Loading...
04/10/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER April 10, 1997 Present: Otto Gans William Schwob Mark Jonnatti Ron Stuart Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member   Leslie Dougall-Sides John Richter Gwen Legters Assistant City Attorney Senior Planner Board Reporter  Absent: William Johnson Board Member   The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. in Harborview Center Ballroom A, 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. C. New Variance Requests C1. Richard R. Dimmitt for a setback variance of 13.5 ft to allow a pool cabana 11.5 ft from the Bay Esplanade street right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at 965 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub, Blk 265, Lots 7-9, and part of Lots 6 & 10, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 9725 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is seeking a variance to construct a pool cabana for a new single family home currently under construction. The proposed cabana location will facilitate compliance with flood elevation requirements and will not adversely affect the neighborhood or the City. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Brief discussion ensued regarding the block face averaging ordinance. One member felt an 11.5 foot setback was an unusual number and questioned the reason. It was indicated the specific location was chosen to avoid disturbing a number of trees and exotic plants on the site. It was pointed out none of the vegetation details are on the application for the board’s consideration. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, submitted an April 3 letter of authorization. Mr. Cline affirmed Mrs. Dimmitt’s trees are special, but the flood elevation is the driving force behind the request. He detailed the topography and physical surroundings, indicating the cabana site was chosen for adequate drainage, to avoid extensive fill and encroachment on the seawall, and to allow space for a back yard. Mr. Cline explained how block face averaging applies to this accessory structure. He stated the proposal, with one exception, is set back further than any structure in the vicinity. He noted the main structure is set back 16 feet; only the chimney will extend forward to the 11.5 foot line. In summary, he said the request is minimal and reasonable; twice the required open space is being provided; the request has no impact on surrounding properties, is consistent with the neighborhood, and does not overbuild the site. He stated the proposal is a nice use of the property. Richard Dimmitt, the owner/applicant, responded to questions regarding the size and use of the proposed structure. He said the 1,000 square foot building is larger than a typical cabana. It will contain his office, a changing room, a small kitchen for cookouts, and a large central room with a fireplace for cold weather. One member questioned if a survey was available to illustrate the presentation. Mr. Cline submitted two surveys, an aerial photograph, and a site plan. He noted on the aerial where structures have been torn down, and the locations of setback lines. He explained the conceptual plan for the pool adjacent the cabana structure. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. One member stated the proposal will improve an already attractive neighborhood, based on his observation. One member said he was not persuaded by the elevation argument, but agreed the proposal offers less setback encroachment than had previous structures on the site. 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; 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. Thomas & Evangelia G. Dushas for a height variance of 8 ft to allow a concrete block wall 14 ft high along the southerly property line where a maximum height of 6 ft is required at 1100 Mandalay Point Rd., Mandalay Point Sub, Lots 1 & 1A and land east of Lot 1A to the existing seawall, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential) & OS/R (Recreation/Open Space.) V 9726 In a letter dated April 3, 1997, architect Thomas Graham requested a continuance to May 8, 1997. It was indicated additional time is needed to resolve a problem with the neighbor to the south. Board members expressed concern they had been unable to personally view the property due to a locked, unattended security gate. Mr. Richter will ask the applicant or a representative for direction regarding access before this issue comes back to the board. Member Schwob moved to continue Item C2, VR 97-26, to the meeting of May 8, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3. Robert P. & Denise A. Resch, III for the following variances: (1) a setback variance of 4 ft to allow a new detached garage to be built 1 ft from the south side property line where a minimum setback of 5 ft is required; and (2) a driveway setback variance of 0.5 ft to allow a driveway 2.5 ft from the south side property line where a minimum setback of 3 ft is required at 210 Orangewood Ave., Glenwood Estates Addition, Lot 55, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 9727 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicants wish to construct a two-car garage and driveway on the south side of the home. He detailed setback requirements and the nature of the surrounding development. The proposal will upgrade the property and will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Robert Resch, the owner/applicant, stated he and his wife purchased the home in 1990 with the intention of doing extensive remodeling. Built in 1925, the home had been vacant for three years and needed a lot of work. He discussed how they had extensively researched architectural history to restore the home in the Mediterranean Missions Revival style. He submitted copies of an article from the January/February 1997 edition of Tampa Bay Magazine featuring his remodeling project. He explained the garage is needed for storage space for his growing family because the home was built without closets except in the bedrooms. Mr. Resch reviewed details of existing non-conforming conditions on the subject and surrounding properties, an overhead utility easement, and removal of an old metal building from the site. He submitted a survey and six photographs of site conditions and discussed various solutions for alignment of the garage in view of the site constraints. He discussed the minimal size and reinforcement requirements of the proposed masonry structure. He hopes to install overhead doors in the front and rear walls of the garage to enable passing through to the back of the lot, where a grassy play area can be created. In response to questions, Mr. Resch said he was aware it is against City code to park his 21foot boat in front of the home. He said the boat will fit inside the garage, or can be pushed through the garage into the rear yard. He has discussed the proposal with his neighbor to the south, who is not disturbed by the prospect of having his porch face a garage wall. Mr. Resch said the neighbor has indicated he desires privacy for sunbathing and would have installed a privacy fence if not for the garage proposal. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Discussion ensued with Mr. Resch regarding details of the photographs and the magazine article. Board members praised the applicants for their hard work and the beauty of the restoration. 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; 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. Minutes Approval – March 27, 1997 Member Stuart 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 Member Schwob raised the subject of recent discussions to eliminate and/or combine certain City advisory boards. Mr. Schwob stated the City has an excellent advisory board system, no lack of volunteers, and the current members are active and interested in their topics. He expressed strong reluctance to change a system that is working very smoothly. As a citizen activist, he was very upset that the Land Development Code rewrite process is apparently so far along without any input to or from the board members. Member Gans expressed concern with the apparent secrecy of the Land Development Code rewrite process. Noting Mr. Shuford’s presentation to the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce, he was upset with the delay of staff presentations before the City advisory boards, and the lack of detailed information available. He was concerned about the amount of publicity being given to the City’s “vision”, while no clear indication is being given to board members about the future of the boards. He expressed strong concern the public has been well informed, but the people on the inside are being left in the dark. Member Stuart noted all the information to date has been hearsay and pointed out nothing will happen until the issue goes before the City Commission. Ms. Dougall-Sides explained the delay in getting this issue before the boards. Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford originally had an ambitious schedule for preparation of the code amendment. The item was stalled in the receipt and referral stage when the Legal Department raised questions whether everything was in place. As staff proposes to repeal the entire Land Development Code, it was felt the Legal Department should review the amendment to ensure it is complete and sufficient. Working through the recodification process with the code publisher has taken longer than was anticipated, but the issue continues to be agendaed because there is hope it will come before the boards soon. Ms. Dougall-Sides briefly highlighted the proposal to condense the DCAB, Planning and Zoning Board, Design Review Board, and Environmental Advisory Board into two boards dealing with 1) planning review and 2) development review. The level of minor variances going to staff is yet to be established. Mr. Schwob responded he was not aware of any problems with the boards to precipitate the kind of drastic change described by Ms. Dougall-Sides. Based on his experience as a board member since the mid 1980’s, he reiterated his concern with spending such a high level of effort to correct things that are working well. He felt the current process of appointing boards of knowledgeable citizens to review applications is appropriate, works better and is better accepted by citizens than staff approval, and provides for an appeal process. Mr. Stuart noted the perception that the City government process is cumbersome. He did not think the City was trying to eliminate the non-developmental advisory boards, but was looking at the quasi-judicial boards to streamline the development process. He questioned whether the existing quasi-judicial boards were established by charter. It was indicated the Planning and Zoning Board was established by charter, the others by ordinance. Mr. Schwob stated it is not the boards, but the code that is cumbersome. Mr. Stuart suggested the boards may not want to hear about the amendment process while it is being legally challenged. Mr. Gans recognized developers are frustrated by the code, but expressed concern related to correspondence he has received referring to the Land Development Code being rewritten into a book of guidelines rather than rules. Reading from the correspondence, he discussed the revision process, board consolidation, and redevelopment standards. He expressed strong concern with the lack of communication Member Jonnatti agreed the code is unwieldy. He compared the City’s code to that of Seaside, Florida, whose land development regulations are written on one sheet of paper. He pointed out one small document covers all the situations that arise, with the discrepancies being handled by variances. He agreed with Mr. Stuart the amendment will go through the public hearing process, but he did not feel it would go forward until after selection of the new City Manager. Member Schwob indicated he was satisfied the revision process is still preliminary, and excessive concern at this point may be premature. He asserted he would like to call the Mayor to personally relate his comments in favor of streamlining the Land Development Code, but not supporting changes to the advisory/quasi-judicial board systems. He asked Mr. Richter to pass along his suggestion to City administration, that the boards would like the opportunity to review the changes and offer input before any substantive decisions are finalized. Board consensus was this is a reasonable approach. In a separate issue, Ms. Dougall-Sides reported the decision to grant the Carlouel Yacht Club variances was appealed (DCAB 3/13/97; VR 97-21.) Materials are being gathered for submission to the Division of Administrative Hearings, but the case has not been scheduled. Mr. Jonnatti indicated there had been discussion whether one DCAB member had been inappropriately excluded from voting on that case. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.