Loading...
07/24/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER July 24, 1997 Present: Otto Gans Chair William Johnson Board Member Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Richard Hull Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter Absent: William Schwob Vice Chair The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, meeting procedures and explanation of the appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items B1. (Time Extension Request) Helen V. Robinson/Tom M. Sehlhorst for the following variance: (1) a setback variance of 10 ft to allow a building zero ft from the rear property line where a minimum setback of 10 ft is required; (2) a lot area variance of 2208 sq ft to allow an area of 5292 sq ft where a minimum of 7500 sq ft is required; and (3) a lot depth variance of 58 ft to allow a depth 42 ft where a minimum of 100 ft is required at the SW corner of N. Myrtle Ave & Pinellas Trail, J.J. Eldridge Sub, North 71 ft of Blk E, South 20 ft of the North 91 ft of Blk E less street on East and the South 35 ft of the North 126 ft less street on East, zoned CI (Infill Commercial). VR 96-48 In a letter dated July 7, 1997, the applicant requested a time extension due to difficulties with the project causing delays in obtaining the building permit. Discussion ensued regarding reasons cited for the extensions Member Johnson moved to grant a one year time extension to July 11, 1998. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. New Variance Requests C1. Grove Partnership/James G. & Marjorie B. Grove the structural setback variance required to permit a detached single family dwelling unit within the structural setback from a street right-of-way (Jewel Street), at 730 Bruce Ave., Mandalay Sub, Blk 14, Lot 11, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 97-40 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to demolish an existing garage and construct a new single family residence on the subject property. He detailed the location, lot configuration, site constraints, setbacks and existing development, and highlighted the difficulties with placing a home on the irregularly shaped corner lot. It was indicated removal of the garage on the subject property will require providing two off street parking spaces on the adjacent property at 732 Bruce Avenue. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Mr. Richter provided clarification and lengthy discussion ensued regarding the code requirement for the applicant to provide off-street parking spaces for the adjacent property. James Grove, the owner/applicant, stated the lot has been in his family for many years, he owns and leases out the adjacent property at 732 Bruce Avenue, and his mother lives across the street. He concurred with the staff report, stating he will meet whatever codes are necessary to construct his home. Conclusion of this item was delayed to the end of Item C2, to give Mr. Grove the opportunity to review correspondence in opposition to this request. When discussion resumed, Mr. Grove related the history of parking at this location, stating the proposal will not contribute to flooding on the subject property. He reiterated his desire to build a home for use as his primary residence to facilitate taking care of his mother and maintaining his rental properties in the vicinity. He responded to concern regarding the condition of the garage, stating he did not improve it because he knew it would have to be razed to build his new home. If he is not allowed to build on the site, he will improve instead of razing the garage. Van Berg, contractor representing the applicant, related construction details in view of the site constraints. He was not aware of the parking requirements for the adjacent lot, but stated he has no problem with compliance. No verbal or written support was expressed. One person spoke on behalf of neighbors of the subject property. He displayed photographs and cited concerns regarding the need to maintain the current level of off-street parking for the tenants at 732 Bruce Avenue. It was indicated the tenant of 25 years needs room to park two vehicles and a trailer. In response to a question, he said setbacks are not the main concern. Discussion ensued regarding parking requirements in relation to right-of-way setbacks and potential driveway configuration on the subject and adjacent properties. Three letters and one petition containing approximately 22 signatures were submitted in opposition to the request, reiterating the above concerns and citing the following:: 1) adverse impacts on the surrounding properties; 2) the application does not meet the standards for approval; 3)  design of the two-story proposal is not consistent with single story homes in the neighborhood; 4) the proposal is for economic gain; 5) inadequate maintenance and debris on the existing property; 6)  the potential for use as a rental property; 7) potential appearance of a home’s utility areas from abutting rights-of-way; and 8) low grade elevation increasing the potential for flooding adjacent properties. Mr. Grove responded he has always tried to be a good neighbor and intends no harm. He said the public frequently parks on his lot to avoid high water. He expressed appreciation to his tenants of more than 20 years, stating he will do what is necessary to meet code. He expressed reluctance to having a trailer parked in front of either property, stating the tenant may have to make other arrangements. Discussion resumed regarding construction and parking requirements; aesthetics and enforcement. 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; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The adjacent property addressed as 732 Bruce Avenue shall be provided with two off-street parking spaces in accordance with code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. Victor & Mihailo M. Jevtic for the following variances (1) the structural setback variance required to permit a swimming pool deck above 12 inches in height within the structural setback from a side property line (east side); and (2) the structural setback variance required to permit stairs above 12 inches in height within the structural setback from the rear property line at 401 Palm Island NE, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 6B, Lot 98, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 97-41 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is requesting the variances to complete a pool deck, and provide stairs down to the dock at the rear of the property. He related setback requirements, lot configuration, pool and deck placement. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Mr. Richter responded to questions regarding the Building Official’s authority to allow construction within 18 feet of a seawall; details of the dock proposal; and the board’s lack of jurisdiction in deed restriction enforcement. Victor Jevtic, the owner/applicant, said the deck will not extend more than 1.5 feet above grade. The steps are needed to avoid having to jump down two feet to the dock. He responded to questions regarding details of pool construction already underway, stating he has received a building permit. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. A letter from the homeowners’ association concerned deed restrictions. The Chair reiterated the board has no jurisdiction over deed restrictions. 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; 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. C3. George D. & Patricia W. Youstra the structural setback variance required to permit a pool screen enclosure within the structural setback from a side property line at 3351 San Jose St., Del Oro Groves, part of Lot 175, together with Lots 176-178, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 97-42 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to construct a screen enclosure for an existing swimming pool. He related the location, setbacks, pool placement and factors involved in enclosing the pool for safe access. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. George Youstra, the owner/applicant, concurred with the staff report. He and his family use the pool extensively for medical reasons. Money for the enclosure was received as a birthday gift from Clearwater Christian College where he is president. No verbal support or opposition was expressed. One letter from adjacent property owners was submitted in support of the application. The board commented the proposal would be unobtrusive and consistent with neighborhood conditions. 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; 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. C4. Philip H & Michele Eaton for the following variances (1) a fence/wall height variance within the structural setback from a street right-of-way; (2) a fence/wall setback variance from a street right-of-way; (3) a fence/wall landscape buffer variance adjacent to a street right-of-way; and (4) a variance to allow a fence/wall within the waterfront setback at 979 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub, Blk 265, Lots 3 & 4, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 9744 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to redevelop the waterfront property with a new single family home. The home must be elevated to meet flood zone requirements. The applicant proposes raising the grade with fill. A three foot high retaining wall topped with a decorative picket fence will contain the fill and divert water runoff away from adjacent properties. He outlined the location and code requirements for fence height, setbacks, landscaping, and proximity to the seawall. Staff felt conditions support the majority of the request subject to two standard conditions. Staff did not recommend approval of the proposal to construct decorative fence-topped walls extending along the side property lines to the seawall because such structures may limit views of Clearwater Harbor by neighbors to the north and south. In response to questions, Mr. Richter clarified his recommendations regarding the wall/fence, requested waiver of the landscaping buffer, and whether the request is the minimum. Examples of similar decorative walls and fences in the vicinity were cited. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, reiterated primary reasons for the requested retaining wall. He addressed staff’s concerns and explained in detail how the proposal was created to correspond with the neighbors’ wishes. A letter in support from the adjacent property owner to the north and an enlargement of the survey provided to the board were submitted for the record. Discussion ensued regarding alternatives to the wall/fence as proposed, and conditions on other properties in the area. No verbal or written opposition was expressed. Board discussion resumed regarding alternatives to the proposed wall/fence along the side property lines. While board members generally agreed a retaining wall is needed and such a structure should not exceed three foot in height within ten feet of the seawall. Discussion ensued regarding aesthetics of the proposal, whether or not the front wall location aligns with any other structures, and whether the design will adequately protect adjacent properties from water erosion. It was recommended the Building Department address these and other issues during site plan review. Member Jonnatti moved to grant Variances #1 #2 and #3 as requested, 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) Alignment of the new wall in front shall not extend any farther west than the general alignment of the existing adjacent wall; and 4) The drainage situation shall be reviewed and deemed acceptable to City staff. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Jonnatti moved to grant Variance #4 as amended, subject to Conditions 1); 2); and 3) the wall shall not exceed three feet in height; and no picket fence or other structure is allowed to be constructed on top of the wall within ten feet of the seawall. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C5. Stephen E. Terepka (Spirit Cleaners) a parking space variance to allow fewer parking space than the required at 3032 SR 590, Sall’s Lake Park, Unit B, Tract B, zoned CPD (Commercial Planned Development). V 97-46 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is pursuing rezoning to develop a vacant property with a dry cleaning business. He related parking requirements and demand for a dry cleaning business with a drive-through window. Steve Terepka, the owner/applicant, affirmed the nature of the business does not create a large parking demand. In response to questions, he said no vehicular access will be provided through the cul-de-sac in the residential development to the rear of the property. A maximum of nine employees work at once, and not all of them drive to work because they live in the area. A question was raised whether approval should be limited to the proposed use. Mr. Terepka expressed concerns with imposing conditions that could inhibit future sale of the property. Discussion ensued regarding parking and use alternatives under CPD zoning. Mr. Richter clarified conversion to a use requiring more parking would require another appearance before the board. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Stuart 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) It appears that the wall and fence along the side lot lines in the waterfront setback are not necessary; 2) The requisite building permit shall be obtained within one year of the date of this public hearing; and 3) The granting of this variance is contingent upon approval of the rezoning of this property by the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed from 3:04 to 3:12 p.m. C6. L.O.M., Inc. for the following variances (1) for a parking space variance to allow fewer parking spaces than the required; (2) the structural setback variance required to permit a deck within the street setback area of South Gulfview Blvd.; (3) a structural setback variance required to permit a deck within the side (north) setback area; (4) an open space variance, for the lot, to allow less than the required; and (5) an open space variance, for the front yard, to allow less than the required at 309 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd-White Skinner Sub, Lots 60-62, 108, 109, and part of Lot 107, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 97-45 Mr. Richter presented background information, summarized details of the project currently under development, and results of four separate requests for variances for the project. The current variances relate to a raised terrace for outdoor restaurant seating and a relocated dumpster. Mr. Richter deferred staff’s recommendation to hear the applicants’ report of recent modifications made in response to concerns. Harry Cline, attorney representing the owners, stated they have responded to concerns by lowering the deck height to no more than one foot above grade, and designing a seven foot high wall along the entire length of the deck on the north side to enclose the outdoor seating area and buffer any impacts to the adjacent Beach Place Motel to the north. He explained how the applicant has responded to a list of concerns cited in a July 23 letter from the motel owner. He specifically asked the board not to require an after-hours security guard, and said the applicant wishes to have soft background music and speakers outdoors to call diners to their tables. Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, displayed a modified site plan, indicating where the proposal has changed regarding the dumpster, seating, wall and fence. Discussion ensued regarding increased size of the outdoor seating area, location and placement of an outdoor service window. Board members strongly emphasized the outdoor seating area should always remain open, and never covered or enclosed, to maintain the desired ambiance and million-dollar view of the Gulf of Mexico. Lengthy discussion ensued comparing the proposal to Britt’s Café on the north beach, where the applicant built outside the scope of approved variances. Desireé Avaritt responded to questions, stating she designed and will run a very upscale, fine dining, steak house restaurant. The terrace will provide a private courtyard atmosphere for diners waiting for tables because the restaurant has no lobby. The outdoor area may be used for overflow restaurant seating when necessary. She indicated the proposal does not compare to Britt’s Café. Easy listening music will play at low to moderate volume and every area will have its own separate volume control. She said such music is necessary to the dining experience. Discussion ensued regarding other establishments with outdoor seating areas where canopies were approved. Discussion ensued regarding open space requirements, calculations, setbacks, deck configuration, wall placement, design, seating, music, and dumpster relocation. Mr. Fowler responded to detailed questions regarding calculations for open space variances for the front yard and total lot. Discussion ensued regarding the City Traffic Engineering Department’s opposition to the front setback variance due to concerns it would create vehicular and pedestrian hazards in the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way. Concern was expressed with one large palm tree blocking the view of approaching traffic. It was indicated the palms at this location were recommended by the City to meet the landscaping requirements. Staff was asked to investigate. In response to questions, Mr. Richter said the revision as presented appears superior to the previous plan and addresses neighborhood property owners’ concerns. He was satisfied the requested variances are adequate. He was not aware whether the Traffic Engineer had seen the revised plan. Discussion with Mr. Fowler ensued regarding details of the amended plan. Board members debated the merits of outdoor music and speakers, compared to live entertainment. Earlier emphasis on the importance of maintaining the appropriate atmosphere was reiterated. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. One letter from the adjacent property owner requested specific conditions of approval designed to mitigate the negative impacts of the proposal on the motel operation to the north. Mr. Cline summarized the request, the project, its setting, site history, approved variances, and parking compliance. Assistant City Attorney Dick Hull recommended a condition of approval requiring dismissal of a pending appeal regarding denied variances. Mr. Cline affirmed, if the requested variances are approved, the pending appeal will be withdrawn upon expiration of the appeal period for today’s variances. Discussion ensued regarding one board member’s concerns: 1) outdoor music is a non-issue because the City can be relied upon to enforce the noise ordinance; 2) disappointment with the applicant having sought multiple parking variances; 3) the dumpster relocation; 4) reluctance to set a precedent for granting right-of-way setback and open space variances for new developments; and 5) proposals overbuilding the front of sites to facilitate customer access may be based on economic gain. To clarify the board’s intent for each variance, consensus was to act on the variances individually. Member Johnson moved to grant Variance #1 for two parking spaces 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 board recommends granting no further administrative parking variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Johnson moved to grant Variance #2 to allow the steps 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 conditions 1) and 2) above. Members Gans, Johnson, and Stuart voted "Aye"; Member Jonnatti voted "Nay." Motion carried. Mr. Cline stated the applicant has withdrawn Variance #3 to the north property line. Member Johnson moved to accept withdrawal of Variance #3. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Johnson moved to grant Variance #4 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 conditions 1) and 2) above; and 4) The applicant shall dismiss the pending appeal within 14 days from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Johnson moved to grant Variance #5 as requested subject to conditions 1) and 2) above; 5) There shall be no outdoor music or speakers; and 6)  hours of operation for the outdoor seating area shall close at 11:00 p.m. Members Gans, Johnson, and Stuart voted "Aye"; Member Jonnatti voted "Nay." Motion carried. Member Johnson moved to recommend staff consideration of administrative approval for a seven foot tall fence to screen the outdoor seating area from the adjacent property to the north. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval -- July 10, 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 Mr. Gans asked to be advised when Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford can be scheduled to address the board. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.