Loading...
01/22/1998DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER January 22, 1998 Present: Otto Gans Chair William Schwob Vice Chair William Johnson Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member John Carassas Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter Absent: Mark Jonnatti Board Member 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 1/8/98) 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 St, Eldridge Town House, Lot 1 together with submerged land to West, zoned RM 16 (Multiple Family Residential). V9803 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating this item was continued from the last meeting to allow time for the applicants to work out differences with neighbors. The subject property is a unique lot with virtually no space around the house. A proposed second story addition will align with the first floor, except for 12-inch support columns around the perimeter. Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, stated meetings were held with neighbors to address five major problems and solutions: 1) emergency vehicle access -- the 40-foot Eldridge Street right-of-way is more than adequate; 2) intensity of the development -- the home was designed for a second story when built in the 1960’s. The existing pile foundations were cast on spread footing that are no longer approved supports, and do no meet FEMA requirements. The second story will span the existing story, supported by the columns; 3) setbacks -- are not out of character with what exists in the neighborhood; 4) view of Clearwater Harbor – interruption of the panorama by a 43-foot wide structure is not unreasonable; and 5) sea wall access – when the City installed the lift station, the applicant screened and landscaped the area at his own expense. Since the last meeting, additional survey work was performed. Gregory R. Ferro, friend of Mr. McDaniel, addressed the parking issue. He submitted copies of code enforcement documents and photographs showing trailers, recreational vehicles, and boats illegally parked on the McDaniels’ property by neighbors. He stated Mr. McDaniel has not practiced law since 1992. Referring to the photographs, discussion ensued regarding parking conditions in the vicinity. Margie McDaniel, the owner/applicant, stated she needs the second floor for her bedroom and living room, now that her children are older. She would like to be able to care for her mother, currently 77 years old, when the need arises in the future. Her mother will not have a car. Mrs. McDaniel said she has tried to be a good neighbor, and has tried to get to know most of her neighbors, but some are not full-time residents. She has socialized with the person who spoke in opposition at the last meeting, noting the speaker does not own a vehicle. Mrs. McDaniel reiterated problems she has experienced with neighbors illegally parking on her property, resulting in complaints to City Code Enforcement. She submitted two packets of photographs for the record and responded to board questions regarding the issue. One person spoke in support of the application, stating no one should have the right to stop the property owners from building a bedroom addition. She stated ample parking and traffic circulation exists when everyone parks as they should. Mr. Richter noted one letter of no objection from an adjacent property owner, and two letters from GTE expressing no objection to vacation of the utility easement were submitted at the last meeting. One person spoke in opposition, repeating concerns from the previous meeting regarding adverse parking conditions in the crowded cul-de-sac. She complained of repeated trespass into her private parking space by contractors, delivery vehicles, and visitors who frequently refuse to move until they have finished conducting their business. Posting no parking and overflow parking signs has not solved the problems. She questioned where construction materials will be stored during the McDaniels’ expansion. She requested permission to read a lengthy technical letter from her husband into the record. The board declined to hear the letter, asking that it be submitted for the record. Two letters of opposition were submitted for the record. Seven letters in opposition were submitted at the previous meeting. The board discussed the parking situation at length with the applicants and members of the public, offering suggestions to help mitigate the problems expressed. It was indicated the board has no authority to solve the neighborhood’s parking problems, as code does not require more than two parking spaces for a single-family home, regardless of its size or number of occupants. Mr. Fowler said contractors will unload building materials into the McDaniels’ two parking spaces, park at a remote location such as the Seminole Boat Dock, and walk back to the construction site. Mr. Fowler, staff, and board members concurred, the new construction will have no affect on existing parking spaces on the subject or adjacent properties, and visitors may continue using City and remote parking spaces. It was agreed parking can be a problem when the public does not follow parking rules, but those problems are in no way related to the current variance application. Member Johnson moved to grant the variances 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 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 overhang to the rear of the property shall be constructed in accordance with plans submitted at today’s public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. City Manager Michael Roberto was present from 2:00 to 2:28 p.m. to address the board regarding “One City. One Future.” Highlights of his presentation are reported under Board and Staff Comments, below. C. New Variance Requests C1. Harry E. & Paula Angenendt, Jr. for a variance of 2 ft in fence height to permit a fence height of 6 ft where a maximum fence height of 4 ft is allowed at 305 N Glenwood Ave, Glenwood Sub, Lot 61, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 9807 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes to construct a six foot fence enclosing the rear yard of their single family home, located on a corner lot. The proposal is not consistent with the neighborhood’s character, where privacy is generally accomplished with hedges or landscaping buffers instead of fences. Andrew Stinnette, attorney representing the applicant, submitted a sketch of the site, noting a seven foot drop exists from the rear of their pool to the back property line. The fence is needed for privacy and safety, due to applicants’ concerns the pool constitutes an attractive nuisance to neighborhood children. A fence has existed at the proposed location for at least ten years. The new fence will be attractive vertical wood shadowbox, with an outside landscaping buffer installed concurrently with the fence. The fence will not impede view of traffic at the intersection. In response to questions, Mr. Stinnette discussed the proposed location and alignment in relation to the street and house walls. Harry Angenendt, the owner/applicant, stated he needs sufficient space in the back yard for the trampoline his son received for Christmas. He has discussed his proposal with neighbors and acknowledged concerns regarding their sight lines. He offered to compromise by either reconfiguring the alignment, or moving it back 12 feet from the sidewalk instead of the three feet proposed. He stated the oleanders he planted when he purchased the property did not thrive as he expected, but the new landscaping will be attractive. In response to questions, Mr. Angenendt stated he wishes to avoid filling the rear yard to raise its elevation due to the negative impact it would have on the view from outside the property. He did not favor staff’s suggestion to install a conforming four foot fence with exterior landscaping hedge allowed to grow to six feet. He stated landscaping takes time to grow and he needs the privacy now. He corrected earlier testimony, stating the drop at the rear of the property is about five feet. No verbal or written support was expressed. The next door neighbor to the east spoke in opposition, stating the proposal would totally block her side and front view, does not conform with existing neighborhood conditions, and would destroy aesthetics in a beautiful subdivision that has existed since the 1920’s. She did not agree with the privacy and attractive nuisance rationale, stating few cars drive down the quiet street, and the only children in the vicinity have their own pool. She did not want to see a precedent set, and pointed out the existing fence was installed with the wrong side facing out. She submitted photographs showing the subject property with the proposed fence superimposed. Seven letters with numerous signatures were submitted in opposition to the proposal. Discussion ensued regarding the photographs, code requirements for fencing, and the hedge alternative. In summary, Mr. Stinnette said the applicant has upgraded the formerly run-down property, does not wish to raise the rear of the lot to block even more view, and has offered a reasonable compromise location. He questioned of what the neighbor’s view consists, noting the lot is not on the water. In response to a request for clarification, Mr. Richter stated code measures fence height from existing natural grade, not from the built-up grade. One board member expressed concern with granting a request opposed by fifteen neighbors. After reviewing his alternatives, Mr. Angenendt requested a continuance to the next meeting to allow time to discuss the issue with the petition signers, most of whom have not seen his alternate proposals. Member Schwob moved to continue Item C1, V 9807 to February 12, 1998 to allow time to discuss the case with neighbors.. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. John H. & Patricia P. Meek, Jr. for a structural setback variance of 11 ft to allow a setback of 14 ft from the Narcissus Avenue right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at 51 Carlouel Dr, Carlouel Sub, Blk 256, Lot 23 and part of Lot 22, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 9808 Mr. Richter presented background information, written staff recommendations, setback requirements, site configuration and neighborhood conditions. The applicants propose a 550 square foot addition on the west side of their single family home. Staff felt the request conforms with the neighborhood character and recommended approval with three conditions. In response to questions, the request was compared to setback variances granted along nearby Bay Esplanade. It was indicated approximately one-half of the proposed improvement would encroach into the setback. Michael Myrick, contractor representing the applicant, stated the addition is designed to exactly conform with the present house style. He submitted photographs showing the area to be developed, stating the addition will not create sight line problems, will not be detrimental, will be in harmony, and will be done with the minimum possible variance. In response to questions, he said a previous addition added one bedroom to the former two-bedroom house. The new proposal is for a dining room. It was indicated Mr. Meek has lived in the area for a long time, and owns other properties in the vicinity. The required 25foot side setback will occur in the front, narrowing toward the rear of the property, as the property line runs at an angle to the house. It was felt putting the addition on any other part of the home would look irregular or odd. No verbal or written support was expressed. Nine letters with multiple signatures were submitted in opposition to the application. One member noted no signer resides directly adjacent to the subject property and three signers are well outside the 500foot radius. Addressing the drainage and flooding concerns expressed in the letters, Mr. Myrick said the subject property exceeds open space requirements and has plenty of permeable land for stormwater runoff. He did not feel the proposal will contribute to existing flood conditions in the low-lying neighborhood. 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 one year from the date of this public hearing: and 3) Prior to the approval of a final inspection for the new addition, the applicant shall plant shrubs along the west side of the addition to soften the encroachment into the setback. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3. The Villas at Countryside Condominium Association, Inc. for a variance to allow the orientation of a replacement 6 ft high fence within the structural setback area to have the finished side facing inward at 2450 Enterprise Road, Villas at Countryside Condominium, zoned RM 16 (Multiple Family Residential). V 9810 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating a deteriorated wood privacy fence along the rear of a condominium development was recently replaced with a new fence, oriented with the finished side facing inward. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two conditions, noting the building permit for the completed fence should be obtained within 30 days. Evelyn Mense, neighborhood association president, submitted a letter authorizing her to represent the property management firm. She apologized for the misunderstanding, stating she thought it was appropriate to orient the finished side toward Countryside Boulevard to enable construction and maintenance of the fence without entering properties in the neighboring subdivision to the rear. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. One member stated this case should never have gotten to this board. He requested staff to explore a code amendment to enable administrative treatment of this type of case in the future. Assistant City Attorney Carassas noted the request. 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; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within 30 days from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4. C.B.G.A.M. Inc. (Clearwater Beach Garden Apartment and Motel) for the following variances (1) a setback variance of 2.36 ft to allow a two story addition 3.65 ft from the East side property line where a minimum setback of 6 ft is required; and (2) a setback variance of 5 ft to allow a two story addition 5 ft from the Rear property line where a minimum setback of 10 ft is required at 14 Sommerset St, Clearwater Beach Revised, Blk 1, Lots 1-5, zoned RM 20 (Multiple Family Residential). V 9811 Mr. Richter presented background information, written staff recommendations, setback requirements and existing site conditions. The property is developed with two small apartment buildings. A two-story addition is proposed to the rear of the east building to enlarge the manager’s unit. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Michael Myrick, contractor representing the applicant, stated the owner wishes to expand his home, currently containing one bedroom. The expansion will not be used as an additional unit in the future. The new construction with match existing design, and will cause no detriment to the surroundings. Noting concerns regarding with two sheds in the rear, Mr. Myrick stated the owner agrees to remove one shed within seven days. The other shed will be used for material storage during construction and will be removed within seven days of project completion. Vegetation will replace the sheds. He agreed with staff comments. 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 one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The one-story masonry storage shed to the west shall be removed during construction, and the wooden shed to the east shall be removed at completion of construction. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Carassas left the meeting when Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides arrived. C5. Orangeland Vistas, Inc. (Don Pablo’s Mexican Restaurant) for a variance of 55 paved parking spaces to allow 141 paved parking spaces where 86 parking spaces are allowed to be paved at 18717 US 19 N, Sec 20-29-16, M&B 32.04, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). V 9812 Mr. Richter presented background information, written staff recommendations, parking, pavement, and green space requirements. The applicant proposes to develop a new Don Pablo’s restaurant with 55 more paved parking spaces than the maximum number allowed by code. The applicant’s experience with other Don Pablo’s restaurants indicates the requested parking is needed to serve the customer base and prevent parking problems. The development will exceed minimum green space requirements. Denial would not require removal, but would prevent paving of the 55 surplus spaces. Approval is preferable as the property’s condition could suffer by having unpaved parking spaces. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said the number of spaces is capped for aesthetic reasons, although open space requirements are met. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Housh Ghovaee, with the engineering firm representing the applicant, concurred with staff’s analysis of the request. In response to a question, he said retention requirements are met. He addressed concerns expressed in a January 10 letter from engineering consultant Andrew Nicholson, on behalf of the adjacent Bay Aristocrat Village mobile home park to the east, involving use of the access easement, traffic impacts, and driveway configuration in relation to surrounding developments. Richard Stacey, development consultant for the restaurant’s parent company, stated their experience indicates restaurants are not successful without adequate parking. Heavy traffic on grassy areas would not be good during rainy weather. Experience shows the public will park anywhere they can, including in other commercial parking lots and on private property. Site access via the easement shown on the site plan has been addressed with the title company, surveyor and engineer, and can be discussed with the adjacent homeowners. He said the reciprocal easement agreement gives both parties equal rights and complete access to the private road. Ms. Dougall-Sides mentioned Mr. Nicholson’s reference to an intention to sell a portion of the adjacent property, noting any such sale would be subject to the existing easement. She briefly reviewed the easement document and responded to questions. No verbal or written support was expressed. Three persons spoke in opposition to the applicants’ proposal to access their site via the private road, as it is the only means by which Bay Aristocrat residents may access their homes. The driveway is currently shared by Steak ‘n’ Shake Restaurant. It was felt safety and quality of life for more than 300 residents will be severely impacted by Don Pablo’s heavy traffic flow, anticipated to exceed 1200 trips per day. It was indicated the little roadway is inadequate to handle Steak ‘n’ Shake traffic, Bay Aristocrat residents, and the enormity of the proposed restaurant. The applicant was strongly encouraged to pursue a driveway connection to US 19 through FDOT. A packet of handouts was submitted for the record, including a list of requested conditions, should the application be approved. Mr. Ghovaee submitted a January 16 letter from FDOT representative Judith Smith, stating the reasons a driveway connection with US 19 will not be considered. After lengthy discussion with the opposition regarding the traffic impact issue, board members noted the project is subject to the site plan review process and denial at this stage would serve no useful purpose. The speakers were encouraged to address their complaints to the City Traffic Engineering Department, as the access easement issue does not relate to the variance request before the board. One objector requested continuance of the application pending a final DOT decision, because conversations with FDOT representative Norm Littell had indicated a driveway connection would be desirable at this location. City Public Works Administrator Rich Baier, who was present to address the next case, was requested to provide his professional opinion. He responded a traffic signal exists near the location where a driveway connection would have to be, if approved. It was believed such a connection would cause a dangerous traffic flow situation at the signaled intersection. He noted Judith Smith, author of the January 16 letter referenced by Mr. Ghovaee, is the authority who would make the decision. Mr. Littell makes decisions regarding smaller driveways. Mr. Baier’s opinion was traffic impact is a site plan issue, subject to DRC (Development Review Committee) study. Continuing the variance request would not influence the site plan review process. Board members agreed it would be expedient to approve the variance request, allowing site plan issues to be addressed through appropriate channels. 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. C6. University High Equity Real Estate Fund II/Jean F. Shelling, Trustee/TM Clearwater Realty, LTD. (Lowe’s) for an open space variance for the lot of 12 percent to allow 13 percent where a minimum of 25 percent is required at 26990 US 19 N, Sec 30-28-16, M&B’s 31.04, 31.03, and part of 31.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center). V 9814 Mr. Richter presented background information, written staff recommendations, and open space requirements. The applicant proposes to redevelop the subject property with a Lowe’s store, approximately doubling the existing open space and increasing stormwater retention. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Public Works Administrator Rich Baier introduced the item, stating the proposal to improve a large vacant shopping center existing in a sea of asphalt is an extremely positive project for the City. A $150,000 landscaping plan, site irrigation, and perimeter road realignment are proposed. The property owners were represented by Attorney Ed Armstrong, representative Steve Henry, and Lowe’s site assessment manager, Tom Wilkinson. In response to questions, it was indicated interior parking areas will be shaded and accented with oak trees, flowering crepe myrtles, and palms. In accordance with changes anticipated in the new Land Development Code, three-inch diameter trees will be installed where previously one-inch trees were required. 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; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval – January 8, 1998 This item was continued to allow time for members to review the minutes before the next meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Comments Mr. Gans introduced City Manager Michael Roberto, stating he was pleased to welcome the first City Manager to attend a DCAB meeting in 14 years. Mr. Roberto presented his “One City. One Future.” concept, based on the premise that all areas of the City are interrelated and must be addressed comprehensively. Because governments do not change directions easily, the City must choose and continue pursuit of a particular course long enough to achieve results. Public input will be accepted regarding five major areas: 1) Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard enhancements to solve perceptual issues and make a statement at the City’s entryway that will clearly define Clearwater’s character; 2) Downtown improvements to define the community, give people a reason to visit, and improve pedestrian orientation by creating a focus on downtown as the “east beach”, converting the existing 80% asphalt on the bluff to 80% green space, and doubling the size of Coachman Park; 3) Clearwater beach pedestrian area redesign to maximize the water view, provide a better transition between residential and commercial areas, and improve traffic flow across the causeway; 4) North Greenwood as the area most impacted by downtown changes, provides the best opportunities for positive changes; and 5) Land Development Code amendment, while the most important, is the most difficult area on which to focus public attention. The existing code was written while Clearwater was a development community, and must be rewritten to facilitate redevelopment. The first draft will be available within 60 days. Mr. Roberto reported roll-out of "One City. One Future." will be presented to the public during a special City Commission meeting tomorrow, in the form of a series of action items. The City Commission has asked for as much public input as possible. The action items will begin to move forward in 1998. He said the 14-page "One City. One Future." is the only document the City will produce. He looks forward to the process eagerly. He distributed copies of "One City. One Future." and the new Clearwater magazine, to be mailed to every household quarterly. Mr. Roberto responded to questions regarding prospective developers of the former City Hall Annex and Sunshine Mall sites. Mr. Schwob commended Mr. Roberto on his approach to "One City. One Future.", adding the City will receive substantial feedback as the concept goes out into the neighborhoods. Board and staff members said good-bye to Mr. Gans, who will complete his second consecutive term with the DCAB on January 31, 1998. All have enjoyed working with Mr. Gans and looked forward to treating him to a farewell luncheon on Thursday, January 29. Consensus was to invite Shirley Moran to the luncheon to meet board and staff members. The City Commission appointed Ms. Moran to fill the vacancy created by Mr. Gans’ departure. Mr. Gans noted his name is already on the City Clerk Department’s list of volunteers for appointment to other boards. He sincerely thanked all for a very enjoyable 13 years on the Development Code Adjustment Board. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.