08/08/1996 (2)
~~~~:::,,~r: .;'.~' .'~ .. ":" .
~;: .,'::- '
.,' '.' c
I"~' ....... ~:
1. :,','. ',. .' i\.\j.+ '~~>~
, '>",
. .'..
, ',~ " .
c1 ''\.,
) ~ :
,~. '
.."j
, c,
" ..'
~>, .
':i.
'.
. ~ ,,-'~ .
,..,..'- .
"';'; '."'
it ,"
'~W: .'. '.' .'. .
.'.!!"; <', ':'
.:.>, ". .
~~~~\~.:,~~,I:J' !;!i'~:~~;r:"'''::~':::'ir' '<::~'\;.,Z~:,,::;.,,: ,"",:.': '..,'\, {,,'..' " .:" .....,. ; , '
. ;;, . '. . '. c;' '. ..... ~~' < .
"
::. ,,:; '1/ .~. <<"<:"" ::h: ~ t~>I.;:~ .~ :....:,i-~:~~;;t:~~~!.
, . .
I " '
('
r
i ~
!
I
i
\, .')
I. " "-"~/
l, .,'
, ,
.DCAB
Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
'Date
~-l <jj'~qq~
o
, ,
.,
.',
-1-- ~ 7 7
o
)
I
,1
I
1
, ~ "..
, " , \ '.' .' . " ' ','.' ". . ' , . " L. .....,
'~i~( :':' . ' . .
r:~ '1":" .
I~
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD - ACTION AGENDA
Thursday, August 8, 1996
Call to Order, Pledge of AlJegiance and Invocation
B. Continued Variance Requests
1. (Cant. from 7/11/96) ~ ,John G. Powell/PPS Interests (Computer City) for the following
variances: (1) an open space variance for the lot of 5 percent to allow 20 percent
where a minimum of 25 percent is required; (2) a front yard open space variance of 20
percent to allow 30 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is required; (3) a parking
variance of 6 parking spaces to permit 84 parking spaces where 90 spaces are
required; (4) a landscape buffer variance of 5 ft to allow a 0 ft wide landscape buffer
strip abutting nonresidentially zoned property to West where a minimum of 5 ft is
required; and (5) a landscape buffer variance of 10ft to allow 0 ft wide landscaped
buffer strip abutting residentially zoned property to West where a minimum of 10ft is
required at 25000 US 19 N, Sec. 31-28-16, M&B 44.03, zoned CH (Highway
Commercial). VR 96-50
ACTION: Approved (1) an open space variance of 2 percent to allow 23 percent
where a minimum of 25 percent is required; (2) a front yard open space variance of 6.7
percent to allow 43.3 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is required; (3) a parking
variance of 5 parking spaces to permit 84 parking spaces where 89 spaces are required;
and (4) and (5) as requested subject to the following conditions: 1} These variances are
based on the application for variances and documents submitted by the applicant, including
,.,.m.,\ maps, plans, surveys and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request
"'"...,1 . for variances. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the
. request for a variances 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 requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of
this public hearing; 3) the open space for the lot shall be 23 percent of the lot area and the
open space for the front yard shall be 43.3 percent of the front yard area; 4) the plan
submitted shall reflect a 17,760 square foot building; 5) a 6.foot high fence shall be
erected on the western property line; and 6) additional landscape requirements shall be
incorporated as per the applicant's submitted plan.
C. New Variance Requests
J
1. Bettv M. Armstrong for the following variance; a height variance of 2 ft to allow a
wood fence 6 ft high within the setback area from Pin Oak Drive right-of.way where a
maximum height of 4 ft is permitted at 2314 Pin Oak Drive East, Shady Oak Farms,
Blk H, Lot 5, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-53
ACTION: Approved as requested 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 of 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 one year from the
date of this public hearing.
DCAB ACTION
1
08/08/96
.., ,.
~ .
,"
"
L
ib~'~ki""'I}" :.:..t;.:"':hlL. J >;;,';. it,. :':-.. '; '\ .;1/ c,' ~ ; ~.: ,.' I.
m{~J:':l~"f~.~.~~~::.:,C;' ..:.~ ' . '; ".~ t,". 'I t': F ,cc.:',.. ' c
'.': 'j ;: .
";' "':,:'><r;w.
, '<.' . ,.'
~
. J
...",...~
2. Steven & Mary E. Moret for a setback variance of 2.5 ft to allow a room addition
7.5 ft from the East side property line where a minimum setback of 10ft is required at
3260 San Mateo Street, DelOra Groves, Lots 540-543, zoned RS 4 (Single Family
Residential). VR 96~54
ACTION: Denied
Minutes Approval -~ July 25, 1996 - Approved as submitted
Board and Staff Comments
Approved modification to plans submitted to City when variances for
telecommunication tower were approved on June 13, 1996 to allow antennas to be
positioned 'more vertically than horizontally (George L. Mallory TRE (Edgewater
Investments/Realty) .
Member Gans expressed concern the vacancy on the board has not been filled.
John Richter referred to a report from the building inspector assigned to investigate
440 West Condominium. He will provide additional information at the next meeting. Mr.
Richter pointed out staff is proposing to change the meeting schedule for January 1997 to
January 16 and 30.
Adjournment -- 2:41 p.m.
f~
\.-,
, \
V
DCAB ACTION
2
08/08/96
%f.:~:t',> .:....:.' . ,', :
,; ~ .
~
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
Auguet 8, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwab
Mark Jonnatti
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Mary K. "Sue" Diana
Gwen Legters
William Johnson
5th Seat Vacant
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Assistant City Clerk for
Board Reporter
Board Member
Board Member
Absent:
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1 :00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the
Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal
process.
To provide continuity for research. items are listed in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
B. Continued Variance Requests
.u~
\
''F...",!
1. (Cont. from 5/9, 6/13 & 7/11/961 -- John G. PowelllPPS Interests (Computer City)
for the following variances: (1) an open space variance for the lot of 5 percent to
allow 20 percent where a minimum of 25 percent is required; (2) a front yard open
space variance of 20 percent to allow 30 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is
required; (3) a parking variance of 6 parking spaces to permit 84 parking spaces
where 90 spaces are required; (4) a landscape buffer variance of 5 ft to allow a 0 ft
wide landscape buffer strip abutting nonresidentially zoned property to West where a
minimum of 5 ft is required; and (5) a landscape buffer variance of 10ft to allow 0 ft
wide landscaped buffer strip abutting residentially zoned property to West where a
minimum of 10ft is required at 25000 US 19 N, Sec. 31-28-16, M&B 44.03, zoned
CH (Highway Commercial). VR 96-50
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations.
This application was continued to revise the plan again, addressing board concerns
regarding reduction of open space. The applicant wishes to redevelop the unoccupied strip
shoppi'ng center property with a computer store. Mr. Richter discussed open space
requirements and how the proposal was changed to minimize the variances and
accommodate City and board concerns. Staff felt proposed improvements will eliminate
the existing adverse conditions, benefiting the neighborhood and the City. Staff felt
conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. in
response to a question, Mr. Richter stated the plan was changed to reduce the floor area
by 240 square feet, thereby increasing open space and easing parking demand.
'",- .~
mdc08a.96
1
08/08/96
. '. , .' . . ~ ~..' ~ '
f::;"'~': .
t"'~ Todd Pressman, representing the applicants, reviewed the history of changes made to
. i address board and staff concerns. The current proposal is for a 17,760 square foot
building. He discussed green space and landscaping, noting the application has the
support of the surrounding residential community. He reviewed other variances approved
along US 1 9, including those for Discount Auto Parts. The variances are minimal, the plan
eliminated an old structure, and the significant investment will reflect positively on the US
19 corridor.
Discussion ensued regarding elimination of the rear landscaping buffer, an existing six
foot high fence located on the adjacent property to the west, the applicants' unsuccessful
attempts to acquire unoccupied property next door, the extent of the maintenance facility
in the rear, and the dumpster area being regarded as open space. Discussion ensued
regarding the percentage of existing open space compared to what will be provided under
the new proposal.
\ ..........
......-1
Two adjacent residents spoke in support of the application, as follows: Celeste Spaldi,
Hillcrest Villas Condominiums Manager and resident, stated the board of directors and 400
residents desperately desire approval of the Computer City proposal to prevent opening of
another bar in the strip shopping center. She cited strong concerns regarding the history
of poor property maintenance and inappropriate patron behavior when the bar is open. She
said many residents who wished to speak in support are up north for the summer. In
response to a questionl she was not concerned with waiver of the required landscape
buffer along the west side. Denis .Kleinrichert, Secretary of Hillcrest Villas Board of
Directors, agreed with Ms. Spaldi, stating the application offers an improvement over the
existing eyesore and its negative impact on the residential community. He felt a Computer
City store would enhance the neighborhood and the City.
No verbal opposition was expressed. One anonymous letter of opposition was
submitted.
In closing, Mr. Pressman stated the variances have been reduced and he appreciated
staff's positive remarks.
Mike Giordanol representing the applicants, explained they researched and seriously
attempted to acquire adjacent parcels, but the Discount Auto Parts parcel was
economically unfeasible. He felt redevelopment of the subject property will enhance it and
the adjacent property.
Board discussion ensued. It was indicated the open space variances have been
reduced to minimal levels, the building was decreased in size and moved back on the lot,
and the lack of landscaping buffer along the Florida Power right-of-way has negligible
impact. Increased green areas along US 19 will please the public. It was felt the
applicants have done all they can and today's proposal is a vast improvement over the first
presentation. With the addition of a six foot fence to the plan, and revision of the plan to
reflect the reduced floor space and additional landscaping, board members supported the
application. The board thanked Mr. Richter and Member Jonnatti for their
recommendations and professional expertise in reaching a solution acceptable to all.
,--,,'
mdc08a.96
2
08/08/96
. , ' .
, . . ' , . ~ .' , \ ( .
L:.'
~l .+'
(~
...
Member Schwab moved to grant (1) an open space variance of 2 percent to allow 23
percent where a minimum of 25 percent is required; (2) a front yard open space variance
of 6.7 percent to allow 43.3 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is required;
(3) a parking variance of 5 parking spaces to permit 84 parking spaces where 89 spaces
Bre required; and (4) and (5) 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) These variances are based on the application for
variances and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans; surveys and
other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for variances. Deviation
from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variances
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 requisite building
permiUs) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) the open
space for the lot shall be 23 percent of the lot area and the open space for the front yard
shall be 43.3 percent of the front yard area; 4) the plan submitted shall reflect a 17,760
square foot building; 5) a 6-100t high wood fence shall be constructed on the western
property line; and 6) additional landscape requirements shall be incorporated according to
the applicanes submitted plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
c. New Variance Requests
"~""'\
'....,...".,
1. Bettv M. ArmstronQ for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high
within the setback area from Pin Oak Drive right-of-way where a maximum height of 4
ft is permitted at 2314 Pin Oak Drive East, Shady Oak Farms, Blk H, Lot 5. zoned
RS 6 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-53
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to construct a six foot high wood fencR to enclose the rear
yard, pool and pool enclosure of the single family home located on a corner lot. The
southernmost portion of the fence will be within the setback from the Pin Oak Drive right~
of~way where the height limit is four feet. Staff indicated conditions support the request
and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
Donald Armstrong, Jr., the applicant's spouse and representative, stated they wish to
construct the fence five feet into the 25-foot right-at-way to provide privacy, reduce noise,
and accommodate existing landscaping around the pool. The neighbors do not object and
landscaping will be provided outside the fence in the remaining 20-foot right-of-way. In
response to a question, he was not aware of any deed restrictions in the subdivision. It
was indicated other fences in the area appear to contorm to code. As the pool is visually
screened with a dense landscaping, the need for a six foot fence was questioned. Mr.
Armstrong indicated a consistent height fence will provide visual continuity and enhance
privacy for the pool, the master bedroom and bathroom.
Betty Ann Armstrong, the property owner, stated privacy fences are normally six feet
tall. She was uncomfortable that, because of the way the property is situated, people
walking along the sidewalk can look into the bedroom and bathroom when the windows
v
mdc08a.96
3
08/08/96
, .' . . . " . .. ..' ~
.. '. 1 , . ~
:~/~. ~
,~
are open. The existing landscaping around the pool is sparse at the bottom and does not
provide adequate privacy while she is sunbathing. They also wish for their children to have
a dog in the future. She has discussed the design with the neighbors, who support the
proposal. She hoped the fence will buffer traffic noise from McMullen-Booth Road located
one block away. They have made other improvements to the property and feel the fence
will add to their enjoyment of their home. In response to a question, it was indicated a
gate has been planned in the small northeast section of the fence, but is not reflected on
the plan. The applicant was advised of the need to ensure it is reflected on the plan.
Mr. Richter indicated addition of a gate will not be a problem.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board members agreed
with the need for privacy.
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
application for a variance and documents submitted by tho 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 of 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 one year from the date of this
public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
-.~:"
t~f:rrt'{'/
2. Steven & Marv E. Morel for the following variance: a setback variance of 2.5 ft to
allow a room addition 7.5 ft from the East side property line where a minimum setback
of 10ft is required at 3260 San Mateo Street, Delara Groves, Lots 540-543, zoned
RS 4 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-54
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to construct an 830 square foot addition to the east side of
the single family home. Staff felt conditions do not support approval because ample area
exists on the 15,000 square foot lot for reasonable use of the land without encroaching
into the setbacks. The variance is not minimum. Staff did not recommend approval,
indicating it is desirable to maintain the generous separation between homes in this
attractive residential area.
Steven Morel, the owner/applicant, stated he moved in last year and wishes to build
the addition for his mother. The addition will not be used as a rental unit and was
designed to fit on the lot without removing trees. Referring to a floor plan, he said the 14
by 14 foot bedroom will accommodate a hospital bed and wheelchair. Food is to be
prepared in the home's kitchen, laundry facilities are located to be accessible to both
parties, and living quarters are situated to buffer noise. He discussed site constraints and
reviewed drawing details with the board. Discussion ensued regarding how to reduce the
size of the proposal to fit on the lot without a setback variance. The house currently
contains 3 bedrooms, 2-1/2 baths and laundry facilities are in the garage. Mr. Morel
expressed concern size reduction would limit handicapped accessibility.
., -..,../
mdcOBa.96
4
08/08/96
, ,,' . .',' . "'. '. I' .' "_
~:i;!.~ ~.
,.
,~'
,
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. In response to a question,
Mr. Morel said he has not discussed the proposal with the adjacent property owner to the
east.
While the board commended the applicant's desire to take care of an aging parent.
concerns were expressed comfortable living quarters could be constructed without a
variance. It was indicated no effecttve way exists to ensure the addition will not be
converted to multi-family use in the future, and architectural modifications would allow
handicapped accessibility in a smaller area. It was felt the application is not in the best
interest of the neighborhood and does not meet the criteria for approval.
Member Jonnaui moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has
not substantially met all the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The
applicant was advised of the appeal process.
Minutes Approval - July 25, 1996
Member Jonnatti moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each
member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
.::;) Mr. Richter stated the applicants have been working on configuration of a
telecommunication tower for which variances were approved on June 13, 1996 (VR 96~
44.-George L. Mallory TRE, Edgewater Investments/Realty.) Mr. Richter circulated a
photograph of a new design, stating the tower was redesigned to have less impact on the
surrounding properties. In accordance with standard condition #1, it was not wanted to
deviate from the original plans without board approval. Christopher Rideout, the AT&T
representative, was present to discuss a design to allow antennas to be positioned more
vertically than horizontally.
Member Schwab moved to approve modification of the plans submitted by the
applicant in case I.IVR 96-44, to allow a new type of antenna as depicted in the
photograph presented today. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Gans expressed concern the vacancy on the board has not been filled. Ha
understood former Commissioner Sue Barfield had expressed an interest in serving on
DCAB and urged staff to process her application quickly.
John Richter referred to a report from the building inspector assigned to investigate
construction activity at 440 West Condominium (VR 96-51, 7/25/96.) He will provide
information at the next meeting regarding contractors who work without permits.
Due to a change in the 1997 City Commission meeting schedule, Mr. Richter reported
staff is proposing to change the January DCAB meeting dates to January t 6 and 30.
'-'
mdcOBa.96
5
08/08/96
~,-*,'''; ~. " .
;;,,;i;. .
. : ~ ~ ~.' f
.' C ,i;J
. '"
,,' 'ft
.~ ~. .
,:,,'
'~~ , .
+~: .
"':.:,., '.
"
,
1:~., ",c"
, -,
~.:.~~.: ,: : .
:!,'~j:, ~~':~}:.' :' .>' :
Jf.:!{:,',",,"
. ~ . .'
" . ~,. "
.' ," ,
1~'~':.':< <- ~rl'n.,~J-"'(\~""I-'IV'''''''''J'\~''1 .:, ~'. .
~{~~J;;Q~Jl~~I;t"t'rjj~~1,~~';>c..Kt. 9/~:~:~\l(!~~r ,~:,,~;'t ~k.,l'../:~r...'c',>~ .:-::. ~. .... ,..'
~:~!--::'"!,:j"':';';':/"::""i"'I':~".'.:~t'("""",'<:.I:\c,.,~. ",:..', ", '. :',~, )'~ ..,\.....~.....
<,' ,'. ~ ~",'
,," .\>,1'.'.:" '~'.': ,c ,:L, ,'..~: ".
. , . ,." I."':', <;;:..~t4fi),
'. p . .~~,,)] ~~
. ,', ,,-...,.
'. '...,.../
The board's annual report to the City Commission is scheduled for September 19.
Mr. Richter will work with Chairperson Gans to prepare the report.
. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:42 p.m.
:!,c.cc
chair~c1k
~ Cl,'
. ,
" '
,. .'
. Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
~&g~
Sclard Reporter
,t. '
o
~,\
.",
'.,t '
I~
mdc08a.96
6
D8/DB/96