Loading...
09/25/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER September 25, 1997 Present: Otto Gans Chair William Schwob Vice Chair William Johnson Board Member Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter 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. C. New Variance Requests C1. Donald R. & M. June Clark for a fence height variance within the structural setback from a street right-of-way at 2197 Bell Cheer Dr., Bell Cheer Sub, East 100 ft of Lots 20 & 21, zoned RS 8 (Residential Single Family). V 97-57 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to enclose the side and rear yards with a six foot high fence. He detailed setback, fence height and landscaping requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Johnny Cooper submitted notarized authorization to represent the applicant. Mr. Cooper said the applicant is currently out of town, but will return in time to submit a landscaping plan and complete the work within 30 days of building the fence. Mr. Cooper stated he owned and operated a professional nursery/landscaping company for years. He recommended a podocarpus hedge to buffer outside the fence because they do not grow as wide as ligustrum and would be easier to keep trimmed back from the sidewalk. 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; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The property owner shall within 30 days after installation of the fence, plant a landscape buffer outside the fence parallel to the Belcher Road right-of-way. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least 18 inches in height at the time of planting. The plants shall form a continuous, solid screen at maturity. Prior to installation, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City’s Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. Christopher S. & Ami N. Dunn the structural setback variance required to permit an open porch within the structural setback from a street right-of-way (Glenwood Ave.) at 204 S. Glenwood Ave., Crest Lake park Sub, Blk A, Lot 15, zoned RS 8 (Residential Single Family). V 97-58 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to construct a porch on the front of his home. He detailed the property’s location and setback requirements. Referring to a front elevation drawing, he stated the porch will complement the appearance of the house and neighborhood. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Christopher Dunn, the owner/applicant, stated all the surrounding residents viewed and approved his plans. An architect designed the porch to harmonize with the wood frame house. Mr. Dunn and his wife wish to use the porch to enjoy the view of Crest Lake Park, across the street. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board members felt the eight foot size was reasonable, less wasteful of materials, and the minimum width for comfortable seating. 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) Within 30 days following completion of the porch, landscaping shall be provided along the east side of the porch foundation to soften its encroachment into the front setback and enhance the appearance of the addition. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3. Mitchell I. Singer & Russell Remick d.b.a. R S R Partnership (bw-3 Grill & Pub) a parking space variance to allow fewer parking spaces than the required at 2284 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.18, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 97-59 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to continue operation of an existing restaurant and pub, changing the alcoholic beverage license from 4-COP SRX (restaurants) to 4-COP (nightclubs or bars), which carries a heavier parking requirement. He detailed parking requirements associated with the two uses. The change is proposed to eliminate the State’s requirement for 51 percent of monthly revenues to be generated from food sales. The parking need is not expected to change, as the applicant does not propose to change the actual operation of the restaurant, only to remove the monthly food sales requirement of the current license due to fluctuating food sales. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with one condition. Mr. Richter responded to questions regarding parking space calculations and change of use requirements. Discussion ensued regarding how changing to a more intensive use could affect the parking provision. Mr. Richter and Ms. Dougall-Sides pointed out the variance would be tied to documents and testimony stating the current use will not change. The parking variance would not carry with the property and an alcoholic beverage license change of ownership would trigger an appearance before the Planning and Zoning Board. Angelina Grimes, attorney representing the applicants, agreed with staff’s report. She detailed requirements associated with the change of license, stating the business was cited by the State for not meeting the 51 percent food sales requirement. While the applicants have incorporated innovative ways of increasing food sales, they do not want to worry every month whether the requirement will be met. They are asking for the opportunity to continue running the restaurant exactly as it has been. Parking has been ample for the past year and no change is anticipated. Ms. Grimes responded to questions stating food sales are anticipated to continue in the 40 percent range, or higher. Entertainment consists of several televisions, and no live entertainment or contests are proposed. Michael Kody, the restaurant manager, defined the operation as a grille and pub with a goal of 73 percent food sales. He said his food sales have suffered due to a burger war in progress at the surrounding fast food restaurants. He responded to concerns the business has the appearance of a sports bar, described the interactive television designed to attract a young crowd, detailed the operation of his full menu restaurant, and anticipated percentages of sales. He will be changing from a full liquor bar to beer and wine sales only. It was indicated overflow parking is available on an adjacent property if it ever becomes necessary. Mr. Richter explained the City had found it necessary to create a more intensive parking requirement for nightclubs due to the severity of parking problems created in the past by extremely intensive nightclub uses on the subject property. It was indicated the applicant’s request bears little resemblance to such uses, which are becoming rare in the City. Board members agreed the subject business appears to be caught between definitions, and were satisfied with testimony the restaurant use of the current business will not change. 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 standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to the following condition: 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) In the event conditional use approval is denied, the parking variance is rescinded. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4. City of Clearwater (Kings Highway Recreation Center) the structural setback variance required to permit an addition to an existing building which is within the structural setback from a street right-of-way (Heaven Sent Lane) at 1751 Kings Highway, Sec 2-29-15, M&B 33.02, zoned OS/R (Open Space/Recreational). V 97-60 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes a 680 square foot addition on the north side of the existing Kings Highway Recreation Center. He detailed setback requirements and site constraints, noting the addition is positioned to avoid loss of any trees on the heavily vegetated site. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. James Jerkins, representing the City’s Building and Maintenance Division, stated the addition will serve two purposes. Half will provide storage space for Parks and Recreation Department tables, chairs, and other equipment. The other half will serve as a mechanical room for air conditioning equipment, allowing removal of two large air handlers from the recreation center’s ceiling, providing easier access. In response to questions, Mr. Jerkins said no changes are being considered to the exterior area containing the condensing units. He agreed to arrange extension of existing landscaping to screen the area. Discussion ensued regarding site, building, and equipment configuration. No verbal or written support was expressed. One adjacent resident spoke in opposition and submitted a petition containing residents’ signatures from seven of the eight properties on adjacent Heaven Sent Lane. They objected to construction of a structure three feet from the right-of-way, citing concerns it would adversely affect public safety, environment, appearance, create noise, nuisance, violate Code and the land use plan, and impede policing and enforcement of the Drug Free School Zone. While the residents welcomed expansion of the facility, it was strongly urged to locate the addition on a different side of the existing structure. Concerns were expressed the proposed location would enable children to climb a tree to access the roof, reduce effectiveness of recreation center staff supervision due to reducing their field of vision, and create a hiding place for criminals. In response to board questions, it was indicated no City representative visited the neighbors when the project was undertaken. Concerns were expressed City employees customarily park City vehicles along Heaven Sent Lane while taking lunch breaks. The possibility of a fence along the north side of the subject property was discussed. Mr. Jerkins responded to concerns, stating it is not possible to locate the addition on the east side due to the lay of the roof and position of closets inside containing the building’s electrical panels. Locating the addition on the west side would require running 75 feet of additional air conditioning trunk lines. Staff did not want to change the facade by locating the addition on the south side. Discussion ensued regarding center activities that would be disrupted by relocation of the building’s services, and impact on the project’s cost. Mr. Jerkins did not foresee any change in equipment noise levels to the north. He was not aware of City vehicles parking along the street during lunch time. He noted the large water tower at the end of the street requires routine maintenance. He did not understand how the project could adversely affect public safety, environment, appearance, or create a nuisance. He said no new recreational programs were planned due to the addition. Discussion ensued regarding whether a continuance was needed to allow time for the City to meet with the neighbors to address their concerns. Two members did not agree with the stated rationale for siting the addition, indicating they felt another location could be found. While one member agreed another location might be found, he questioned the financial costs of time and materials, and the social costs of disrupting established programs. While one member objected that encouraging the applicant to request a continuance takes objectivity out of the board’s hands, another noted one of the board’s strengths is trying to work out solutions to everyone’s benefit. Mr. Jerkins requested a continuance to further study the issue. Member Johnson moved to continue Item C4, VR 97-60 to the meeting of October 23. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Schwob, Johnson, and Jonnatti voted “Aye;” Member Stuart voted “Nay.” Motion carried. C5. Ted & Maria Lenart TRE/Lenart Family Trust (Econo Lodge Resort) the structural setback variance required to permit open balconies within the side structural setback area at 625 S. Gulfview Blvd., Bayside Sub. No. 5 Blk C, Lots 6 & 7 and riparian rights, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 97-61 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to construct balconies for three units on the east side of an existing motel. All other units have balconies. The owner proposes to remove the deck, gym and spa on the top floor, and add floor area to provide one new unit with a balcony, an employee lunch room and locker room. The new unit will replace one unit being converted into a guest coin laundry room. He detailed setback requirements, and compared existing site configuration to what is proposed. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions. The board stressed the importance of ensuring use of the new construction as a motel unit in the future. Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, agreed with staff’s report. He referred to a small scale site plan, noting the balconies will overlook the easterly neighbor’s parking lot and will have no adverse impact. It was noted for the record a drawing of the east elevation in the staff report is incorrectly labeled, “west elevation.” In response to questions, Mr. Fowler stated a total of four balconies is proposed. He said a drawing showing the roof extending beyond the top balcony is in error; the roof will align with the balconies and will not extend past the property line. Discussion ensued regarding density and the owner’s choice to build the employee lunch and locker rooms on the top floor. Board members agreed the proposal will improve the property’s appearance. One letter of no objection from the general manager of the adjacent motel to the east was submitted for the record. No verbal or written 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; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) The new construction shall not project over or extend beyond the side property line; and 4) The design of the employee lunch room and employee locker room shall more closely reflect the stated purpose of the space. In particular, these rooms shall not be designed or used as hotel units. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C6. Trinity Presbyterian Church for the following variances (1) structural setback variance required to permit an addition within the structural setback from a street right-of-way (Hercules Ave.); and (2) an open space variance, for the lot, required to allow less than the required minimum at 2001 Rainbow Dr., Skycrest Sub unit No. 9, Blk A, Lots 1-6, Blk B, Lots 1-3, and Sec 13-29-15, M&B 13.01, zoned P/SP (Public/SemiPublic). V 97-62 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes an 800 square foot addition on the west side of the church. He detailed setback and open space requirements as they relate to the variance request. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Doug Wilson, construction contractor representing the applicant, agreed with staff’s report. The addition will provide much-needed space to store metal folding tables and chairs currently taking up space in the fellowship hall. The addition will continue along the west side, equal to the lower elevation level, continuing until it meets the taller building. One letter from the adjacent business to the south was submitted in support of the proposal. No verbal or written 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; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) Foundation landscaping shall be provided along the entire length of the west side of the building within 30 days after completion of the addition. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval – September 11, 1997 Member Jonnatti requested correction on page four to indicate he had abstained from voting to approve the August 14 minutes, as he had not been present at that meeting. Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Comments Mr. Gans reminded staff Mr. Shuford has promised to address the board about changes to the Land Development Code. Discussion ensued regarding redevelopment on Clearwater beach. It was felt the City needs to develop a plan for the entire beach, then proceed in phases to meet the objectives and avoid getting sidetracked into other areas. Ms. Dougall-Sides reported the City filed a petition to appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to overturn the Ken Marks variance approval. She noted the Marks did not join the City’s petition, or file one of their own. It was not known whether they agreed with the City filing the petition. Mr. Schwob expressed concern regarding his observation of a controversial property where conditions of approval have not been met. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:01 p.m.