. Richter related details from the previous meeting regarding property location; configuration; the non-conforming fence; reasons for the variance; neighborhood conditions; and relationship to other fences in the neighborhood. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. One member expressed concern the landscaping, as installed, is not adequate because it does not extend around the rear, or northeast fence line. It was indicated landscaping materials planted outside the rear fence would be on the neighbor’s property, as the fence is located one foot off the property line. Discussion ensued regarding the questionable value of roses to provide the perimeter landscape screening required by the board as a condition of approval. Mr. Richter responded to questions regarding distance of the fencing from the right-of-way. Ms. Dougall-Sides read an excerpt from the November minutes regarding the board’s direction to landscape outside the fence. It was indicated the language was subject to interpretation regarding precise location of the requested landscaping. John Ladd, the owner/applicant, stated he selected rose shrubs similar to those in use at Disney World, because they are weather hardy, disease resistant, and low maintenance. He is redoing his sprinkler system within four weeks, to ensure the roses have adequate irrigation. He displayed a book depicting his roses, indicating they grow to be very full, and reach approximately four to six feet in height. Discussion ensued regarding one member’s suggestion to plant four or five bushes along the rear, extending back approximately 14 feet perpendicular to the St. Thomas Drive right-of-way, to give the corner a finished look. Mr. Ladd felt it would look odd to stop the landscaping halfway down the fence. Other board members felt Mr. Ladd has done what was asked, and felt it would be unreasonable to ask him to landscape his neighbor's side of the fence. No written or verbal support or opposition was expressed. Two letters of objection were submitted for the last meeting. One member reiterated his concern the variance is not the minimum, no safety purpose is served, and the fence lacks the screening needed to make it appealing. Other members felt a six foot fence with attractive bushes would contribute more to neighborhood beauty than a four-foot fence with no landscaping. 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; and 3) The property owner shall maintain the landscape buffer in a healthy condition. Failure to do so shall negate approval of the variance. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Schwob, Jonnatti, and Stuart voted "Aye"; Member Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. B2. (cont. from 11/14/96) Douglas M. & Wendy L. Barry for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the St. Thomas Dr. right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is allowed at 1535 S. Fredrica Ave, Brookhill Unit 2, Blk F, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-75 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating this item was continued from November 14 to allow time for the applicant to install perimeter landscaping at the board’s direction. The applicant responded by planting good quality viburnum shrubs. With proper care the shrubs should grow to conceal the fence within two years. He related details from the previous meeting regarding property location; configuration; the non-conforming fence; reasons for the variance; denial of a previous fence variance, neighborhood conditions; and relationship to other fences in the neighborhood. Staff felt the applicant’s actions were consistent with the board’s direction, and recommended approval with three conditions. Doug Barry, the owner/applicant, was present to address the board. No written or verbal support or opposition was expressed. One letter of objection had been submitted at the last meeting. 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; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within 30 days from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The property owner shall maintain the landscape buffer in a healthy condition. Failure to do so shall negate approval of the variance. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Schwob, Jonnatti, and Stuart voted "Aye"; Member Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. C. New Variance Requests C1. Roy J. & Gaie A. Benecchi for a height variance of 1.08 ft. to allow a fence 3.58 ft. high within the setback area from the Mandalay Ave right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft. is required at 1044 Mandalay Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 68, Lot 14, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 97-01 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the rear and a portion of the side yard are currently enclosed by a 43-inch tall fence. The applicant wishes to secure a larger play area for children. Mr. Richter related the fence height and setback requirements from the Mandalay Avenue right-of-way. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Beverly Allemann, representing the applicant, stated the variance is requested to secure a larger play yard for her grandchildren and new dog. She said the proposed wood picket fence will be landscaped and will enhance the property. In response to questions, she clarified the existing fence is actually 45 inches high. She did not know why it was listed as 43 inches on the application. She was not concerned with the extended portion of the fence being two inches shorter than the existing fencing. She felt the 43-inch height will suit her purposes. Board members indicated the property is very attractive. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. 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. C2. Ronald I & Donna M. Day for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the Sunny Park Rd right-of-way where maximum of 4 ft is required at 1389 Rose St, Brookhill Unit 8, Blk Y, Lots 1 & 2, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 97-02 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to replace an existing six foot high fence. The portion of the fence along Sunny Park Drive is non-conforming due to the location within the right-of-way setback. He noted unimproved Sunny Park Drive is adjacent a Pinellas County enclave, where six foot fences in side yard setbacks are not prohibited. He detailed street and setback conditions related to the subject property, bordered on three sides by streets. He noted code requires a landscaping buffer outside the fence parallel to the Sunny Park Drive right-of-way. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions, plus two conditions to install and maintain the required landscaping buffer. Ronald Day, the owner/applicant, submitted seven photographs of the existing fence, and a diagram of the subject property containing a key to the photographs. He said the existing fence was conforming when it was built in 1972. The fence has deteriorated and he wishes to replace it to enclose his back yard and protect his pool area. He expressed concern with staff’s recommended conditions #3 and #4, stating a line of existing fruit trees located 15 feet outside the fence, along Sunny Park Drive, totally obscure the view of the fence. He consulted with a landscape professional who informed him it would be difficult to find landscaping materials that will thrive beneath the large oak trees on the property. Mr. Day said a drainage swale along the rear of the property would make landscape maintenance outside the fence difficult and dangerous. In response to questions, Mr. Richter said a solid and continuous landscaping screen is required by code. The requirement cannot be waived without another variance. The landscaping must be near the fence it screens, so he did not feel the citrus would suffice. Mr. Day related the number of times he has visited the City’s Central Permitting Department in an effort to obtain all the necessary information related to his fence replacement. He complained he should have been informed a landscaping variance would be needed so it could have been included with the variance application. He expressed concern with the amount of time this issue has taken away from his business. Mr. Richter will investigate Mr. Day’s concerns with Central Permitting staff. Board members indicated their support of Mr. Day’s request Discussion ensued regarding how to accommodate Mr. Day without further delay and inconvenience. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted sufficiency of landscaping to meet code is subject to interpretation by the City Environmental official. It was suggested, if the board is amenable to granting the request, they may wish to do so with a strong recommendation for a favorable interpretation by Environmental staff. Mr. Richter will assist Mr. Day in discussing this issue with Mike Quillen of the City Environmental Management Group. One member suggested for Mr. Day to submit a letter to City staff outlining the difficulties he encountered, to serve as an aid to further improving customer service. Discussion ensued regarding the narrow condition of Sunny Park Drive. 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 one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The Development Code Adjustment Board recommends for the City Environmental Official to interpret the code to allow the existing citrus trees to serve as the required landscape buffer. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3. Markos K. & Sevasti Lagos/Manuel Kastrenakes (Pinellas Auto Body) for the following variances: (1) a landscape buffer variance of 5 ft to allow a zero foot wide landscape buffer strip where a minimum of 5 ft is required; (2) an open space variance for the lot of 7 percent to allow 3 percent where a minimum of 10 percent is required; (3) a front yard open space variance of 14 percent to allow 11 percent where a minimum of 25 percent is required; and (4) an interior landscaping variance for vehicular traffic of 3 percent to allow 3 percent where a minimum of 6 percent is required at 2070/2084 Range Rd, Pinellas Groves sub, a portion of Lots 11 & 12, lying in Sec 12-29-15, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). VR 97-03 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. The applicant is requesting variances to pave the parking area of an existing auto body business. A Code Enforcement notice of violation indicated a portion of the parking area was resurfaced in a non-conforming manner. Mr. Richter detailed the necessary landscaping and open space variances; noting the limited design options for safe vehicular circulation. The Environmental Official recommended a five foot landscape buffer along Range Road and a stormwater retention area at the rear of the site. The City Traffic Engineer had no objection to the request. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions plus a condition to relocate an overfilled dumpster from its current location outside the fence in the Range Road right-of-way, to an appropriate location on private property, as determined by the City Solid Waste Department. Discussion ensued regarding a letter of objection received from MONIN, Inc., a neighbor of the applicant. The letter referred to a Pinellas County Circuit Court judgment that, it was said, requires the subject property to clean up contaminated groundwater emanating from the subject property and flowing onto the property of MONIN, Inc. Concern was expressed the applicant’s proposal could create more contamination and adversely impact the MONIN property. Staff was aware of the letter, but felt the litigation was a separate issue from the variance request. After consultation with Ms. Dougall-Sides, Member Jonnatti declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case. He indicated he has done work for MONIN, Inc., and may do so in the future. Markos K. Lagos, representing the applicant, asked to see a copy of the letter. He said he owns the business and the property for which the variance is requested. He stated under oath he knows nothing about any legal action against Pinellas Auto Body. He said he was surprised by the letter as his business has experienced no spillage, and has a clean record with the EPA and Pinellas County. He indicated the letter must be referring to some other business with a similar name. Discussion ensued regarding the location of MONIN, Inc., 2100 Range Road, the second parcel to the east of the subject property. The board suggested a continuance to allow time to check into the charges made by the letter in opposition. Concern was expressed, if the complaint is founded, approval could exacerbate a situation that could be considered injurious to the surrounding properties. Mr. Lagos protested he wished to complete his project as soon as possible. He stated for the record, the letter was errant and a continuance would inconvenience Pinellas Auto Body. Mr. Jonnatti was questioned whether it was possible groundwater contamination was emanating from the property separating MONIN, Inc., from the subject property. Mr. Jonnatti responded he was not aware of any pending litigation. He said he had not discussed with his client where existing groundwater contamination had originated, only that the previously undeveloped property was contaminated. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said she could have investigated the circuit court case if she had seen the letter prior to today’s hearing. Mr. Lagos reiterated a continuance inconveniences him. Mr. Lagos questioned if he could change his open space variance to zero percent. Discussion ensued between the applicant and Mr. Richter regarding how to reconfigure the site plan to accommodate a design amendment without the need to readvertise the requested variances. Mr. Richter requested a copy of the amended plan tomorrow. In response to questions Mr. Richter indicated the applicants had not followed through with a March 25, 1993 variance approval. Mr. Lagos stated he obtained the property in December, 1994. Anthony Ferrara, with the engineering firm representing the applicant, responded to questions regarding landscaping in interior traffic islands. Mr. Lagos requested a continuance to the meeting of January 23, 1997. He said he wishes to cooperate with the board and staff. Member Johnson moved to continue Item C3, #VR 97-03, to January 23, 1997. Members Gans, Johnson, Schwob, and Stuart voted "Aye"; Member Jonnatti abstained. Motion carried. C4. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Winn Dixie) for the following variances: (1) a parking space variance of 84 spaces to allow expansion of a shopping center where 69 new spaces are required and no new spaces are provided, and 15 existing spaces are displaced; and (2) an open space variance for the lot of 0.3 percent to allow expansion of a shopping center where 0.3 percent of the required open space for the lot is displaced at 2514 McMullen-Booth Rd, Sec 28-28-16, M&B 33.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center) & OL (Limited Office). VR 97-04 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes to expand an existing grocery store. He explained how the 15,255 square foot expansion will affect parking and open space. It was indicated a parking surplus exists in the shopping center’s main parking area in front of the grocery store. The variances are the minimum to improve and upgrade the property. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions plus a condition to obtain a SWFWMD permit for modification of the retention area. A question was raised regarding whether right-of-way taking occurred during the McMullen Booth Road widening that would have reduced the number of parking spaces from what was originally permitted. One member with prior knowledge of the property configuration stated the parking lot has always been outside the right-of-way. Tim Johnson, attorney representing the applicant, stated the store is 18 years old and functionally obsolete. He detailed the proposal to enlarge the deli area to accommodate the growing demand for more prepackaged take-home foods. The loading zone will be reconfigured to avoid blocking drive aisles during deliveries. He estimated about two-thirds of the expanded floor space will be used for sales floor area, the remainder for store support activities. He profiled the landscaping and open space configuration, stating a 3 percent loss of open space will be minor compared to the convenience offered to customers. The proposal will allow the store to be competitive and remain viable. Ron Morahan and Richard Hartmann were sworn in and responded to Member Jonnatti’s concern that adequate open space and landscaping be provided between the addition and the adjacent establishment, to preserve the view for the neighbor. After consultation with the board, it was generally agreed the applicants will provide and maintain shrubbery between the addition and the offices in back. In response to a request for clarification from Tim Johnson, the specific landscape areas were pointed out on the plan. Discussion continued between Member Jonnatti and the representatives. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. One member supported the proposal, stating he and his wife have visited the store almost daily for more than 15 years. He affirmed staff’s observation that parking is more than adequate, but improvement is needed in the drive aisles near the loading zone. 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; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The applicant shall obtain the requisite permit for modification of the retention area from the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval -- December 12, 1996 Member Gans commended Mrs. Legters for her summarization of the issue at the end of page 16, regarding the old tiki hut bar at the Clearwater Surfside Hotel. 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. Alternative date for new Land Development Code discussion Mr. Richter reported Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford wishes to discuss the comprehensive Land Development Code amendment at the conclusion of the board’s February 27 meeting. While not a public hearing, the issue will be considered a public meeting. Scheduling an alternate date was recommended, in case of a lengthy agenda. Consensus was to meet with Mr. Shuford on Tuesday, February 25, 1997; at 8:00 a.m.; in a location to be announced, if staff determines the February 27 agenda is too full. General discussion ensued regarding follow-up to previous board discussion as follows: 1) locating a telecommunications tower on Pinellas County School property, 2) a Community Response Team report on conformity of boats parked on Clearwater beach; and 3) correspondence with objectors to a proposed wall in case VR 96-70, 2664 Gleneagles Drive. Mr. Gans questioned a report the City is planning to beautify Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard be lining the road with palm trees. Mr. Richter requested all interested parties to read their notices of public hearings regarding locations of future meetings. Staff verified the regular January 23 meeting will be held in Harborview Center Ballroom “A.” Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.