Loading...
03/13/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER March 13, 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 meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. in Harborview Center Meeting Room #4, followed by the 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 12/12/96) William & Hope Georgilas for the following variances: (1) a height variance of 62 ft to allow a telecommunications tower 112 ft high where a maximum height of 50 ft is permitted; (2) a setback variance of 25 ft to allow a telecommunications tower 31 ft from the north side property line where a minimum setback of 56 ft is required; and (3) a setback variance of 47.75 ft to allow a telecommunications tower 8.25 ft from the rear property line where a minimum setback of 56 ft is required at 505 Virginia Lane, Sec 13-29-15, M&B 32.05, zoned CG (General Commercial). VR 9669 In a letter dated March 10, 1997, the applicant requested a continuance to May 8, 1997. For the benefit of the audience, a brief verbal history of the application was provided. Two persons present to speak in opposition to the request cited concerns with the potential for proliferation of towers and the detrimental effect on the community if co-location is not mandated. Member Schwob moved to continue Item B1, VR 96-69, to the meeting of May 8, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. New Variance Requests C1. City of Clearwater (Glen Oaks Golf Course) for the following variances: (1) a height variance of 9.5 ft to allow a mesh screen fence 12 ft high (50 ft in length) within the setback area from the Court St right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is required; (2) a fence landscape buffer variance to waive the required landscaping at least 50% of the length of the screen fence; and (3) a setback variance of 3 ft to allow a screen fence zero ft from the Court Street right-of way where a minimum setback of 3 ft is required at 1345 Court Street, Sec. 15-29-15, M&B 41.01; and Druid Heights, Blk C, Lots 2 thru 7, zoned OS/R (0pen Space/Recreational). VR 9719 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He outlined conditions in the vicinity and detailed the code requirements regarding fence height, setbacks and landscaping. He said staff favored waiving the landscaping requirement due to the open fence design and pleasant view into the golf course. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Randall Aebersold, golf course manager representing the applicant, agreed with staff’s analysis of the proposal. He described his attempts to measure the setback according to the calculations provided by engineering staff, but he remained uncertain of the correct placement for the fence. Discussion ensued with Mr. Richter regarding coordinating the proposed fence location in relation to the right-of-way and existing rows of trees and bushes. It was indicated the board does not have the authority to approve the proposed location behind a row of shrubs if that area is in the City right-of-way. Mr. Richter suggested the board consider the variances as requested, allowing the City Engineer to work out right-of-way details with the applicant. In response to questions, Mr. Aebersold explained the mesh screen fence is a galvanized chain link fence, manufactured with a smaller grid size that will stop a golf ball. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed position of the fence in relation to the first tee, an existing row of trees, the adjacent ninth green, and the street. The fence is needed for safety, to stop errant tee shots from flying into traffic, or hitting players beyond the green on this par three course. Mr. Aebersold noted his qualifications as the golf course manager and PGA member, to answer the board’s questions about the need for the particular course layout. He said a row of evergreen trees had been very effective in stopping golf balls, until the trees began dying two years ago. He was reluctant to attempt tree replacement in the same location for fear the adverse conditions that killed the previous trees may still exist. He noted the difficulty of purchasing and installing very tall trees. It was indicated the subject property is not within Design Review Board jurisdiction. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board discussion ensued regarding the benefits and disadvantages of living near a golf course, the fact that 12 foot fences are common in country clubs, and the aesthetic view presented by golf course landscaping. One member expressed strong concerns with asking the public to accept a 12 by 50 foot galvanized chain link fence, without setbacks, along a main corridor to the beach community, without a landscaping buffer. He was concerned the applicant has not fully explored the alternatives; the denser links will appear more opaque; and the applicant should work with the Environmental Official to devise a method of screening the fence with planting materials that would climb and obscure its appearance. Others were inclined to support the request by this City sponsored facility, because of the good work the Chi Chi Rodriguez Foundation does in the community. In response to questions, Mr. Richter felt the Environmental Department would work with the applicant to screen the fence. He responded the City supports the request, as long as it has no adverse effects on anyone. Discussion resumed regarding alternative locations for the fence. Member Johnson moved to grant variances #1 and #3 as requested, subject to the two standard conditions recommended by staff, plus: 3) the subject fence shall be green instead of silver colored; 4) the fence shall be adequately landscaped to obscure it from public view from the right-of-way; and 5) landscaping shall be planted along the north side of the fence, to incorporate the existing bushes, shall extend down the length of the fence, and shall include some type of vine that will grow on the fence. The motion was duly seconded. Concerns were expressed that requiring a green fence could be an economic burden, and clarification is needed regarding the landscaping requirement. The seconder concurred, and Mr. Johnson amended the motion as follows: Member Johnson moved to grant variances #1 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) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance 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 be required to work with the Environmental Official to develop a plant buffer to effectively screen the fence from view at maturity. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Johnson, Schwob, and Jonnatti voted "Aye"; Member Stuart voted "Nay." Motion carried. Member Johnson moved to deny variance #2 because the board wants to see a landscaping buffer. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Richter requested clarification regarding the landscaping requirement. Consensus was the board is not looking for six foot tall shrubbery, but for materials that will entirely screen the entire length and height at maturity. Small trees with large canopies and Confederate jasmine were suggested, but the selection will be left up to the Environmental official. The applicant was advised to contact Mr. Richter’s office about how to arrange a meeting with the Environmental Official. C2. Burton W. & Sarah S. Wiand for a setback variance of 20.07 ft to allow a second floor 4.93 ft from the Mango Street right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at 801 Eldorado Avenue, Mandalay Sub, Blk 10, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 97-20 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicants wish to enlarge their home by constructing a second story addition over the rear portion of the home. The front portion of the home is two stories. In response to questions, it was not known how the home came to be positioned so close to the right-of-way, but staff found no reason not to allow it to remain. Discussion ensued regarding similar non-conforming conditions on other properties in the vicinity. Burton Wiand, the owner/applicant, stated he needs to increase the living space of his 60 year-old house, to accommodate his growing family. Referring to the site plan, he demonstrated how the existing structure is situated on the site, and placement of the proposed addition. He has owned the home since 1984, and will continue its use as a single-family dwelling. Board members were comfortable approving the request, as the proposal does not increase the non-conformity. Brief discussion ensued regarding where Mr. Wiand parks his boat. 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 application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance 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) There shall be no conversion to a two family house; any conversion to a multiple family dwelling shall void the variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3. Carlouel Yacht Club, Inc./Carlouel Co. for the following variances: (1) a setback variance of 31 ft to allow a loading dock and a second floor addition 4 ft and 14.5 ft respectively from the Eldorado Avenue right-of-way where a minimum setback of 35 ft is required; and (2) a front yard open space variance of 7.8 percent to allow 47.2 percent where a minimum of 55 percent is required at 1091 Eldorado Avenue, Mandalay Sub, Blk 70, Lot 12, 13 and Northerly ½ of Lot 11 together with all riparian and water rights; Mandalay Replat, Blk 171, Lots 6 thru 11 and part of Lots 4 & 5; Carlouel Sub, Blk 274, Water Lot A; and unplatted strip of land North of said Lot 11 with all appurtenant riparian area, zoned P/SP (Public/Semi Public), P (Preservation), and RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 97-21 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes a second story addition over the existing kitchen, and a loading dock in front. He detailed setback and open space requirements, stating the second story addition will align with what is below. The open space and setback variances are minimal and staff recommended approval with two standard conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said any structure higher than one foot above grade is subject to the setback requirements. One member stated the plans appear to indicate the loading platform and stairs will extend forward further than the front of the existing building. He expressed concern with use of the public right-of-way for a private loading facility. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, displayed a site plan showing the proposal is not more intrusive than what currently exists. The loading zone will benefit the community by allowing the delivery vehicles to get out of the street. Reconfiguration of the loading area will allow more effective access to the small, recessed kitchen doorway. The addition is not intended to increase club capacity, but to provide functional space for operational support of the facility. He detailed open space conditions around the architecturally attractive and well maintained building. One member expressed concern with having a loading dock at the entrance to one of the most exclusive areas in Clearwater. Discussion ensued regarding impact of the enlarged loading dock plan. Mr. Cline stressed the loading area has existed in the same location since the club was built in 1934. The dead end street has no public beach access, and any new paving will be contained on the subject property. He agreed delivery vehicles will extend into the right-of-way during deliveries, but noted this is a common occurrence throughout the City. He said street parking is not an issue, because the majority of the members generally walk the short distance to the club. He explained the proposal affects only the 13 property owners to the north of the subject property, whom he believed belong to the club, are aware of the proposal, and have expressed no objections. Mr. Cline indicated the improvement in function justifies the project. He was certain the club members will monitor the aesthetics and instruct management to improve the space if it becomes unsightly. A suggestion was made to move some of the first floor functions to the second floor to allow space to recess the loading dock. Mr. Cline responded such a proposal is not economically feasible, because it would require relocating the kitchen to the second floor, or eliminating the dining room overlooking the bay. No verbal or written support was expressed. Avara Pearson appeared to speak in opposition on behalf of John Coale and Greta Van Susteren, property owners of the residence at 1090 Eldorado, directly across from the loading dock. Ms. Pearson read from a prepared statement citing the following concerns: 1) changing the nature of the neighborhood from residential to commercial will invite unwanted growth; 2) noise from a larger loading dock will increase; 3) danger to children coming from the nearby beach area and restriction of emergency vehicle access due to more trucks in the small area; 3) sanitary issues of debris from the club stored outside beside 1090 Eldorado; 4) the parking shortage will increase, worsening the existing problem of illegal double parking in front of 1090 Eldorado, by club members and employees; 5) nuisance from club employees remaining on the premises after hours; 7) aesthetics will further deteriorate because the loading dock and addition will contribute to the neglected appearance of the north side of the club; and 8) blocking the view of the bay. In summary, Ms. Pearson expressed concern the variances will invite a larger membership and create growth problems in the small residential yacht club. She submitted her remarks in writing, along with a notarized letter authorizing her to speak on behalf of the property owners. Mr. Cline responded the proposal is designed to improve each of the existing conditions for which concern was expressed by the opposition. The architect is working on a plan to mask the dumpster area; the subject property is commercial; club membership is capped at 400 members and will not increase; the noise level will not change; safety and parking will improve because delivery vehicles will have better access to the kitchen area for unloading. He noted the club manager is in the process of working with Ms. Van Susteren to remove debris near her property, but that is not part of the variance consideration. Mr. Cline indicated the proposal is a sensible approach to relieve existing problems that were not created by the applicant. The proposal will result in a safer, more functional area with no harm to the community. In response to questions, it was indicated the home at 1090 Eldorado Avenue appears to be higher and to the north of the proposed addition, so it does not appear the view from either facility will be impacted. Mr. Cline stated every event has valet parking in the large parking area to the south of the club. He stated the club would have to change its charter to increase the membership over its 400 member cap. He confirmed the entrance to the street is posted with no outlet signs, so the only traffic going into the area is to access the club. He reviewed the history of ownership of the north end of the beach, reiterating the club has existed since 1934. He assured the board that aesthetics will be addressed, because of the location at the club’s front door. He said the kitchen is not being enlarged, but will be reconfigured and have new equipment. It was indicated there is no vacant land in the vicinity on which the neighborhood can expand. Discussion ensued regarding the parking requirements for the site. Roger Haymond, Carlouel Yacht Club’s general manager, referred to a front elevation drawing. He stated removing some of the parking spaces to improve the loading dock will increase safety for those who use the area. One member asked legal counsel if anything would preclude the applicants from removing public parking spaces to expand the facility into the right-of-way. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the parking spaces are required, and removal would require approval that is separate from this variance request. She noted the City Traffic Engineering Department has signed off on this request. Ms Dougall-Sides indicated this may be a situation where there has never been a determination of the required number of parking spaces for the existing use. She said it appears the City has not looked at this request from the standpoint of those parking spaces. Mr. Cline said the applicant has never requested a variance that required calculation of the parking requirement. Discussion ensued regarding the history of the property related to previous variance approvals. Mr. Haymond responded to questions, stating the club receives about ten deliveries each day. He said the delivery trucks cannot turn around in the present configuration, and must back along the street toward the club. Public discussion was closed and board discussion ensued. It was indicated the applicant’s rebuttal adequately addresses the concerns expressed by the opposition. One member stated the proposal represents no change in neighborhood growth; club operation will continue as it was before construction of the home at 1090 Eldorado; delivery efficiency will be increased, resulting in a less disruptive delivery process; the proposal does not pose a greater adverse impact to the closest neighbor; and testimony has indicated the influential members of this exclusive community are aware of the proposal. One member did not object to the setback or open space variances, but reiterated again his concern with using the public right-of-way to create a permanent, large loading dock and angled truck loading area in front of what is currently a simple, quaint, unassuming little delivery door with a small sign. He was not sure the neighbors to the north are aware of what is being proposed and questioned if variance approval could be conditioned upon the neighbors’ review and approval of the loading dock design. Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated determination of compliance with such a condition would be difficult. Discussion continued. In response to a direct questions, Mr. Haymond verified elimination of the 100 foot walk from the delivery trucks to the kitchen door will reduce delivery time by 75 to 80 percent. Mr. Cline said the only physical change in the loading space will be the way it is painted. He responded it is reasonable to assume club members, especially those residing to the north, are familiar the proposal, have reasonable knowledge of what is happening to their club, and understand a new loading dock will extend from the front of the building. Based on his past administrative experience with the club, Mr. Cline indicated major improvements are the subject of extensive discussions and meetings among members, staff, and design professionals, to keep members informed how their money is spent. Mr. Haymond responded these plans have been in process for four years. While he could not speak for all 400 members, he said the active members are aware of the plans to improve this final portion of the club. He has been working with homeowner association president Dean Young, and architect Steve Spencer, to create landscaping improvements to buffer the appearance of debris in the dumpster area. He said the plan represents a vast improvement for everyone connected with the property, especially the owners of 1090 Eldorado Avenue. Member Jonnatti stated he was aware his partner, Mr. Spencer, had been working with the property owner to the north regarding the debris issue, but was not aware that work had been in concert with the yacht club. He declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case and abstained from voting. Member Schwob moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance 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. Members Gans, Johnson, Schwob, and Stuart voted "Aye"; Member Jonnatti abstained. Motion carried. One member requested Ms. Pearson to advise Mr. Coale and Ms. Van Susteren that their objections had been carefully considered and discussed at length by the board before the determination was made to approve the variances. Minutes Approval -- February 27, 1997 Member Schwob moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Comments Brief discussion ensued regarding scheduling of the Britt’s cafe appeal. Staff was requested to inform the board when the date is set. Member Gans discussed the minutes of a recent Chamber of Commerce beach counsel meeting. Discussion ensued regarding City Hall reopening, and the Land Development Code rewrite. He expressed concerns with a reference to the Land Development Code as a document of parameters rather than rules, and the inference that staff will relax the rules regarding outdoor cafes. He noted discussion of bringing signage at State Road 60 and South Gulfview Boulevard under City control. He received an invitation to a code revision meeting scheduled for March 21. He questioned if this is a focus group meeting, and if so, whether Member Johnson is invited as the second focus group member. Staff will inquire and report. Mr. Richter distributed copies of the minor variance report, and a letter from staff to property owners along Brandywine Drive regarding the recent fence variance approval. Member Schwob will present information from the letter to his homeowner’s association. Member Jonnatti expressed concern with testimony in Item C3, above, stating the proposal will not extend beyond the existing encroachment. He reiterated the plans clearly indicate the alignment of the loading dock is forward of the bar. Discussion ensued regarding whether the testimony was accurate, and whether the variance approval, having been based on the plans presented at the hearing, was in line with the public hearing advertisement. Consensus was the loading dock alignment appears to increase the non-conformity. The testimony had indicated the second floor addition will be directly over the existing building. Members Schwob, Johnson and Stuart agreed special circumstances exist in the case, and awareness of any increased non-conformity related to the loading area would not have caused them to change their decision to approve the request as submitted. Member Gans did not agree, stating he would not vote to extend a non-conformity. Mr. Richter responded to questions regarding the code definition of what constitutes a two family dwelling. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:36 p.m.