Loading...
05/08/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER May 8, 1997 Present: Otto Gans William Schwob William Johnson Ron Stuart Mark Jonnatti 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 City Hall, 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 3/13/96) 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 96-69 The applicant requested a continuance to allow additional time for the Pinellas County School Board to consider, formulate its policy, and complete a report on co-location of antennae on telecommunication towers on school board property. Persons in the audience wishing to speak in opposition to the application were advised to give their telephone numbers to staff so they may be contacted if the application is continued again. Member Johnson moved to continue Item VR 96-69 to the meeting of July 10, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B2. (Cont. from 4/10/97) 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.) VR 9726 The applicants requested a continuance to allow additional time to work with the neighbor to the south. Mr. Richter will ask the applicant or a representative for direction regarding board access to the site before the case comes back before the board. Member Schwob moved to continue Item B2, VR 97-26, to the meeting of May 22, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B3. (cont. from 4/24/97) Phillip Halchuk (Clearwater Children Center) for a front yard open space variance of 27.2 percent to allow 27.8 percent where a minimum of 55 percent is required at 802 Turner St., Magnolia Park, Blk 17, Lots 14, 15, & part of Lot 16 less road right-of-way, zoned OL (Limited Office). VR 97-29 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is seeking a variance to allow his recently expanded parking lot to remain. No permit was obtained for the expansion, but the shortage of front yard open space does not detract from the appearance of the property, because the corner lot exceeds open space requirements in the rear and side yards. Mr. Richter related open space and landscaping requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Philip Halchuk, the owner/applicant, said he needed to expand his daycare parking lot to accommodate parents picking up their children. In response to questions, Mr. Richter referred to Building Official comments indicating a previous building permit had expired without the applicant having addressed certain code compliance issues. A notice of violation was subsequently issued for parking and fences installed without permits. Mr. Halchuk complained he has had to pay for three different sets of plans because he received contradictory information from different City Departments. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. 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 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing; and 3)  The parking space at the southeast corner of the lot shall be removed to meet the interior landscaping requirements of the code. Upon removal, a shade tree at least eight feet in height shall be planted where the parking space was located. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. New Variance Requests C1. L.O.M., Inc. (Legends Steakhouse & Surfwest Retail) for the following variances: (1) a setback variance of 15 ft to allow a deck/entryway zero ft from the South Gulfview Blvd. right-of way where a minimum setback of 15 ft is required; (2) a setback variance of 10 ft to allow a deck/entryway 3 ft from the North property line where a minimum setback of 13 ft is required; (3) an open space variance of 3.5 percent to allow 21.5 percent where a minimum of 25 percent is required; (4) a setback variance of 9 ft to allow a deck 4 ft from the South side property line where a minimum setback of 13 ft is required; and (5) a front yard open space variance of 19.7 percent to allow 30.3 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is required at 309 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 60-62, 108 & 109 together with a portion of Lot 107, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). VR 97-30 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the property is under development with two buildings; a retail/restaurant to the north, and a delicatessen to the south. Rear setback and parking variances were granted on April 25, 1996. A variance to the south side setback was denied on May 9, 1996. Non-conforming raised terraces have been added to the northwest corner of the restaurant, and to the south side of the delicatessen. Mr. Richter reviewed conditions of the existing and surrounding development; and requirements for setbacks, open space, and landscaping. He indicated surrounding conditions do not support approval of the requested variances. Numerous concerns were cited regarding the potential adverse effect of the terraces on the enjoyment and use of surrounding commercial and residential properties. Concern was expressed, if terraces were wanted, they should have been planned as an integral part of earlier plans, in accordance with setback and open space requirements. Staff did not recommend approval as the request does not comply with the standards for approval. If the board should grant the request, four conditions were recommended. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said there was no indication at the time of the original variance request, that more variances would be requested. Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, explained the request. The proposal on the south is to elevate the grade to provide sidewalk access to a side pass-through window; allowing beachgoers to shop without going inside the delicatessen. On the north side, steps were constructed within the setback to provide access to the front door of the restaurant. Mr. Fowler said the steps are non-conforming because he was not aware steps are considered a structure when they are more than 12 inches high. He said the City’s Design Review Board (DRB) suggested green space in front of the restaurant, an idea that led to the elevated terrace design, created for overflow patrons waiting outside to enjoy the view. He submitted drawings showing the north terrace being screened from neighbors to the north, with a four to six foot high lattice and landscaping buffer. Discussion ensued regarding the north terrace illustration; setbacks and wall height restrictions; an existing concrete block wall straddling the south property line; how the applicants have worked with neighbors on the north and south sides to accommodate their concerns regarding view and noise. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, provided a history of previous variances for the site; outdoor seating and open space requirements. He indicated staff’s criticism that outdoor seating should have been designed in the beginning was unwarranted, because the seating area had been created at the suggestion of the DRB. The outdoor seating will be limited to the northwest corner of the restaurant. He explained in detail how the applicant proposes to address neighbors’ concerns regarding noise and proximity. He detailed surrounding conditions and other commercial establishments that have site details in common with the subject application. Mr. Cline responded to questions regarding the flood plane elevation and ADA requirements regarding handrails. He disagreed with the staff report indicating the variances were major or significant, and asserted you cannot hold to a pure standard in a neighborhood that is 80 percent non-conforming. He said the restaurant will be an attribute to the community and further explained the need for the variances. Mr. Cline submitted a letter and two petitions in support of the application. He stated it is difficult to hear what is being said over the noise of the new air conditioning equipment in chambers. Mr. Fowler and Mr. Cline responded to questions regarding the need to elevate the south sidewalk; why the pass-through window on the original plan was elevated so far above grade; deck and slope heights; reason for the non-conforming steps in the front; anticipated number of tables and chairs on the north terrace; hours of operation; and the property/business ownership. Board members tried to determine who is the property owner making the application and whether that owner also owns Britt’s Café. Board concerns were expressed an administrative variance was granted for one additional parking space in order to relocate a dumpster to a location more convenient for service vehicle access. Four persons spoke in opposition to the request, as follows: Anne Garris cited the zoning history of Clearwater beach, expressing concerns with any proposal to decrease open space and increase crowding; stating the applicant should have been more forward thinking; the City was being bullied; the dumpster was relocated three feet from the residence of the person who had reported the building permit violation; and with throwing away the rules to allow a larger business to adversely impact surrounding property owners. Mike Overman, employed by the adjacent Beach Place Motel to the north, spoke on behalf of its owner, Kaz Rolewski. He said the applicant did not contact them regarding their plans, and expressed concerns the application overbuilds the site; indications the serving window was planned ahead of time; the applicants are trying to circumvent the City’s rules and enhance their sales area for economic gain; and his motel will lose business as a result of the negative impact of the proposal. He submitted a four page letter of opposition from Mr. Rolewski, citing similar concerns. Evelyn Gibson, residential property owner to the south for 22 years, submitted two photographic composites illustrating the negative impact on her residence. She related an extensive history of property ownership and structural details in the vicinity; and her observation of construction as it has progressed. She complained her vista and Gulf breezes are blocked; foul odors come from the dumpster enclosure constructed three feet from her front sitting area; and her questions regarding parking and seating provision remain unanswered. She cited the negative impacts from construction noise; unrepaired damage to her property caused by the contractors; and the contractors’ use of her water supply. She said she and her husband have tried to be good neighbors, but have been abused and manipulated. She objected to being told the dumpster would be moved if the applicants were allowed to have their variances. Ken Rosenow, Mr. Rolewski’s general partner, shared concerns the noise and encroachment will hurt motel business. He stressed development needs proper planning and design forethought to be an asset to Clearwater beach. He chided the applicants’ representatives for seeking additional variances instead of proceeding with what was already approved. He noted variances exist to help properties built before the current code, and should not be granted to help new development become non-conforming. Mr. Cline responded to the objections, reiterating his complaint it was difficult to hear what had been said. He said the proposal has addressed Mr. Rolewski’s concerns, and can coexist with the surrounding properties. In response to a question, he said the damage to Ms. Gibson’s storage shed has been reported to the contractor, who has a commitment to repair the damage after the end of construction. Mr. Fowler responded to questions regarding the front steps, and dumpster placement. He understood the steps will have to be removed if the variance is not granted. He said the change in dumpster location was recommended by the City. Board discussion ensued. One member felt Mr. Richter’s analysis was very astute, agreed the variances were significant; and opposed granting additional setback variances for the subject property. One member wholeheartedly agreed with Mr. Richter’s presentation, and indicated he was influenced by the citizens’ point of view regarding the request. While he agreed with the sidewalk café concept, he felt having the outdoor areas elevated far above the sidewalk does not meet the City’s intent for sidewalk cafés. He stated he would not support any of the variances. One member felt the structure would have been a welcome addition to the beach, but the proposal had been mishandled from the beginning, and the board had no choice but to deny the current request. In response to questions, Mr. Richter he would not have supported the current proposal if it had been submitted as part of the original plan. Board members indicated they did not wish to create an access problem for the applicant and questioned whether any difficulties in this regard could be addressed administratively. Mr. Richter felt the restaurant would meet the access code without the non-conforming steps, but noted the front setback variance is primarily for the raised planter. Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated staff will be looking at the setbacks and the permit issue involving the steps. Board discussion indicated, whether or not the applicants received contradictory information from City staff, the board must leave the building design to the experts. It was indicated for the record the board encouraged staff to grant whatever administrative variance is necessary to allow access to the building. One member suggested the City’s decision to relocate the dumpster to its present location had been one-sided by not taking into account the impact of the dumpster on the adjacent homeowner. The board strongly recommended that the City investigate moving the dumpster to another location satisfactory to all concerned. 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, more specifically because: 1) There are not special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings; 2) the strict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings; and 3) the variance is based exclusively upon a desire for economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (CNHS) for the following variances: (1) a setback variance of 9 ft to allow a house 16 ft from the Nicholson St. right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; and (2) a lot width variance of 19.45 ft to allow a width of 50.55 ft where a minimum of 70 ft is required at 811 Vine Ave, Pine Crest Sub, Blk 5, part of Lot 20, zoned RM 8 (Multi-Family Residential). VR 9731 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the variances are needed to construct a new home on the substandard-sized vacant lot. It was indicated the development is in character with the rest of the neighborhood. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. E.J. Robinson, Construction Specialist for the City, presented the request on behalf of the applicants. He responded to questions regarding site conditions, the proposed development, and the location of eight lots that CNHS will develop with new houses. The board praised the work of Mr. Robinson and CNHS, stating the homes they build continue to look good after several years. 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; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. C3. Robert L. Root, TRE for a vegetative buffer variance of 25 ft to allow a zero ft wide vegetative buffer strip where a minimum of 25 ft is required at 2436 Enterprise Rd, Sec 31-28-16, M&B 12.05, zoned RM 16 (Multi-Family Residential). VR 97-32 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to construct a single family residence alongside a wetland that is subject to the jurisdiction of the State DEP. Based on the recommendation of the City Environmental Official, the DCAB had granted the same variances on February 8, 1996, for a group home proposed, but not built on the property. The current design is small and has less impact. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions. Ms. Dougall-Sides recommended adding a condition rescinding the previous variance as it was not clear whether the previous time frame had expired. Robert Root, co-administrator for the trust that owns the property, presented the request. He affirmed the present plan is for a single family dwelling, but requested not to be limited to single-family, due to the multi-family zoning. Based on the plans submitted with the application the board felt it necessary to condition approval to single family. Mr. Root asked for clarification of the condition recommending architectural compatibility with adjacent condominiums. Board members felt the wording of the condition was broad enough to allow design latitude. Mr. Richter said the City staff member who will be reviewing the plans is an architect who would be available to consult with the applicant prior to reviewing the plans. The board encouraged the applicant to take advantage of this opportunity. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. One member noted environmental concerns had been expressed previously. Based on the Environmental Official’s comments at the last meeting, the board was satisfied the proposal will not exacerbate flooding or adversely impact habitat. 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; 3) A copy of an approved permit modification from the DEP shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit; 4) The building shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the neighboring condominium buildings. Elevation drawings shall be submitted to the City planner responsible for design review and shall be subject to approval by the planner prior to issuance of a building permit; 5) the variances previously granted in case V 9560 are hereby rescinded; and 6) The structure will be a single family residence. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4. Victor A. Ulmer & Maureen F. Lyons for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the Broadway right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is required at 1154 Granada St., La Jolla Sub, Blk A, Lot 28, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 97-33 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant has enclosed the area on the north side of the existing home with a non-conforming six foot high fence. He detailed building setbacks, fence height requirements, and site considerations. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Victor Ulmer, the owner/applicant, stressed he was not aware he could not replace what was existing without a building permit. It was necessary for him to remove a previously existing privacy fence that was in an advanced state of deterioration due to decay and termites. He said a portion of the fence had blown down, narrowly missing the neighbors’ cars. Mr. Ulmer had purchased materials and began replacing the fence the same day. He wishes to keep the fence for privacy, additional living space, security, to deter theft from his yard, and for the safety of any children he may have in the future. In response to questions, Mr. Ulmer noted a portion of the fence remains open due to the stop work order. While he would have liked to keep the Confederate jasmine growing along the fence, he agreed it was sparse and he understood the requirement to fully landscape along the fence line. He reiterated it was not his intention to force the variance issue; he simply was not aware of the fence height and permitting requirements. Certain board members recommended waiving the triple permit fee. 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) 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing; 3) The property owner shall plant a landscape buffer on the outside of the fence parallel to the Broadway right-of-way. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the Official. The landscaping shall be maintained in healthy condition; failure to do so shall negate approval of the variance; and 4) It is recommended for the applicant not to be charged triple permit fees. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval -- April 24, 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 by a vote of 4-0, as Member Jonnatti had not attended the April 24 meeting. Board and Staff Comments In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides reported the Carlouel Yacht Club appeal is scheduled for June 13. She will check on the location and inform the board. Mr. Richter said he had reported the boards’ concerns regarding the new air conditioning equipment and was sorry the report did not get results. Mr. Stuart expressed concern regarding the temperature extremes; the room had been cold at the last meeting, but was hot today. Member Stuart requested staff to consider scheduling complicated or controversial cases at the end of the agenda as a courtesy to the other applicants. Mr. Richter explained the usual procedure of scheduling applications in the order they are received. He was agreeable to attempting the change, but noted it is not always possible to anticipate which cases will take an extended amount of time. Discussion ensued regarding the issue, and consensus was to attempt the change, for a trial period of three meetings. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:49 p.m.