Loading...
05/18/1999COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER May 18, 1999 Present: Gerald Figurski Chair Edward Mazur, Jr. Vice Chair David Gildersleeve Board Member William Johnson Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Carlen A. Petersen Board Member Alex Plisko Board Member Also Present: Ralph Stone Planning Director Antonia Gerli Development Review Manager Gary Jones Senior Planner Teresa Mancini Planner Brenda Moses Board Reporter The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall. The Chair read the procedures, followed by the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM 1 – CONTINUED ITEM FROM DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING (February 25, 1999) A. Mark W. Jackson is requesting a 5.67 foot variance to the right-of-way setback and a ½ foot variance to the rear yard setback to construct a house addition at 1775 Lawrence Drive on property described as Lot 12, Block K. Sall’s Lake Park Subdivision, 3rd addition. The property is zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). Four standards apply to this request. The applicant’s lot is standard for its land use district. The applicant is permitted to build an addition to the current house without a variance. Staff feels no special circumstances warrant approval. As nearby homes have 25-foot setbacks, this request is not consistent with the neighborhood’s character. Staff recommends denial. Under current code, the board can approve this request as a Level II flexible development. Mark W. Jackson, applicant, said his triangular-shaped property is on a corner. Without a variance, he cannot build a bedroom addition. An angled interior wall would increase costs and provide less square footage. He stated his neighbors do not object to the addition. He said he has agreed to plant an oak tree on the eastern side of the property to shade his neighbor’s garage. Moving the addition farther back on the property would interfere with the rear setback requirement. In response to a question, he said he did not want to build a second story because there are no 2-story homes in the neighborhood. Discussion ensued. This request must be considered under the code in effect prior to March 8, 1999. Staff would have recommended approval had the application been presented under current code. It was remarked due to the property’s unusual configuration, staff’s comments related to current code, and the lack of neighborhood opposition, a special circumstance exists. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested based on the findings and conclusions stated in the staff report prepared by the Clearwater Planning Department and by the information submitted by the applicant, under Section 45.24 of the previous Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM 2 – REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES – None. ITEM 3 – LEVEL 2 APPLICATIONS A. David Wade is requesting flexible development approval to construct a residential addition with a side yard setback of 3 feet and a front yard setback of 24 feet on Lot 4, Block 11, Northshore Park Subdivision located at 1754 Sunset Drive. The applicant wishes to construct an addition above a garage at 1754 Sunset Drive in a Low Medium Residential zoning district. The garage does not comply with setback requirements. The property complies with the maximum development potential standards. Approval of the request will bring the property into compliance with that district’s flexibility standards consisting of general criteria and criteria specific to side and front setbacks. In addition to criteria requiring access to a public street, lot development cannot be greater than other developments within 500 feet. Staff finds the proposed development is smaller than most similar neighborhood additions. Approval of a reduced front yard setback requires that the setback be similar to others in the neighborhood. Few front setbacks on Sunset Drive meet the required setback. The applicant’s proposal is similar to the house next door. By placing the addition on top of the garage, the applicant is saving trees. Staff recommends approval. David P. Wade, applicant, stated he wishes to add more bedrooms and a bathroom on the exact footprint of the garage. Member Johnson moved based on the findings and conclusions stated in the staff report prepared by the Clearwater Planning Department and by the information submitted by the applicant, David Wade is in compliance with the Community Development Code. Therefore the Community Development Board moves to approve the request for flexible development approval filed by Mr. Wade for 1754 Sunset Drive. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM 4 – LEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS Annexations A. Jennifer Cole is requesting to annex Lot 10, Block 47, Chautauqua Section A, Unit 1 Subdivision into the city of Clearwater with a zoning designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) and a land use designation of Residential Suburban. The applicant requests annexation to receive City water and sewer service to construct a single-family house at 2684 Third Avenue North. The property will have a land use plan designation of Residential Suburban and zoned Low Density Residential. The applicant owns 5 adjacent lots already in the City. Upon annexation, the owner proposes to sell the combined lots. Water and sewer utilities exist in front of the property. The applicant will pay costs related to manhole improvement. The request is consistent with State regulations. Staff recommends approval. Dean Cole, applicant’s spouse, said the property consisted of 6 parcels when it was acquired. He recently became aware this last parcel had not been annexed. Member Petersen moved, based on the findings and conclusions stated in the staff report prepared by the Clearwater Planning Department and by the information submitted by the applicant, the application for annexation submitted by Jennifer Cole is consistent with the standards for approval enumerated in Section 4-604-F. of the Community Development Code. Therefore, the Community Development Board recommends to the City Commission that the annexation requested by Ms. Cole for the property located at 2684 Third Avenue North be granted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Petersen moved, based on the findings and conclusions stated in the staff report prepared by the Clearwater Planning Department and by the information submitted by the applicant, the adoption of a future land use map designation of Residential Urban and a zoning designation of Low Density Residential is consistent with the standards for approval enumerated in Section 4-602 F. and Section 4-603 F. of the Community Development Code. Therefore, the Community Development Board recommends to the City Commission that the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning atlas amendment requested by Ms. Cole for the property located at 2684 Third Avenue North be granted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM 5 – APPEALS A. Carlisle Motors, Inc. is appealing the denial of a Level 1 approval by the Planning staff of a comprehensive sign program on property located at 2085 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Carlisle Motors, Inc. appeals denial of a Level 1 request regarding a comprehensive sign program at 2085 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The business plans to renovate its facilities and proposed new signage: 1) 4 freestanding signs totaling 163 square feet and 2) 6 attached signs totaling 454 square feet. Staff said the business could comply with sign regulations in the Community Development Code or with variances granted in 1992 and 1996. Under current code, the business may double the square footage of the attached and freestanding signs, entitling the business to 128 square feet per freestanding sign face, and 48 square feet of attached signage. The code also allows the business to increase the number of signs and reduce the front setback. The business has proposed nearly 10 times the amount of attached signage permitted. Under previously granted variances, the business is entitled to a greater number of square feet. The business, however, does not comply with conditions related to those variances. Based on the business’ non-compliance with existing code or previously granted variances, staff recommends the board uphold denial of the application. Under the 1992 and 1996 variances, the applicant is permitted (1) 73 square foot freestanding sign, (1) 32 square foot freestanding sign, (1) 16 square foot wall sign “parking,” (1) 16 square foot wall sign “service,” (1) 32 square foot wall sign “paint and body,” and a 10 square foot wall sign “entrance.” The applicant has signs for parking, service, paint and body, and a 73 square feet freestanding sign and a 32 square feet freestanding sign. It was noted the proposed signs would replace existing ones. Staff stated the code’s Comprehensive Sign program allows the maximum amount of signage to be doubled. While the quality of proposed signage meets the code’s intent, the code specifies the maximum allowable signage. In response to a question, staff indicated information supplied by the applicant in support of the appeal did not reference anything in the code that would affect the appeal. Susan Johnson-Velez, representative, stated Carlisle Motors, Inc. reviewed the property’s history. The company is constructing a new showroom, administrative offices, service department, and a body shop and removing 4 buildings from the 11-acre parcel. Ford Motor Company dictates signage requirements through its dealership program. Signs can be purchased only from one company, which makes only 5 sized signs. The previously granted sign variances are insufficient. The applicant seeks approval of 5 freestanding and 6 wall signs. Ms. Johnson-Velez submitted drawings of the proposed signs, indicating signs any smaller could not be read by Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard motorists. The next sized banner sign available is much larger than the 75-square foot sign proposed. She said minimum standards allow 64 square feet per sign face, or a total of 128 square feet for a 2-faced sign. She said if the Comprehensive Sign program permits twice that amount, Carlisle is permitted 256 square feet of freestanding signs. Staff had calculated only 128 total square feet. Ms. Johnson-Velez said the permitted 48 square feet of attached signage is too small to meet Carlisle’s needs. Member Mazur moved to accept the drawings submitted by Carlisle Motors. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Johnson-Velez said Carlisle Motors supports City regulations and community enhancement. The business seeks the minimum signage necessary to identify the dealership. The applicant feels the signage proposed is appropriate for the size of the property and buildings. In response to questions, Ms. Johnson-Velez and Mark Baird identified specific signage placement. Discussion ensued regarding Ford Motor Company signage requirements. It was remarked that Ford Motor Company must recognize local sign code regulations. Dan Carlisle no longer owns the business. Carlisle’s sign agreement with Ford Motor Company was not available for review. Representatives stated Ford Motor Company does not require all the proposed signs. Planning Director Ralph Stone reiterated code requirements. The applicant is pursuing the comprehensive option, which provides flexibility regarding additional signage. The sign code differs from the previous one by providing the development community with quicker treatment and more flexibility. Applicants can appear before the board regarding requests for maximum flexibility. The standards for approval were reviewed. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides indicated the code requires the applicant to prove, by substantial competent evidence, entitlement to the request. The board can: 1) grant the appeal; 2) grant the appeal subject to conditions; or 3) deny the appeal. Carlisle’s representatives stated County property records indicate this property consists of more than one parcel. A suggestion was made to consider some of the proposed signs as “directional.” Staff said they will consider the request if the signs meet requirements for “directional” signage. Discussion ensued. The applicant’s representatives requested a continuance to resolve this issue with staff. Member Johnson moved to continue Item 5A to June 15, 1999. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Gildersleeve, Johnson, Mazur, Moran, and Petersen voted “Aye”; Member Plisko and Chair Figurski voted “Nay”. Motion carried 5/2. Staff will work with the applicant to determine if a resolution can be found that complies with code. ITEM 6 – APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS April 6, 1999 Member Gildersleeve moved approval of the minutes of April 6, 1999, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. April 20, 1999 Member Johnson moved approval of the minutes of April 20, 1999, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM 7 – CHAIRMAN’S ITEMS – None. ITEM 8 – BOARD’S ITEMS The wording for motions was discussed. It was remarked the language is intended to protect against appeals. The Assistant City Attorney will review the motions to determine if they can be shortened. It was suggested staff adjust the code’s redevelopment portion, specifically regarding drainage and other requirements, which are not redevelopment-friendly. Staff said the code is helping expedite decisions at staff level and eliminates many issues that the board would have reviewed previously. It was requested the Chair recognize all speakers to prevent interruptions. ITEM 9 – DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Discussion of EAR-based Amendments Mr. Stone introduced Planner Teresa Mancini who is working on the EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) for the Comprehensive Plan. The City is retaining Siemon & Larsen to work on beach, downtown, and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard redevelopment in conjunction with the new code. EAR-based amendments were adopted as it was expected some redevelopment plans will need to be meshed with the EAR-based document. Ms. Mancini reviewed the background of the EAR process and summarized amendment recommendations to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is reviewing the recommendations to determine if changes are needed. The future land use element will be amended to reflect the community development code and its administrative processes. The future land use element will address mixed-use development, planned development, and historic preservation as recommended in the EAR. Other changes relate to traffic circulation, mass transit, and aviation. In accordance with State law, the City must include these elements in a Master Transportation Element. Additional changes will be made to concur with State law. A draft will be presented to the board on June 15, 1999, for recommendations. Packets would be mailed one week prior to the meeting. Should there be insufficient time to review all materials, related issues can be discussed in July. Mr. Stone introduced Senior Planner Gary Jones. ITEM 10 – ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:53 p.m.