07/08/1993 (2)
DCAB
l.
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADdUSTMENT BOARD
DATE
I) 7/()f /93
, ,
c27
)/1/5
,. .1
r"
("\
........'
\...-..'
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 8, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman (arrived 1:18 p~m.)
otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Also present:
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the
commission Chambers of City Hall. He outlined the procedures and
advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision of the
Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an
Appeal Hearing Officer wi thin two weeks. He noted Florida law
requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have
a record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda
order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I.
Public Hearings '
ITEM A - (continued from 5/27/93 and 6/10/93) Scot M.
Trefz for variances (I) of 3 ft to allow perimeter
landscape buffer of 4 ft where 7 ft is required (eastern
p/l) and of 5 ft to allow perimeter landscape buffer of
zero ft where 5 ft is required (southern p/l); (2) of 3
ft to allow circulation aisle zero ft from perimeter
landscape where 3 ft is required and 2 ft to allow
parking space 1 ft from perimeter landscape where 3 ft is
required; and (3) to allow turf block or permeable
concrete on circulation aisle at rear of property at 125
S Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.04, zoned CG (general
commercial). V 93-40
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail,
stating the application was continued to allow time for the
applicant to meet with staff and put together the best possible
solution. I n this two-phase redevelopment proposal, the first
phase will require variances that will no longer be necessary upon
completion of the second phase. Ms. Glatthorn stated the applicant
has made every effort to meet the necessary requirements and the
proposal appears to support the standards for approval.
DCAB Minutes
1
07/08/93
('"""'.
~
...-.
......~,c
In response to questions, Ms. Glatthorn indicated Phase Two will
delete the existing dog grooming facility and she believed that a
metal-roofed structure has already been removed.
Discussion ensued regarding permeable and all-weather paving
surfaces. It was indicated turf block does not meet City standards
for permanent paving; however, is subject to the approval of the
City Engineering Department where a permeable surface may be
permissible.
Scot M. Trefz, the owner/applicant, stated he began expansion of
his facility in 1990; however, was unable to secure financing to
complete the project until November of 1992. Dr. Trefz said the
architect who represented him at the variance request hearing of
February of 1993, did not accurately present the facts. Therefore,
Dr. Trefz met with city staff, presented the entire plan and
clarified his proposal relating to the building and parking plans.
He stated the proposed second floor improvements are solely for
employee use and the city Traffic Engineering Department is in
support of continuing to use the area in the rear of the property
for employee parking. Dr Trefz said he has SWFWMD authorization
for permit modification and the support of surrounding property
owners. He described the conditions surrounding his property,
saying the proposed changes will aesthetically improve the
appearance of the site and meet the spirit and intent of the Code.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. The outdoor pet run,
the dumpster and a 450-square-foot metal laundry shed are to be
removed. Phase One will allow upgrading of the present facility,
provide for adequate parking and expand the retention pond. Phase
Two involves demolishing the existing single-story animal hospital
and replacing it with a modern facility to include a doctor's
office and a radiology lab.
~..
Dr. Trefz presented photographs showing what currently exists on
the subject and surrounding properties. He was not unduly
concerned with the appearance of the surrounding commercial
properties; however, did not like having his neighbor's oil drums
encroaching onto his property due to leakage concerns. He said a
privacy fence will alleviate the appearance problem in the futUre.
In response to a question, Dr. Trefz stated his business is growing
and he hopes to go forward with Phase Two within five to ten years.
Dr. Trefz presented two letters from adjacent property owners in
support of the application.
Anna Trefz stated she and her husband got into this business in
1989 and they want to see completion of Phase Two in less than ten
years. She said they want to have the best veterinary hospital and
they propose to do this within five years.
DCAB Ninutes
2
07/08/93
"'-"'.
{
.-
f .
'-':""...,,~, .
,
-"
Dr. Trefz was commended for the improvements he has made to the
facility and the planning and preparation he has devoted to
bringing this plan before the Board.
Discussion ensued regarding permanent all-weather paving. Dr.
Trefz stated he was told permeable concrete deteriorates quickly
and turf block was recommended. It was noted turf block breaks
down under heavy driving traffic; however, is allowed in parking
stalls.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans
moved to grant the variances 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, more specifically
because, the variances arise from a condition which is unique to
the property and are not caused by the owner or applicant; the
variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship
created by the lot size prior to the entering of the building
improvements in Phase Two and these variances are granted with the
understanding that they will become null and void upon completion
of Phase Two of this project subject to the following conditions:
1) these variances are based on the variance application and
documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans,
surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the
applicant' 5 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 these variances being
null and of no effect; 2) the applicant shall amend the certified
site plan to reflect the changes proposed in this application and
3) the initial building permits shall be obtained within six (6)
months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
1. Jeffrey J. and Kimberly A. Halma for a variance of 3
ft to allow building addition 2 ft from side property
line where 5 ft is required at 1531 Ridgewood street,
Glenwood Sub, Lot 118, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residen-
tial). V 93-44
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail,
stating the applicant wishes to construct an addition to an
existing single-family residence which has a nonconforming setback
of 2.8 feet. The proposed structure would further encroach into
the setback and it was felt the application does not appear to
support the standards for approval.
Daniel Williams, representing the owners, stated he was asked to
enclose the courtyard area and bui Id an addi ticn to the master
bedroom because the applicants need more space in their home. He
presented a drawing of the proposal for the record, stating the
DCAB Ninutes
3
07/08/93
t.\
plans include a master bathroom and additional closet space. The
exterior of the new construction will match the existing cedar lap
siding. Mr. Williams stated a previous contractor forfeited his
contract to build this addition and the applicants wish to go
forward with the project as soon as possible.
Discussion ensued regarding the side setback calculations. Mr.
Williams stated the requested variance would allow the addition to
be built in line with the existing master bedroom. However, he
indicated the owners are aware of the site limitations and are
willing to construct with a notch in the wall, if necessary, to
stay within the existing 2.8 foot setback.
Jean stuart and Robert Cioni, owners of adjacent properties, spoke
in opposition to the application, expressing concern that any
further encroachment would hurt the. resale values of their
properties in the future. Mr. Cioni said water runs off the
subject property onto Ms. stuart's property. It was indicated
individual owners are responsible for retaining run-off water on
their properties and Mr. Williams stated guttering will be
installed.
A question was raised regarding a 1988 survey showing a wooden
fence which appeared to encroach onto the Halma property. Mr.
Ciani stated the fence has been moved since the survey was done.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. \oJhi Ie this was
'....._, considered to be a minimal request, concern was expressed with
increasing an ex isting non-conformity. Building closer to the
property line was felt to be detrimental to adjacent properties.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney
moved to grant a variance of 2.2 feet to aI/ow a building addition 2.8 feet from a side
property line because the applicant has substantially met all of the
standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development Code, more specifically because, the variance arises
from a condition which is unique to the property and is not caused
by the owner or applicant; the physical shape of the lot and the
strict application of the provisions of this development code would
result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and .the
variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created
by the size and shape of the lot and the placement of the home
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 I 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
'-~.
DCAB Minutes
4
07/08/93
_.~
/" ,
,
( \
',<",;.!
'.
...........
requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months
from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
The following Land Development Code Amendment was also considered:
ORDINANCE NO. 5411-93 OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA RELATING
TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING SECTION 42.21, CODE OF ORDI-
NANCES, RELATING TO NONCONFORMING USES, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES OCCUPIED BY NONCONFORM-
ING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED IN
EXCESS OF FIFTY PERCENT OF THE REPLACEMENT COST; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. (LDCA 93-03)
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the proposed amendment would
provide for replacement of a structure without any expansion or
enlargement.
Concern was expressed with allowing a non-conforming structure to
be reconstructed to the same non-conforming standards. However, it
was felt since there are so many buildings in the city which were
built prior to the current code, not allowing rebuilding would
cause many properties to be unusable.
In response to a question, it was noted this ordinance would apply
city-wide; however, would not apply to waterfront standards which
are more restrictive. Clarification. was requested regarding the
cover sheet accompanying the proposed ordinance language.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval with the recommendation the
ordinance apply only to non-conforming single-family residential
uses. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II, Approval of Minutes of June 24, 1993
Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of June 24 f 1993, in
accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Gans left the meeting at 2:25 p.m.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
Discussion ensued regarding having a disclaimer on the variance
application form. The Board had no problem with this.
A question was raised regarding the exterior landscaping require-
ment for the new doctor's office at 505 Druid Road. Staff is to
investigate and report at the next meeting.
DCAB Minutes
5
07/08/93
n
o
v
Discussion ensued regarding having each meeting start with' the
Chairman leading the Pledge of Allegiance and the members alternat-
ing turns in giving an invocation. Consensus was to follow this
procedure, using the non-denominational invocation used by the.
Planning and Zoning Board. Voting on the matter was deferred to
the next meeting.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:28 P'~~
Chairman . 'fJ
.1
DCAB Minutes
6
07/08/93
yr.:'",
(
"'-.'
.."""'.'
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, July 8, 1993 - 1:00 p.m. - Commission Meeting Room,
city Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, Florida
To consider requests for variances of the Land Development Code:
I. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (cant. from 6-10-93) Scot M. Trefz for variances (1) of 3
ft to allow perimeter landscape buffer of 4 ft where 7 ft is
required (eastern pill and of 5 ft to allow perimeter landscape
buffer of zero ft where 5 ft is required (southern p/l); (2) of 3
ft to allow circulation aisle zero ft from perimeter landscape
where 3 ft is required and 2 ft to allow parking space 1 ft from
perimeter landscape where 3 ft is required; and (3) to allow turf
block or permeable concrete on circulation aisle at rear of
property at 125 S Belcher Rd, See 18-29-16, M&B 23.04, zoned CG
(general commercial). V 93-40
Action: Granted as requested subject to the following condi tions:
1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and
documents submi tted by the applicant, including maps, plans,
surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the
app1.icant'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 J'Iith regard to the site or any
physical structure located on the si te, will resul t in this
variance being null and of no effect; 2) the applicant shall amend
the certified site plan to reflect the changes proposed in this
application and 3) the initial building permits shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
1. Jeffrey J. and Kimberly A. Halma for a variance of 3 ft to allow
building addition 2 ft from side property line where 5 ft is
required at 1531 Ridgewood street, Glenwood Sub, Lot 118, zoned RS
8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-44
Action: Granted a variance of 2.2 feet to allow buildinq addition 2.8 feet from
side property line 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'5 l-equest for
a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in
support of the request fOl~ a variance l~egarding 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 shall be obtained within six (6)
months from the date of this public hearing.
DeAB Action
1
07/08/93
:~:>.
'0
o
\.-;
"1
I
The following Land Development Code Amendment was also considered:
ORDINANCE NO. 5411-93 OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA RELATING
TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING SECTION 42.21, CODE OF
ORDINANCES, RELATING TO. NONCONFORMING USES, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES OCCUPIED BY NONCONFORM-
ING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED IN
EXCESS OF FIFTY PERCENT OF THE REPLACEMENT COST; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. (LDCA 93-03)
Action: Recommended approval wi th the recommendation the
ordinance apply only to non-conforming single-family residential
Uses.
II. Approval of Minutes of June 24, 1993
Approved as submitted.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adiourned at 2:28 p.m.
~~,
.,
DCAB Action
07{08/93
2