Loading...
01/08/1998DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER January 8, 1998 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. B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items B1. (cont. from 12/11/97) Helen A. & Paul A. & Mary H. Gelep for the following variances (1) a parking variance of 1 space to allow zero spaces where 1 space is required; (2) a building coverage variance of 10 percent to allow 85 percent where a maximum of 75 percent is required; and (3) an open space variance of 5 percent to allow zero percent where a minimum of 5 percent is required at 30/32 Papaya St. & 442/444 Mandalay Avenue, Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 80-85, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 97-74 In a letter dated December 19, 1997, variance request V 9774 was withdrawn by the applicants’ representative. C. New Variance Requests C1. Andrzej & Zofia Kulpa for the following variances for a proposed new home at 900 Bruce Avenue; (1) a structural setback variance of 5 ft to allow a setback of 20 ft from the Bruce Avenue right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; (2) a structural setback variance of 10 ft to allow a setback of 15 ft from the Kipling Plaza right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; (3) a structural setback variance of 5 ft to allow a setback of 20 ft from the Eldorado Avenue right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; (4) a lot width variance of 5 ft to allow a lot width of 65 ft where a minimum width of 70 ft is required; (5) a lot depth variance of 38 ft to allow a lot depth of 72 ft where a minimum of 110 ft is required; and for a proposed new home at 904 Bruce Avenue; (6) a structural setback variance of 5 ft to allow a setback of 5 ft from the Bruce Avenue right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at 900 & 904 Bruce Avenue, Mandalay Sub, Blk 20, Lots 1 & 2, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-01 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, detailing the property’s location, configuration, and setback requirements. The applicant proposes to replat two contiguous lots, increasing the size of the southernmost lot. A new home is proposed for each lot. While many homes in the area do not meet setback requirements, staff felt the setback request on the north side of Kipling Plaza was inconsistent with other homes in the area. With the exception of variance request #2, staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. In response to questions, discussion ensued regarding history of non-conforming setbacks for existing homes in the vicinity. Existing setbacks were estimated, and flood elevations discussed. Ralph Holjes, the applicant stated he chose this parcel for building homes for himself, his wife and daughters, because the parcel was affordable. The homes will meet minimum flood elevation standards. In response to questions, it was indicated the line separating the two lots will be redrawn to decrease the size of the northern lot, increasing the southern lot. He has not discussed his plans with neighbors. Size of the southerly house could be reduced to provide staff’s recommended 20foot setback from Kipling Plaza, providing his daughter agrees. Board members expressed concern the proposed homes are too large for the lots. Questions were raised whether consideration was given to designing homes to fit the lots without variances, or to lots more suitable for the houses. Mr. Holjes indicated the home planned for the southern lot is minimal in size and all his daughter can afford. Both houses would be addressed to Bruce Avenue because the high rise buildings block the view to the west. His wife has located another lot suitable for their home. No verbal or written support was expressed. Five persons spoke in opposition to the request citing concerns with encroaching into the existing narrow setbacks, overbuilding the lots, creating a congested situation, setting an unwanted precedent, requesting numerous variances when others have built to code without variances, obstructing the view, destroying palm trees, restricting open space, adversely affecting surrounding property values, taking advantage of the situation by trying to build two homes on a lot priced for building one home, and failure to meet any of the standards for approval. It was felt the corner property is a neighborhood landmark, and the applicant should be looking for more suitable lots in his price range. Discussion ensued regarding construction of a conforming stilt home in the vicinity without variances. One man stated he came forward with a similar proposal for the subject property several years ago, but was turned down. It was felt a zoning change for the whole neighborhood would be more appropriate than granting the subject request. Six letters were submitted in opposition to the request. Mr. Holjes responded, discussing lot width, cost effectiveness of constructing two homes on the lot due to its cost, his plans for a stilt house, alignment of the southerly house with adjacent houses, and absence of adverse effect on the community. He did not understand the reference to the site as a landmark. Board discussion ensued regarding the proposal. It was felt the standards for approval do not support the request. While constructing two homes on the site might be more economically feasible, it was felt construction of only one home would be better for the neighborhood. Concerns were expressed with granting the request in view of overwhelming opposition. Discussion ensued regarding whether the applicant would have reasonable use of his land without variances. It was indicated the smaller lot would be unbuildable if sold separately. A question was raised whether the board is obligated to grant variances to build on lots too small to be developed. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded such a decision is at the board’s discretion. One member noted lot size variances are frequently granted when lots in an entire neighborhood are generally non-conforming, but this is a case where conforming homes exist. Member Johnson moved to deny V 9801 as the request does not meet all the standards for approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. Barbara & Mark Birenbaum for a variance of 1 ft in fence height to permit a fence height of 7 ft where a maximum fence height of 6 ft is allowed at 1448 Rosetree Court, Rosetree Court, Lot 9, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-02 Mr. Richter presented background information, written staff recommendations, property location, existing development and current conditions. As adjacent lots to the rear are two to three feet higher in elevation than the subject property, the applicants propose to replace an old six foot wood fence with a new seven foot fence to obtain a degree of privacy in their back yard.. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Barbara Birenbaum, the owner/applicant, affirmed the need for a higher fence due to the fact her home is at least four feet lower in elevation than the adjacent properties. A wooden shadowbox fence is proposed. Her family loves Clearwater and plans to stay in the home. Two letters from adjacent property owners were submitted in support of the application. No verbal or written 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 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; 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. James Michael & Margee Hoe McDaniel for the following variances (1) a setback variance of 21.2 ft to permit a 2nd floor addition 3.8 ft from the southerly right-of-way line of Eldridge St., rather than the 25 ft setback required; (2) a setback variance of 18 ft to permit a 2nd floor addition 7 ft from the westerly right-of-way line of Eldridge St., rather than the 25 ft setback required; and (3) a setback variance of 5.75 ft to permit a 2nd floor addition 4.25 ft from a rear property line, rather than the 10 ft rear setback required at 301 Eldridge Street, Eldridge Town House, Lot 1 together with submerged land to West, zoned RM 16 (Multiple Family Residential). V 98-03 Mr. Richter presented background information, written staff recommendations, property location, development, and setback requirements. The applicant proposes to expand the existing single family home by adding a second story the same size as the first. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. In response to questions, it was indicated except for the addition of twelve-inch second story support columns, the footprint will not change. The variances are needed because the existing setbacks are non-conforming. It is not known how the home came to be built without variances. It was not known why the development was called Eldridge Town House, when the zoning is single family. Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, related a brief zoning and land use history of the immediate area. He displayed drawings of the site showing the lot layout, parking areas, and locations of the required support columns around the building’s perimeter. He stated the original concrete foundation pilings are inadequate, subject to erosion, and must be replaced with new pilings. Elevating the addition will allow space for air conditioning equipment below. Discussion ensued regarding proposed use of the new rooms, configuration of the parking area, and concerns emergency access would be restricted by vacating the utility easement. Mr. Fowler responded to questions, stating the high point of the roof will be 22 feet, measured from the east elevation. The footprint will stay exactly the same, except for the columns, and the addition will double the floor space. Mrs. McDaniel wishes to maintain the aesthetic integrity of the original oriental design. A set of stairs in the rear are planned to replace stairs blown away in a recent storm. Mr. Fowler submitted for the record one letter of no objection from an adjacent property owner, and two letters from GTE expressing no objection to vacation of the utility easement. Seven letters were submitted in opposition to the request. The meeting recessed from 2:55 to 3:11 p.m. to allow time for the board and applicants to read the letters. One person spoke at length in opposition to the application, stating the proposal will worsen an existing parking problem in the congested area and restrict emergency vehicle access. She complained the applicant has fenced public right-of-way as part of his yard. It was indicated addition of a second story will partially block the view, the proposed height is too tall for the surroundings, the aesthetic design is out of character with the English style townhouses across the street, visitors frequently park illegally in four parking spaces reserved for townhouse residents, and economic gain will result for the applicant. Board members suggested posting signage, contacting City code enforcement personnel, and calling police regarding parking violations. In response to a concern about the public hearing notification procedure, it was indicated legally adequate notice was given to surrounding property owners. Mr. Fowler addressed concerns expressed in the letters, stating additional parking will not be needed because Mr. McDaniel is no longer a practicing attorney, safety will not be compromised as the footprint is not being enlarged with the exception of exterior columns, the structure will not encroach into surrounding parking spaces, and no change in the pavement will result. Additional family members may move in, but the home will remain a single-family dwelling and no additional kitchen facilities will be installed. A wet bar is planned in the media room upstairs and kitchen countertops are being replaced downstairs. A fence was built and landscaping installed along the right-of-way after several unsuccessful attempts to get the City to address adverse conditions in that location. Discussion ensued regarding height calculations and use of a single family dwelling in a multi-family zone. Mr. Fowler corrected earlier testimony concerning a stairway between decks on the southwest corner of the home. Board members felt it was not unreasonable to grant variances to allow onefoot support columns. However, concerns were expressed with granting variances for a project receiving significant neighborhood opposition. Concerns were expressed code requires only two parking spaces for a single family home, regardless of its size and number of occupants. Discussion ensued regarding open space calculations, increasing a non-conformity, parking space size, location, numerical requirements, and ways to create more parking. Mr. Fowler requested a continuance to allow time to talk with the seven townhouse residents regarding their concerns. Member Schwob moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 22, 1998 to give the applicant an opportunity to discuss the situation with the neighbors and possibly reach a compromise. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4. Sophia & Bill V. Stathopoulos (Da Franco Pizza Inc.) for a variance of 4 parking spaces to permit a 650 sq ft restaurant expansion to allow zero additional parking spaces where 4 additional parking spaces are required at 1969 Drew Street, Sky Crest Unit No. 7, Blk K, Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 98-04 Mr. Richter presented background information, written staff recommendations, and parking requirements. The applicant proposes to expand an existing pizza restaurant into adjacent space formerly occupied by a flower shop within a strip shopping center. No opportunity exists on the property to provide the required additional parking. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Vince Longo, the applicant, said he is expanding the restaurant to provide more seating for his customers’ convenience. He has permission to use the adjacent Skycrest Animal Clinic parking lot after hours. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. 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 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) 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. C5. William M. Shepard, Trustee (Lagoon Resort) for the following variances (1) a clear space variance 62.8 ft to allow a clear space distance of 15 ft where a distance of 77.8 ft is required; (2) a setback variance of 62.8 ft to allow a building 15 ft from the Westerly side property line where a minimum setback of 77.8 ft is required; and (3) a front yard open space variance of 9.9 percent to allow 40.1 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is required at 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard, Sec 17-29-15, M&B 22.01, Bayside Sub No. 5, Blk C, Lots 1-5 and riparian rights, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 98-05 Mr. Richter presented background information, written staff recommendations, property location and current development of the motel property. The applicant proposes addition of a four-story parking garage with ground level shops and a five-story addition for use as a nightclub, banquet room, and 14 new motel units. He related clear space, setback, and front yard open space requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, provided a brief history of the existing 59-unit motel, its other uses, and neighboring uses. He stated a five-story building is consistent with the surroundings. Special circumstances justify the variances because existing development has non-conforming side setbacks and little clear or open space. The applicant is substantially increasing front yard open space over what currently exists. He discussed the net parking increase proposed, needed because Shepard’s is a destination point. He presented an aerial photograph of existing develop on the subject and surrounding properties. While economic gain is a factor weighed with every commercial application, the applicant is not adding revenue-generating uses. The proposal will not be materially injurious or substantially harmful and no impact will result. Absence of side setbacks and open space is typical for properties in the vicinity. Architect Steve Fowler displayed a conceptual drawing of the expansion, proposed to accommodate weddings, banquets, a service area, improve emergency vehicle access, eliminate front parking, and add landscaping. He provided elevation drawings of the parking structure, pointing out aesthetics, functional features, and four ground floor service shops to support the hotel use. A net increase of 128 parking spaces is provided. In response to questions, he demonstrated location of the 14 hotel units in relation to the screened service, dumpster and walk-in freezer areas. He submitted a panoramic photograph of the front of the existing property. General discussion ensued regarding the proposal. No verbal or written support was expressed. Two persons spoke in opposition to the request, expressing concerns with late public hearing notification, failure to comply with standards for approval, blocking view to the water from street level and from adjacent motel rooms, increased noise, and the negative impact of large crowds driving customers away from surrounding businesses. Discussion ensued regarding locations of the guest room wing and parking garage, and their potential impacts on view for the adjacent motel property. Concerns were expressed the proposed structure is configured to fill in the open spaces of the property. The board’s authority to vary clear space was questioned. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded code provides the board may not vary density, but the restriction does not include clear space. She noted dimensional non-conformities are different from non-conformities of use. Discussion ensued regarding history of variance requests for the subject and surrounding properties. It was not known whether the proposal will go before the Planning and Zoning Board. Responding to the opposition, Mr. Cline stated the applicant is not maximizing floor area ratio, density, or overbuilding the site. The proposal is a reasonable attempt to deal with an existing market and problems associated with the establishment’s success. The speaker system will be redesigned to direct music downward and inward, rather than toward the residential area. The impact on the neighbors’ view is not extreme. Containing more of Shepard’s customers onsite will produce a positive impact on the community. The proposal is consistent with what many feel is appropriate on the beach. The opposition reiterated Shepard’s does not need variances to enjoy reasonable use of the land. Mr. Cline maintained the variances are to serve the people who are already coming to the establishment. In response to questions, Mr. Cline stated improvement of the motel facade is not needed currently, but will be addressed when needed in the future. Valet parking will be available and the parking structure can be open to the public when not in use by Shepard’s patrons. Concerns were expressed with lack of a site plan. A Traffic Engineering Department recommendation not to grant variances prior to development of a site plan was referenced. Mr. Cline expressed surprise, in view of the large number of meetings conducted with City staff. He said the applicant received no traffic input until two days ago. Lengthy board discussion ensued regarding the issue. Questions were raised regarding which City officials support the proposal and how it fits with immediate and long range plans for City-wide improvements. Concerns were expressed with the concept of creating a miniature “Ybor City” on Clearwater beach. Questions were raised regarding police department reaction to the existing and proposed establishment. Discussion ensued regarding the relative merits of a private parking facility in the area. One member pointed out the police issue is beyond the scope of the board and the noise issue can be handled administratively. While concerned about variances to clear and open space, he was inclined to support the proposal due to staff’s indication it is moving in the right direction for the beach. 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 one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact Central Permitting staff to review tropical seascape design criteria proposed for Clearwater Beach. As part of this design review, the applicant and City staff shall consider means to utilize the sidewalk in front of the street level shops as an activity area, such as a sidewalk café, to increase the level of interest along the public sidewalk; and 4) The applicant shall work with the Traffic Engineering Department to reach an amenable traffic flow situation on site. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C6. Golda Meir Center, Inc. (Helen’s Bakery) for a variance of 5 parking spaces to permit establishment of a retail use where 5 additional parking spaces are required at 306 S. Jupiter Avenue, Skycrest Sub Unit A, Blk A, part of Lots 7 & 8, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 98-06 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes to acquire the smaller of two existing buildings on the subject property to operate a wholesale bakery. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Lovro Vrbos, the applicant, stated he wants to operate a small Mom & Pop style wholesale business for his wife. Mrs. Vrbos will bake products to order and Mr. Vrbos will deliver the merchandise to stores and produce stands. They will not have retail or delivery traffic onsite. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted retail sales are a permitted use at this location and Mrs. Vrbos had indicated during her appearance before the Planning and Zoning Board that incidental retail sales might occur. No verbal or written support was expressed. An attorney representing the adjacent property owner to the south, stated his client owns two rental properties behind her single family residence immediately adjacent to the subject property. She vigorously opposes locating a business with no parking provision two feet from her property, as bakery customers are certain to park in her driveway. Mr. Vrbos responded the bakery operation will differ from the former beauty shop operation where customers did not know where to park. He will have no customers arriving to create parking problems. He will respect the neighbor’s property. In response to questions, he said they will not advertise the business and will not sell to the public. The applicants have been looking for an affordable property in an appropriate size and zoning district for three years. Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. Suggestions were made for decreasing the impact of having no onsite parking. In response to questions, it was indicated the two parking spaces in the right-of-way belong to the City and would not be affected by sale of the larger lot. 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 variance is contingent upon use of the property as a non-advertised business on a wholesale-only basis. Members Gans, Schwob, and Johnson, voted “Aye;” Members Jonnatti and Stuart voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Minutes Approval – November 13 and December 11, 1997 Member Johnson 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 reported the deck at Britt’s restaurant is enclosed with plastic, adding 60 seats to the restaurant. He stated the situation is an insult to the beach. Staff will investigate. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.