Loading...
02/25/1999 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER February 25, 1999 Present: William Schwob Chair William Johnson Vice-Chair Mark Jonnatti Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Empty Seat Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Ralph Stone Planning Director Antonia Gerli Planning Manager Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, review of meeting procedures, and explanation of appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #A - Time Extension Requests A1) Systems Realty Corporation for the following variances (1) a setback variance of 7 ft. to allow a second floor addition 18 ft. from the Bay Esplanade right-of-way where a minimum of 25 ft. is required; (2) a setback variance of 25 ft. to allow a second floor addition zero ft. from the Somerset Street right-of-way where a minimum of 25 ft. is required; (3) a lot width variance of 40 ft. to allow a width of 110 ft. where a minimum of 150 ft. is required; (4) a lot depth variance of 15 ft. to allow a depth of 85 ft. where a minimum of 100 ft. is required; and (5) a lot area variance of 5,063 sq. ft. to allow an area of 9,037 sq. ft. where a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. is required at 692 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Unit No. 5 Replat, Blk 83, Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, zoned RM 20 (Multiple Family Residential). V 98-32 This property is developed with a 7-unit motel. The request is to enlarge the second floor owner’s unit with a 1,500 square-foot second story addition. Staff feels conditions support approval of the 5 requested variances. The lot’s width, depth or size cannot be increased. The second story exterior will align vertically with the first story and will extend no closer to the property lines than the existing building. Member Johnson moved to approve a 6-month extension for Case V98-32. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B1) (Cont’d from 01/29/99) Glen Johnson/Beach Communities II, Inc. for the following variances: (1) a height variance of 145 ft.; (2) a setback (front) of 50 ft.; (3) a north side setback of 34 ft.; and (4) a south side setback of 34 ft. at 1350 Gulf Blvd., Sec 19-29-15, M&B 14.03 & 14.08, zoned RM 8 (Multiple Family Residential). V 99-02 This property is one of two vacant parcels available for development on Sand Key’s Gulf side. On December 10, 1992, DCAB (Development Code Adjustment Board) reviewed and approved an identical site plan. The certified site plan expired, requiring the project to be resubmitted for review. The Legal Department has advised that the project also must reapply for necessary variances. On November 12, 1998, DCAB reviewed and denied variances requested to construct a 235-foot tall condominium with 12-foot side yard setbacks on the adjacent property. Existing development on Sand Key does not meet current development standards. Many structures significantly exceed the code’s 80-foot height standard. The average height of the buildings which exceed the maximum allowable height is 156 feet. The Crescent Beach Club, north of the subject parcel, is 171 feet tall and significantly higher than the proposed development. The Sand Key Club, the next development to the south, is 133 feet in height. The applicant’s proposed development will be 145 feet high. Planning Director Ralph Stone said the front setback is 62 feet and does not require a variance. The plan has been modified. Side setbacks are 38.25 feet. Staff has the discretion to approve these types of minor variances. No rear setback variance is required. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said the height limit in the RM-28 zoning district is 80 feet. Several beach properties were subjects of litigation, resulting in court ordered settlements permitting developments inconsistent with code. Correspondence from representatives of the property immediately to the south, noted that property’s parking privileges on the existing 42.07 foot easement. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides suggested a condition related to the easement could be added should the variances be approved. As a reasonable use of the land exists without variances, staff recommended the request be denied. Tom Nash, representative, said since 1987, variances have been granted to allow a 145-foot development on this property. He felt the proposal is consistent with Sand Key development. He stated gulf-front Sand Key buildings average 156-feet high. He said an 80-foot building constructed 14 feet closer to the gulf as permitted by code would affect more views than this proposal. He said the project is reasonable considering the heights of surrounding properties. He said only 20 condominium owners out of 200 would experience a degree of view obstruction. He submitted 5 letters in support. It was noted the letters are not from the immediate area or Sand Key residents. Max Shapter, development partner, presented drawings of the proposed development and reviewed views from surrounding properties. He said the project is low density. Each unit will be 4,200 square feet with 800 square feet of balcony area offering gulf and bay views. Sales prices will range from $1 million to $1.5 million. The 26 units will be on 13 floors. In response to a question, Mr. Shapter said Ultimar has $1.5 million units for sale. He stated during the last 2 months, more than 7 presentations regarding this project were made to neighborhood groups, including the Crescent Beach Club. Ms. Dougall-Sides said a condition of the variance granted for this property in 1992 required all permits be obtained within one year. Those permits were not obtained, and reapplication is required. A similar condition to certification of the site plan lapsed on January 23, 1998. All permits and variances granted for this property no longer are valid. One person spoke in support of the project, as long as a retention pond is not built as the site plan on the south property line indicates, due to a 99-year lease agreement. Tim Johnson, representative for Crescent Beach Club Condominium Association, said the application does not meet code. He said the property is too small for this type of project. He said views from some units will be diminished significantly. He felt the development is economically motivated and will decrease the market value of existing units. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said while building heights in this area are capped at 80 feet, a residential in-fill development allowance may apply under the new code. Robert Pergolizzi, vice president of Florida Design Consultants, reviewed his professional background. He said the development will block beach and gulf views of adjoining properties. He said the building’s height must be compared to the property’s width. He said the surrounding properties’ average ratio is less than 0.6, while the subject development, at 0.853, is much higher than the average. In response to a question, Mr. Pergolizzi said ratios are important to determine how imposing or bulky a building appears. He reviewed the level of view obstruction condominium owners would suffer. Mr. Nash disagreed with his estimates. Bruce Wright, real estate appraiser, said the market value of surrounding properties may be reduced by 30% to 40%. Reduced marketability also extends sales times. Units without direct blockage also could experience reduced values. In response to a question, Mr. Wright said the value of lower floor units in condominium buildings is affected by market perception. The Chair reported the board had received approximately 50 letters regarding this application. Nine residents spoke in opposition. The President of the Crescent Beach II Association stated he had received over 181 letters and 800 signatures on a petition from Sand Key residents opposing the application. Mr. Nash said it does not make sense for Sand Key residents who live in 171-foot buildings to complain about a proposed 145 foot-high building. He felt when the Crescent Beach developer designed that structure, development on the adjacent property was considered. Discussion ensued regarding delays to previous plans. It was felt the property can be developed without variances. It was felt the applicant does not meet any of the criteria as the project appears to be based on economic gain, the building is too big and too close to surrounding buildings, and would be injurious to surrounding properties. Member Johnson moved to deny the variances requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards of approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed from 3:37 to 3:44 p.m. ITEM #C - New Variance Requests C1) David R. Fink for the following variances (1) a 5 ft. variance to the right-of-way setback of 30 ft. to allow a fence 25 ft. from the property line; and (2) a variance of 2 ft. to the fence height to allow a 6 ft. high fence at 2856 Landover Dr., Landmark Woods 2nd Add, Lot 87, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 99-03 The applicant requests variances to install a six-foot fence within a right-of-way setback where four feet is allowed. As area fencing conforms with the code, staff feels the requested fence will not be comparable to neighborhood fencing and the request is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code. Staff recommends denial of the request. David Fink, applicant, said he wishes to build the fence to provide his pets access to the yard through the garage. The corner of the house is 31 feet from the property line. He said other neighborhood fences are 6 feet tall, with a 25 foot setback. His cats could jump a 4 foot fence and get loose. He expressed concerns regarding safety and privacy. In response to a question, Mr. Fink said he had purchased the property in December and the existing fence was deteriorated. He said none of his neighbors is opposed to the fence. Discussion ensued regarding the orientation of the fence. Landscaping was recommended. Member Jonnatti moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant substantially has met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variances based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the applicant shall install proper landscaping materials along the right-of-way side of fence; 3) configuration of fence is to be modified to extend from the building a t a right angle, south of the side garage door intersecting with the present location; and 4) applicant shall submit a revised site plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2) Dorothy C. & Clara Boldog (Proposed McDonald’s Restaurant) for a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 13 spaces to 9 spaces at 347 Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd-White-Skinner, Lots 63-66, 68,69, and 111 - 117, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 99-04 The applicant requests a variance to the parking standards to reduce the required number of spaces. While the McDonald’s restaurant site is 0.3 acres on Lots 68 and 69, the property is part of the 1.73 acre Americana Hotel site. With a maximum density of 40 rooms per acre, the hotel needs 1.5 acres to support its 60 rooms. The property also plans to expand its 2,356 square feet of commercial retail by 720 square feet plus 3,700 square feet of restaurant space, in addition to McDonald’s. Without Lots 68 and 69, the hotel rooms are nonconforming with regard to density. Existing retail space furthers this nonconformity. The entire development complies with the code’s density/floor area intensity requirements only if the .3-acre McDonald’s site is included. Parking must be considered in terms of the entire site. In anticipation of commercial retail expansion in 1998, the Americana Hotel received a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 86 to 78. The blanket variance available to beach commercial development based on the 50% reduction required 86 parking spaces. This is the third request the property has made for a parking variance within 6 months. Staff feels the parcel is developed normally, and can support additional development without a variance. The applicant enjoys reasonable use of the land. The proposed McDonald’s restaurant site already supports density and floor area on another portion of the parcel. As McDonald’s previously estimated half of its business is from drive-through customers, the applicant chose to construct the more economically rewarding drive-though option. Staff feels granting the variance will exacerbate on-site parking space shortages with the applicant relying on a public parking garage to satisfy on-site parking requirements. Staff recommends the request be denied. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said the beach is a unique area of the City. The effect of drive-throughs are significant. He said the applicant’s proposed bypass lane to parallel the drive-through lane does not alleviate staff concerns. The applicant has not submitted a site plan. In response to a question, Planning Manager Antonia Gerli said the Traffic Department has not reviewed the application. Sue Murphy, representative, said McDonald’s has tried to meet the City’s desire for attractive buildings. She said McDonald’s only builds restaurants with drive-throughs as they are integral part of the business. She stated the building will not be constructed without a drive-through. The design of the structure is smaller than a standard McDonald’s. She said other area businesses have received larger parking space variances. She said McDonald’s does not anticipate significant vehicular traffic, due to the large number of pedestrians. She said the project meets the City’s vision. She said the request is for a minor parking variance and a drive-through is not the issue. Mr. Stone said the City is trying to enhance the pedestrian environment in this area which has “cruising” problems and heavy traffic at peak hours. McDonald’s restaurants attract vehicular traffic due to the nature of the business. He said this project is inconsistent with the City’s philosophy and current investments at the beach. Charles Alloway, McDonald’s representative, said a drive-through is an integral part of a McDonald’s restaurant. He said customers also expect indoor seating and clean and safe conditions. McDonald’s strives to protect brand identity, signage, roof structure, and to maintain developments appropriately. Ed Armstrong, representative, said the requested variance is for 4 parking spaces, not the drive-through. He said the code has not changed since other area businesses obtained parking variances. He said an adjacent property owner had received a significant parking variance. He requested the board be consistent with previous approvals. Four residents spoke in opposition of the application. Ms. Gerli said one letter in opposition was received. Steve Fowler, the building owner’s architect, reviewed surrounding property densities. He said the current density of the Americana Hotel can be increased. McDonald’s is trying to limit the square footage necessary. Ms. Murphy said no access is planned onto Coronado, and will not affect traffic on that street. She noted a City proposal to re-route Gulfview traffic into one-way pairs on Hamlin and Coronado. She said the City Manager had no problem with the drive-through. Mr. Stone said no final decision has been made regarding one-way traffic pairs on the beach. He felt the development could create traffic problems. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said if the request is approved, the applicant would be required to obtain approval for a certified site plan, including access, drainage, traffic impacts, landscaping requirements, and an 8-car stacking lane requirement. He said the drive-through is a component of the site and should be considered along with the variance request. Discussion ensued. It was felt this application differs significantly from those affecting adjacent properties. This unique application contains a lease situation. Staff’s concern the application is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan was noted. It was commented the request does not advance the City’s overall plan. Member Jonnatti moved to deny the variance requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards of approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code. Most specifically, the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Moran and Jonnatti and Chair Schwob voted “Aye”; Member Johnson voted “Nay”. Motion carried. The meeting recessed from 5:43 to 5:51 p.m. C3) Virginia A. Williams for a 9 ft. variance to allow the construction of a carport within the 25 ft. right-of-way setback at 1433 S. Hibiscus St., Palm Terrace, Unit 1, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 99-39 The applicant requests a variance to reduce the front yard setback to allow construction of a carport to house an antique car. Surrounding properties do not have carports encroaching similarly into the right-of-way setback. The requested variance is not in character with the neighborhood. Addition of a carport that extends into the setback would be inconsistent with all other area houses. Staff recommends the request be denied. Mark Barrett, applicant, referred to photographs of the property. He said his automobile fits under the carport but the driver’s door cannot be opened. He said he will not infringe on neighbors or offend the neighborhood’s character. His property is across the street from a park. He requested moving the carport post 3.5 feet. He said neighbors agree the change would be an improvement. In response to a question, Ms. Gerli said the property’s side setback is 5 feet. Discussion ensued regarding the neighborhood. It was felt the carport would not adversely impact the neighborhood or block neighbors’ views. Member Moran 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 conditions: 1) the carport be constructed generally as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Johnson requested the motion be amended to require the post be placed on the north side of the sidewalk. Mr. Stone requested the motion include submission of a modified site plan. Member Moran rescinded her motion. The seconder agreed. 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 conditions: 1) variance based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, may result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the appearance of the structure be constructed generally as submitted; 3) the outer post be placed on the north side, opposite the sidewalk; and 4) applicant shall submit a revised site plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4) Cleveland Plaza, Ltd. (Proposed Eckerd’s) for a variance of 4.4 ft. to allow a landscaped buffer of 5.6 ft. in width along Missouri Ave. at 1213 Cleveland St., Padgett’s Estates Sub, Lots 24&33, part of Lots 23&34 less St., part of Lots 25&32 and Hibiscus Gardens, Blk E, Lot 1-13, zoned UC(E) (Urban Center [Eastern Corridor]). V 99-40 The applicant requests a variance to reduce the size of the required landscape buffer along Missouri Avenue. The site has been poorly developed. The parcel’s size and configuration make redevelopment difficult. The parcel’s layout has large amounts of asphalt and an unsightly appearance. To accommodate safe ingress from Missouri Avenue, the proposed building needs to be as far north as possible. Although a landscape variance has been requested, the site plan exceeds landscape requirements for interior landscape materials and buffer areas along Missouri and Cleveland. Staff feels approval will result in safe site ingress and egress, the highest and best use of the site, and improvement to downtown and Cleveland Street aesthetics. Staff recommended approval. Member Johnson stated he had a conflict of interest and excused himself from the case. Member Moran moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant substantially has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) applicant shall obtain a certified site plan within 30 days of this public hearing; 3) applicant shall obtain all building permits within 6 months of obtaining a certified site plan; 4) applicant shall begin construction within one month of obtaining building permits; 5) prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall approve a final landscape plan which clearly indicates that all parking lot islands will receive landscape treatment other than sod and that all areas between the street right-of-way and any pavement will receive landscape treatment other than sod. The motion was duly seconded. Members Jonnatti and Moran and Chair Schwob voted “Aye.” Member Johnson abstained. Motion carried. C5) Marilyn A. Prince McNicholas for a variance to the rear yard setback to allow a 20 ft. by 30 ft. shed to remain 60 inches short of the variance requirement at 1524 Cleveland St., Crest Lake Sub, Blk H, Lot 18, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 99-41 The applicants request a variance for a setback encroachment to allow a shed to remain. The applicants’ lot is similar to others in the area and has adequate room to construct a shed without a variance. On November 25, 1998, staff presented the applicant with a site survey noting appropriate setback requirements. The applicant received approval from the Planning & Development Services to construct a 20 X 30 foot shed in the back yard, without a variance. The parcel is zoned residential and is developed as a residence. Although the shed could be located within the required setback, the applicant’s contractor constructed it too close to the property line. Staff recommends denial. Marilyn McNicholas, applicant, said the contractor made an error. She said moving the shed would require heavy equipment. The yard is too small to accommodate such equipment and a tree would have to be destroyed. Otherwise the shed would have to be razed. Edward McNicholas, applicant, said he uses the shed as an aviary. He does not run a business on the property, but gives birds to good families. He said the permit sheet had another sheet stapled on it, causing an error in construction. In response to a question, he said the shed does not sit on a cement slab. He said his neighbors do not oppose the shed. Joe Campenella, contractor, said a simple mistake was made. He said he has always complied with the code during his 17 years in business. He said only the top of the shed’s roof can be seen from the road or other back yards because of the 6 foot high fence. He said razing the shed is the only way to fix the mistake. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicants substantially have met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, will result in this variance being null and of no effect. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C6) Mark W. Jackson for the following: (1) a variance of 5.67 ft. to the right-of-way setback on Sarah Dr.; and (2) a variance of ½ ft. to the 10 ft. rear yard setback to allow the construction of a house addition at 1775 Lawrence Dr., Sall’s Lake Park 3rd Add, Blk K, Lot 12, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 99-42 The applicant has requested 2 setback variances to construct an addition. The home, at the corner of Lawrence and Sarah, faces Lawrence Drive. The proposed addition would reduce the front street right-of-way on Sarah Drive and be inconsistent with the neighborhood. The addition would block part of the neighbor’s front door vision, and reduce a neighbor’s light and air. The lot already is used as a residential lot and the applicant is not denied a reasonable use of his property. Staff recommends the request be denied. Mr. Stone indicated the applicant was unable to wait and departed the meeting. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the case can be continued for review by the new board, but under the old code. Consensus was to continue Item #C6 to the first meeting of the new Community Development Board. ITEM #D - Approval of Minutes Member Moran moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting of January 29, 1999, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried 3:0. Member Jonnatti abstained due to his absence at that meeting. ITEM #E - Board & Staff Comments Board members and staff expressed appreciation for each others efforts and the enjoyment of working together. Members were encouraged to apply for other City boards. Ms. Dougall-Sides said she will not represent staff for the new board which will retain outside counsel. Member Jonnatti reported he is moving his business from Largo to Clearwater. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:34 p.m.