08/26/1993 (2)
-'
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE AD..JUSTMENT BOARD
DATE
o R/.:26/f.Q
1;
-
//7~
,., . ".. , . ':":'" s:' +, I " .' ' r,' ,"" ':: . . " " ' ":. ~.' ~. ',t I. . '. ", ", I, t ]0 . . -; " . .' ,~ .. . '. . , oj L ... .' .: .' + . ' .
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
I"...........
Thursday, August 26, 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. Time Extensions
1. Scott M Trefz (Gulf Bay Animal Hospital) for variances of (1) 6.25
ft to permit a building addition 3.75 ft from side property line where
a 10 ft setback is required; (2) 7 ft to permit a building separation
of 13 ft where 20 ft is required; and (3) 6 parking spaces to allow 22
spaces (including 7 temporary off site spaces) where 28 spaces are
required at 125 S Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.04, zoned CG
(General Commercial). V 93-02
Action:
continued to the meeting of September 9, 1993.
II. Public Hearings
1. Palm Pavilion clearwater, Inc/Howard G. & Jean B. Hamilton for
variances (1) of 21 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 21 spaces
are required; (2) of 9.5 ft to allow a deck 0.5 ft from street right-
Of-way where 10.0 ft is required (west property line); (3) of 9.5 ft to
~ allow a deck 0.5 ft from street right-of-way where 10.0 ft is required
.,_.,_ (south property line); (4) of 65 ft to allow a deck seaward of the
coastal construction control line at 10 Bay Esplanade, Revised Map of
Clearwater Beach, Blk 8, Lots 1-5, 14 & 15, zoned CB (Beach Commer-
cial). V 93-53
Action: Granted as #1 for 7 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 7
are permitted, #2, #3 and #4 as requested subject to the following
condi tions: 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 tlle 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) no enclosure of the deck shall be permitted; 3) all
requisite Department of Natural Resources permits shall be obtained
prior to the issuance of a building permit and 4) the requisite
building permit shall be obtained within eighteen (18) months from the
date of this public hearing.
2. Sun Watch, Inc. for a variance of 5 ft to allow a structure 95 it
in height where 90 it is allowed at 670 Island Way, Sec 05-29-15, M&B
31.011, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential). V 93-55
~. ' Action:
Continued to the meeting of October 1,', 1993
DCAB Action
1
08/26/93
3. GTE Florida, Inc. for variances (1) of 3,507 sq ft to allow a
minimum lot area of 16,493 sq ft where 20,000 sq ft is required; (2) of
20 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 100 ft where 120 ft is required;
(3) of 30 ft to allow a structure 145 ft from centerline of US 19 where
175 ft is required; (4) of 1.21 ft to allow a structure 18.79 ft from
side property line where 20 ft is required at 21051 US 19, Sec 17-29-
16, M&B 23.03, zoned CH (Highway commercial). V 93-56
Action: Granted variances #1, #2, & #4 as requested and variance #3,
of 20 feet to allow a structure 155 feet from the centerline of US 19
where 175 feet is required, all 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 resul t in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the
asphalt area being replaced shall be landscaped with shrubs and trees.
This landscaped area shall be maintained to provide the proper
aesthetics to the surrounding properties and 3) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this
public hearing.
4. William F. & Sharon A. Belak, Donald J. & Janis K. Blaisdell,
Donald A. Burgess, David A. & Judith K. Dolan, Richard T. & Marilyn J.
Donoghue, Richard & Meryl Geller, Burnis L. Grace, Jr. & Mary B. Grace,
subhi s. & Shadia B. Jaleel, Michael W. & Alana J. Stephenson, David L.
'_/ & Barbara J. Taylor for a variance of 3 it to allow 0 ft landscaping
abutting street right-of-way at 2937 - 2991 Mayfair ct., Mayfair Sub,
Lots 12 - 21, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 93-58
DCAB Action
2
08/26/93
Action:
Denied.
5. Whiteco Industries, Inc for a variance of 2 ft to allow a wood
fence G ft in height where 4 it is permitted at 24546 US 19, 8lackburn
Sub, Lot 7, part of lots 8 & 9, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). V 93-59
Action: Granted as requested subject to the following condi tions: 1)
This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents
submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, dnd 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 effectj 2) landscap-
ing in compliance l<lith Sec. 42.26(8) alld 42.27 of the Lalld Development
Code shall be installed Oil the exterior of the fence within six months
and continuously maintained and 3) the requisite building permit shall
be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
'--..,,'
.~ . <', ," ..... '. . .,' ." : .: .: .'~ . ~. I~': / ". ~ J' .
r~.
6. Georgia A. Miller for variances (1) of 5 ft to allow a wooden
fence 0 ft from property line where 5 ft is required; (2) of 5 ft to
allow 0 landscaping where 5 ft is required; (3) to the requirement for
a gate at intersection of Carlton street/east of Greenwood Avenue,
Fairmont Sub, Blk G, Lot 9, zoned RM 12 (Multiple Family Residential).
V 93-60
Action:
continued to the meeting of September 9, 1993.
7. Manuel & Dimitra Kotakis TRE and George & Elefteria Mantzaris for
a variance of 6.6 ft to allow a structure 3.4 ft from rear property
line where 10.0 ft is required at 1141 Court street, Sec 15-29-15, M&B
31.06, 31.08 & 31.09, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 93-61
Action: Granted as requested subject to the following condi tions: 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 applican t' 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) prior to
issuance of a building permi t, the applicant shall obtain courtesy
review approval of a site plan by the Development Review Committee and
that site plan shall be completely checked for compliance to the Land
Development Code for the portion of the property to be developed; 3) a
unity of Title shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building
permit and 4) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within
six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
(v
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
v
DCAB Action
J
08/26/93
{",
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
August 26, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Members absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Also present~
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
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 within 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. Time Extensions
1. Scott M Trefz (Gulf Bay Animal Hospital) for variances of (1) 6.25 ft to
permit a building addition 3.75 ft from side property line where a 10ft setback
is required; (2) 7 ft to permit a building separation of 13 ft where 20 ft is
required; and (3) 6 parking spaces to allow 22 spaces (including 7 temporary
off site spaces) where 28 spaces are required at 125 S Belcher Rd. See 18.29.
16, M&B 23.04, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 93-02
\.....1
DCAB Minutes
08/26/93
Staff was requested to provide clarification regarding whether or not these variances are still
in effect due to variances having been granted for this property on another application (V 93-
40; 7/8/93'.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 9, 1993. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
"..'-
t "
~)
'\...au..../
II.
Public Hearings
1. Palm Pavilion Clearwater, Ine/Howard G. & Jean B. Hamilton for
variances (1) of 21 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 21 spaces are
required; (2) of 9.5 ft to allow a deck 0.5 ft from street right-of-way where
10.0 ft is required (west property line); (3) of 9.5 ft to allow a deck 0.5 ft from
street right-at-way where 10.0 ft is required (south property line); (4) of 65 ft
to allow a deck seaward of the coastal construction control line at 10 Bay
Esplanade, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, Blk 8, Lots 1-5, 14 & 15, zoned
CB (Beach Commercial). V 93-53
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to
provide additional seating for patrons. The existing structure is nonconforming with an
existing outdoor seating area. This request is similar to a request granted in 1992 for
Rockaway Grill, which was conditioned upon the deck not being enclosed. It was noted a 4-
COP-SRX license request for the subject property was heard by the Planning and Zoning Board
on August 17, 1 993 and the requested parking va riance maybe reduced.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the proposal is to expand an existing
deck to allow patrons to be seated at tables. He said this property has been a beach attrac-
tion since 1926 and has been owned and operated by the Hamilton family since 1964. He
felt the request is minimal, will not change the aesthetics or historic character of the Palm
Pavilion, meets Code criteria and is a reasonable use of the property. The proposed 810
square-foot deck will be totally within the property lines and the parking lot is one of the
largest of its kind on the beach, with 31 on-site parking spaces. Mr. Cline listed other
available parking in the area, pointing out this request is for less than was granted for the
Rockaway. He indicated there will be no obstruction of beach vista or access and. as the
business closes at midnight. will have no negative impact on the surrounding community.
He presented a photograph of a structure similar to what is being proposed and requested 18
months to obtain the building permit due to time being needed to obtain Department of
Natural Resources permits.
Discussion ensued regarding details of the site plan, permitted use and parking calculations.
Mr. Cline said the establishment has 75 percent food sales which reduces the intensity of use
and the parking requirements for the deck. Senior Planner Glatthorn indicated. with the 50
percent bonus for retail food sales, only seven parking spaces are needed. This would reduce
the variance request from 21 to seven parking spaces.
Ken Hamilton. representing the owner/applicants. responded to questions. He said the
adjacent hotel is grandfathered for zero parking. He indicated work on tho Palm Pavilion is
currently underway to make it more structurally sound and it is proposed to have the external
appearance compatible with the recommendations of tile Beach Task Force. A question was
raised regarding whether or not an awning will be installed over the deck. Mr. Hamilton said
a roof overhang prevents the sun from shining directly into tile building and no awning is
proposed because the outdoor customers seem to prefer uncovered seating.
DCAB Minutes
2
08/26/93
rowJu.'\
,
f
\>wr,d'j~
~ .
.......'
A question was raised regarding if the Palm Pavilion will continue to prohibit beer and liquor
on the beach. Mr. Hamilton pointed out that alcohol use on the beach is regulated by the City
and State. However, he said signs will continue to be posted on the subject property
informing patrons of this prohibition.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #1
for 7 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 7 are required and variances #3, #3 and #4 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 particular physical conditions of the property involved and the strict
application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary
hardship upon the applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the
hardship created by the Coastal Construction Control Line and the lot size. 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) no enclosure of the deck shall be permitted; 3) all
requisite Department of Natural Resources permits shall be obtained prior to the issuance of
a building permit and 4} the requisite building permit shall be obtained within eighteen (1 8)
months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
2. Sun Watch, Inc. for a variance of 5 ft to allow a structure 95 ft in height
where 90 ft is allowed at 670 Islnnd Way, See 05.29-15. M&B 31.011, zoned
RM 28 (Multiple Family Residentiall. V 93.55
Staff recommended continuing this item because the City Commission has not received the
required site plan.
Mr. Johnson moved to continue V 93-55 to the meeting of October 14, 1993. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Assistant City Attorney Lance left the meeting from 1 :41 to 2:00 p.m.
3. GTE Florida, Inc. for variances (1) of 3,507 sq ft to allow a minimum lot
area of 16.493 sq ft where 20,000 sq ft is required; (2) of 20 ft to allow a
minimum lot width of 100 ft where 120 ft is required; (3) of 30 ft to allow a
structure 145 ft from centerline of US 19 where 175 ft is required; (4) of 1.21
ft to allow a structure 1 B,79 ft from side property line where 20 tt is required
at 21 051 US 19, See 17-29-16, M&B 23.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial).
V 93-56
DCAB Minutes
3
08/26/93
~
......_.~
, f
,,-..,
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant is proposing
to modify a former drive-through restaurant for use as a switching station. Approximately
690 square feet will be added to accommodate the required interior equipment arrangement.
She noted the scheduled US 19 Highway improvements will not adversely affect the proposal.
The applicant is proposing to remove more than 50 percent of the existing asphalt and convert
to green space.
Mel Schultz, architect representing the applicant, stated the variances are being requested to
legalize non-conformities that have existed there for many years. He noted there is an error
in variance #3, which should read "20 feet to allow a structure 155 feet from centerline of
US 19".
In response to questions, Mr. Schultz said the area between the building and US 19 will be
landscaped and, once equipped, the facility will remain unmanned. The proposal is a less
intensive use of the property and is necessary to accommodate GTE's standard equipment
arrangement. There will be no future expansions, as the building will be fully equipped at the
onset of operations.
Discussion ensued with it being indicated this use will enhance the property. will have no
impact on traffic and is not adjacent to any residential areas.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to grant variances
#1, #2, & #4 as requested and variance #3, of 20 feet to allow a structure 155 feet from the
centerline of US 19 where 175 feet is required, because the applicant has substantially met
all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the land Development Code,
all 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 asphalt areas being replaced shall be
landscaped with shrubs and trees. These areas shall be maintained to provide the proper
aesthetics to the surrounding properties and 3) the 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.
4. William F. & Sharon A. Belak, Domlld J. & Janis 1<. Blaisdell, Donald A.
Burgess, David A. & Judith 1<' Dolan, Richard T. & Marilyn J. Donoghue,
Richard & Meryl Geller, Burnis L. Grace, Jr. & Mary B. Grace, Subhi S. & Shadia
B. Jalee!, Michael W. & Alana J. Stephenson. David L. & Barbara J. Taylor for
a variance of 3 ft to allow 0 ft landscaping abutting street right-of-way at 2937
. 2991 Mayfair Ct., Mayfair Sub. Lots 12 - 21, zoned RS 6 (Single Family
Residential). V 93-58
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicants are seeking
a variance to the landscaping requirement all the right-of.way side of a wall along State Road
580. The Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) has taken the right~of-way along the
OCAB Minutes
08/26/93
4
'-"\
road frontage and has plans to tear down the existing wall, for the relocation of underground
utilities, and construct a new wall in the same location. The existing landscaping between
the present wall and the sidewalk is less than the required amount and is non-conforming.
The applicants feel enforcing the landscaping requirement would mean relocating the wall five
feet into their back yards.
Gerald Figurski. attorney representing the applicant. stated when the FOOT condemned the
right-of.way, they did not provide for moving back the wall. nor for any compensation to the
affected property owners. The applicants did not create the situation and many large trees
and shrubs would have to be moved to put a planting strip on the other side of the wall.
Engineers doing a noise study indicated the further away the wall is from the homes, the
better the noise will be buffered. He did not feel three feet of landscaping would serve any
useful purpose along a six-lane highway.
In response to questions. Mr. Figurski stated the homeowners would be responsible for
replacing the wall, probably with concrete block and stucco.
Discussion ensued regarding the request and who should maintain the landscaping buffer. It
was indicated there is little hardship as most of the affected yards are oversized and it was
felt the buffer zone should not be eliminated.. Mr. Figurski detailed site conditions and
presented photographs of the subject lots.
Mike L1overas. engineer representing the applicant, responded to questions, indicating the
State would be responsible for maintaining the three-foot strip of grass. Under the current
State proposal, he said. the sidewalk will be built right up against the fence. He presented
. ',--, a photographic layout of the proposal.
~c ~
~.:,.i
DCAB Minutes
5
08/26/93
Concern was expressed it is premature to ask for a variance when it is not known whether
or not the wall will be torn down. It was not felt to be aesthetically pleasing to have a
sidewalk against a fence without being softened by landscaping.
It was indicated bidding for the road construction is set to go out in February. 1994.
Mr. Figurski asked for a continuance to allow the propertY owners to present their individual
cases and a representative of FOOT to explain exactly what is proposed.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant. Mr. Johnson moved to deny the
variance as requested because the application does not appear to comply with the standards
for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because no unneces-
sary hardship was shown; the variance is not the minimum; the granting of the variance
would adversely affect the public health. safety, order, convenience, or general welfare of the
community and would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as
expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35,05. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Mr. Lance left the meeting from 2:27 to 3:00 p.m.
()
5. Whiteco Industries, Inc for a variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6
ft in height where 4 ft is permitted at 24546 US 19, Blackburn Sub, Lot 7, part
of lots 8 & 9, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). V 93659
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to
construct a six.foot-high shadow box fence along portions of the north and south property
lines and the entire west property line. She stated the surrounding homeowners are in
agreement with the request to mitigate the negative impacts of light and noise from the
Celebration Station parking lot.
Frederick Simmons, architect representing the applicant, detailed the location and answered
questions regarding the extent of the proposed fence. He said the fence will deter people
climbing into the center and driving onto the property from Lawson Road. It will extend to
the trailer park to the south.
Discussion ensued with it being indicated the application was discussed extensively with
staff. The surrounding property owners were notified and appeared to be happy with the
proposal.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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, more specifically because, the
particular physical surroundings. shape, or topographical conditions of the property involved
and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
." \ unnecessary hardship upon the neighbors, not the applicant, subject to the following
\....,,.t 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) landscaping in compliance with Sec. 42.26(8) and 42.27 of
the land Development Code shall be installed on the exterior of the fence within six months
and continuously maintained and 3) the 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.
\, I
'<l:r.:'
DCAB Minutes
6
08/26/93
6. Georgia A. Miller for variances (1) of 5 ft to allow a wooden fence 0 ft
from property line where 5 ft is required; (2) of 5 ft to allow 0 landscaping
where 5 ft is required; (3) to the requirement for a gate at intersection of
Carlton Street/east of Greenwood Avenue, Fairmont Sub, Blk G, Lot 9, zoned
RM 12 (Multiple Family Residential!. V 93.60
There was some question regarding whether or not the applicant understood she was to be
present.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 9, 1993. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
'-".
7 . Manuel & Oimitra Kotakis TRE and' George & Elefteria Mantzaris for a
variance of 6.6 ft to allow a structure 3.4 ft from rear property line where 10.0
ft is required at 1141 Court Street. See 15-29-15. M&8 31.06. 31.08 & 31.09.
zoned CG (General Commercial). V 93-61
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to
construct a new building to provide indoor storage of automobiles for protection from
vandalism. The construction of a 14-foot-high wall was begun without a permit. This wall
now extends the full length of the rear property line and has been cited as unsafe due to
lacking the required structural reinforcement. A Conditional Use for the expansion of the
vehicle service business was approved. subject to conditions, by the Planning and Zoning
Board on August 17, 1993. Staff did not feel the application meets the standards for
approval for variances.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, submitted an aerial photograph of the area,
listing surrounding properties which are built near the property lines. The proposed expansion
will follow the existing building lines, incorporating the 14~foot-high concrete block wall as
one of the walls of the new building. Moving the proposed structure forward, away from the
rear property line, is restricted by the location of a large oak tree on the site. He stated the
application is not motivated by financial gain, but to honor the historical site conditions, and
is consistent with what exists on the site. Regarding the work being done without permits,
he stated Ms. Mantzaris was in error when she began to have the carport enclosed, and has
since hired a builder.
~.j
DCAB Minutes
7
08/26/93
Concerns were expressed regarding location of a dumpster, lack of parking, wa ter retention
\__~ and green space. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not open space, building coverage
and setback requirements are being met. Jt was felt environmental impact has not been
addressed. Mr. Cline submitted a copy of a site plan, stating the site design is intended to
save two trees. It was indicated a courtesy site plan review has been requested to address
these concerns.
Elefteria Mantzaris, the owner/applicant. responded to questions. She stated the new building
will be used at night, to temporarily store vehicles which have been left for repairs. This is
needed because of a problem with vandalism on the property. She said a house has been
removed from the site and that area will be paved after permits are obtained. In addition.
space is needed to store abandoned, wrecked vehicles until they can be legally disposed,
which can take six months. She said obtaining permits for work already done is pending
approval of this variance.
Discussion ensued regarding the number & ownership of the parcels involved in the
application. It was felt these should be joined by a Unity of Title, which may include more
than one owner. It was questioned whether or not sufficient hardship oxists.
A question was raised regarding the courtesy site plan review procedure. It was indicated the
Design Review Committee meets to make sure site development meets the Land Development
Code and departmental requirements.
,~. Concerns were expressed with the height of the new building. the history of misunderstanding
and illegal construction. However, it was felt the proposal will improve the a ppearance of the
location and add to the overall betterment of the neighborhood.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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, more specifically because, the
variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was caused by Mother
Nature, not the owner or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome
the hardship created by the restriction of the large oak tree 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) prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain
courtesy review approval of a site plan by the Development Review Committee and that site
plan shall be completely checked for compliance to the land Development Code for the
portion of the property to be developed; 3) a Unity of Title shall be recorded prior to the
issuance of a building permit and 4) the 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.
{-' )
~~:.t'
'"-'
III. Board and Staff Discussion
The revised staff variance transmittal form was reviewed.
Concern was expressed regarding grass being allowed to grow over sidewalks near
Eisenhower Elementary School. Staff is to investigate and report to whom sidewalk
complaints should be submitted.
Concern was expressed regarding a variance being granted to build a roof trellis over a pool
on Magnolia Drive (V 93-52; 8/12/93). Discussion ensued and staff was requested to
investigate whether or not the trellis, walls and fences are legal.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
ChairmrJ-f \? UIj
DCAB Minutes
8
08/26/93