12/12/1996 (2)
~'t,:\:',~
"~~~' <.:' . ,
, , ,~ ' ., <
'i.
. ~ ~ .
'.
I,~ ~.
, '
,', ..
,I,'
::' . ~
~~~'-4!~"::'~": '''';;. ';: .t::'.\:.~ ':~:: \~-~e'~ , ~:. , ': ;",,", ~ , .> "
>. ,':' .1.... <
, . ,
~ . ." \' e' ;i"oI~' <to.;1
~ i
....-....
, .)
"-, .
DeAB
Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
~. .
.,
" :.'
Date
. "-...
(' I
, -.-"
j- fjlfLj
.,
'-I .
", ,', ',' I '. " ,
. . ~ , . . <
, -
.',':" "
'1'1,
,t'
tl,\ilII~
DEVELOPMENT CODe ADJUSTMENT BOARD - ACTION AGENDA
Thursday, December 12, 1996 - 1 :00 PM
Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance
8. Continued Variance Requests
81. (cant. from TO/24196) Lawrence H. Dimmitt. III for the following variances: (1) a
setback variance of 17 ft to allow a swimming pool without a scrBer; enclosure 8 ft
from Bruce Ave right-at-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; (2) a
height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a 6 ft high masonry wall within the setback area
from the Bay Esplanade right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is permitted;
(3) a setback variance at 3 ft to allow a 4 ft high wall to be located zero ft from the
Bruce Ave right-at-way; (4) a landscape buffer variance to waive the required
landscaping on the right-of-way side of the wall along Bruce Ave where shrubs are
required along at 'east 50% of the length of the wall; (5) a setback variance of 5 ft to
permit a house 20 ft from Bruce Ave right-of-way, rather than the 25 ft setback
required; (6) a variance to permit an opaque masonry wall to be placed in a waterfront
setback area where walls are not permitted to be located; and (7) a height variance of
one It to permit a house 31 ft high, rather than the 30 ft maximum allowable height at
1015 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub. Blk 273, Lot 6 together with the easterly one~half
of Lot 5, zoned RS 8 {Single Family Residential}. VR 96~64
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based
C~i on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps,
.1t" plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicantl s 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
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing; 3) The pool shall not be enclosed; and 4) Landscaping shall be provided along the
entire length of the masonry wall along Bay Esplanade.
82. (cont. from 10/24196) William & Hone Georctilas for the following variances: (1) a
height variance of 62 ft to allow a telecommunications tower 112 ft high where a
maximum height of 50 ft is permitted; (2) a setback variance of 25 ft to allow a
telecommunications tower 31 ft from the north side property line where a minimum
setback of 56 ft is required; and (3) a setback variance of 47.75 ft to allow a
telecommunications tower 8.25 ft from the rear property line where a minimum
setback of 56 ft is required at 505 Virginia Lane, Sec. 13-29-15, M&B 32.05, zoned
CG (General Commercial). VR 96-69
ACTION: Continued to March 13, 1997 to pursue co-location with the existing
antenna on School Board property.
C. New Variance Requests
.-.J
DCA8 ACTION
1
12/12/96
. I,,', ". . ~, , ' . , ' ,
~' .;,
\' ,
I-~
C1. R. Wayne T~mme for a height variance of 1 ft to allow a fence 7 ft high where a
maximum height of 6 ft is permitted at 421 Jasmine Way, Harbor Oaks, Lot 38 and
the East 20 ft of Lot 40, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-77
ACTION: Approved 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's 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; and 2) The
requisite building permit(s} shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing.
<:)
C2. RODe Developments/Stout Investment, Inc. (Proposed - Florida Mini-Storage) for a
height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the
South Ft. Harrison Ave right-at-way where a maximum height at 2.5 ft is permitted at
1505 South Ft. Harrison Ave, See 21-29-15, M&B 44.07, zoned CG (General
Commercial). VR 96-78
ACTION: Approved 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's variance
request. Deviation from any at 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; and 2) The
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this publlc
hearing.
C3. Fred A. & JOY S. Thomas for a variance to allow a 24 ft boat to be parked in a
residential neighborhood in the setback area from the Eldorado Ave right-of-way at
730 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 2, Lot 8 and riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single
Family Residential). VR 96-79
ACTION: Denied
C4. .John P. & Marilyn J. Humphries (Country Ouilts & Bears) for the following variances:
(.1) a setback variance of 6.25 ft to allow a covered walkway 18.75 ft from the Drew
5t right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; and (2) a setback
variance of 10ft to allow a covered walkway zero ft from the Easterly side property
line where a minimum setback of 10ft is required at 1983, 1983A & 1985 Drew St.,
5kycrest Unit No.8, Blk C, Lot 1 and Skycrest Unit No.7, Blk K, the Easterly 30 ft at
Lot 2, zoned CG (General Commercial!. VR 96-80
ACTION: Approved 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's 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; and 2) The
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing.
'.....,)
DCAB ACTION
2
12/12/96
. . ," '. '. : '..... ", " . ' . . ........,. -
,,....,, C5. Tema Investm~ for a parking variance of 12 spaces to allow 9 spaces where 21
spaces are required at 516-524 Mandalay Avenue, Miller's Replat, Lot 7, zoned CR 28
(Resort Commercia\). VR 96-81
ACTION: Approved 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's 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; and 2) The
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing.
eG. Olen K. & Pamela A. Marks, Jr. for the following variances: (1) a lot width variance of
5.07 ft to allow a width of 94.93 ft where a minimum of 100 ft is required; (2) a
setback variance of 7.5 ft to allow a proposed house and detached garage 7.5 ft from
the Northerly side property line and 7.5 ft from the Southerly property line where a
minimum setback of 15 ft is required: and (3) a height variance ot 3.5 ft to allow a
wall 6 ft. high where a maximum height of 2.5 It is permitted at 906 Druid Rd. 5,
Harbor Oaks Sub, Lot "G" and submerged land No. 17492, zoned RS 2 (Single Family
Residential). VR 96-82
ACTION: Approved 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's variance
....i "~ request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance
\-"""'i~.1' 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: and 2) The
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing.
C7. Davton Andrews. Inc. for a setback variance of 10.45 ft to allow a proposed building
14.55 ft from the Shelly St. right-at-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is
required at 2388 Gulf to Bay Blvd, See 18-29-16, M&B 24.06 together with Gulf to
Bay Estates, Unit 3, Lots 594-597, zoned CG (General Commercial). VR 96-83
ACTION: Approved 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's 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
requisite building permit(s) shall be, obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing; 3) The applicant shall landscape the permeable areas around the perimeter of this
property. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the City Environmental Official for review
and approval, prior to installation. No Certificate ot Occupancy shall be issued for the new
building until landscaping is installed in accordance with the plan: 4) There shall be no
outdoor speakers: and 5) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 900 cutoff mechanism,
with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and
street rights-of-way_
\'f'd
DCAB ACTION
3
12/12/96
,~
>-'; : ~ ~
, "
I:'
,~\.
:'t
..;'.
!"'~
':'1.:rf
'.e"
..'.' \
. . . ~ '<
.~:.' :
...,l..
"T.,'
....>
, ,
,I.
~. ~ .
~;
. . .~: \
\. :~ '!
-:. "
...,., ,e
',.:"
, .;-.
.., .. ~.
, ,
,'.:/'. ".
~ ". ' " " >'.
<. L :, ' .
.:.' l.
: I :' .....1 ,~'
ca. Anthony & Rosemarv B. Menna for the following variances: (1) a height variance of 2
ft to allow a wall 6 ft high within the setback area from the Mango St. right-of.way
where a maximum height of 4 ft is permitted; (2) a setback variance of 3 ft to allow a
6 ft high wall zero ft from the Mango St. right-of-way where a minimum setback of
3 ft is required; (3) a landscape buffer variance to waive the required landscaping on
the right-of-way side of the wall along Mango St. where shrubs are required along at
least 50% of the length of the wall; and (4) a setback variance of 20 ft to allow a
room addition 5 ft from the Mango 51. right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft
is required at 780 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 4, Lot 8 and riparian rights, zoned
RS 8, (Single Family Residential). VR 96-84
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 11 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's 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: and 2) The
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing.
C9. Church of Scientology Flaa Service Org. Inc. (Hacienda Gardens) for the following
variances: (1) a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area
from the Saturn Ave. right-ot-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is permitted; (2) a
height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the Airport
Rd. right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is permitted; and (3) a height variance of
2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft within the setback area from the Keene Rd. right-of-way where a
maximum height of 4 ft is permitted at 551 N. Saturn Ave, Sec 11-29-15, M&8 41.03,
zoned RM 25 (Multiple Family Residential). VR 96-85
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances arB based
on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps,
plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's 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 b,eing null and of no effect; 2) The
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing; and 3~ A dense, interestingly designed, well~maintained landscape barrier,
including trees. shall be provided to soften the exterior appearance of the wall along all
public streets. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the City Environmental Official for
review and approval, prior to installation. No inspection shall be approved for the wall until
landscaping is installed in accordance with the plan; and 4) The fence location shall be
within the applicant's property boundaries and shall be verified by a current survey.
C10. JQhn S. Taylor. III/Clearwater Surfslde Hotel Trust (Doubletree Resort Clearwater
Beach Surfside) for the following variances: (1) an open space variance for the lot of
13.76 percent to allow 11.24 percent where a minimum of 25 percent is required; (2)
a parking v~rjance of 42 parking spaces to allow zero additional parking spaces where
42 additional parking spaces are required; and (3) a clear space variance of 137.8 ft to
allow 0 ft of clear space where 137.8 ft is required at 400 Mandalay Ave, See 06-29-
15, M&8 23.01, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial) and OS~R (Open Space-
Recreation). VR 96-86
DCAB ACTION
4
12/12/96
..........., ~,.......; ..,~.:~:)'.',;!;:\i",i,,\!,:;:.("I;;,(:;I:\;:,,:,5,::y:;:;':"';/~~f:{;;L.." .".:.,~,:,;t",!~...
,I.
.:. ,,:\'.. . ' ..:..
. ,
\ ,..,;,.~ :-,,: e
;: ,~. ..
....
",,\, :.!
.. . \. ~'
, .. . I II. ", ~.. ' . >,..... . . . . ,~'., " '
'J. ..,
;t.~". e'
l~~~:' ,~
l"
(~
c;)
v
. "
ACTIO!\!: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1} These variances are based
on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps,
p'ans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support ot the applicant's 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
requisite building permit{s} shall be obtained within ono year from the date of this public
hearing; 3) Prior to approval of a final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
for the new pool and bar, the barlgrille located in the northwest corner of the building shall
be closed; 4} The peak of the roof on the new tiki hut bar shall be no higher than 1 7 feet
above grade; 5} the planting or replanting of any trees within the clear space shall be
closely coordinated with the City Environmental official to ensure that views are preserved
through this property for the general public and for the residents of the 2nd story dwellings
located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue; and 6) The applicant shall provide shrubs on
the east side of the new building which, upon maturity, will substantially screen the east
wall of the building. Prior to installation, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to
the City Environmental official for review and approval.
C11. Brown Associates. Ltd, II/Roberts Associates. Ltd. 1I/Kennedv Associates. Ltd for
the foUowing variances: t 1) a height variance of 5 ft to allow apartment buildings 35
ft high, rather than the maximum permitted height of 30 ft; and (2) a building
separation distance variance of 5 ft to allow a minimum building separation of 30 ft
rather than the 35 ft separation otherwise required at 2900 Drew St, See 08-29-16,
M&8 43.01, zoned RM 16 (Multiple Family Residential). VR 96-87
ACTION: Approved 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's 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; and 2) The
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing.
Minutes Approval - November 14, 1996 -- Approved as corrected
Board and Staff Comments
1. Letter of objection to Case IIVR 96~ 70 (DCAB 11/14/96; RoHey) -- Reviewed,'
Consensus was no additional action is necessary.
2. Board Holiday luncheon -- Friday, December 20, 11:45 a.m.; Tio Pepe Restaurante
Adjournment -+ 6:58 p.m.
DCAB ACTION
5
1 2/1 2/96
. , '., :' . '. , t . '-',' ~, ...., '. , " .. . , " . , . ,':'. '
~~',;,:. "~',
~ .
-.
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
December 12, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwob
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Ron Stuart
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Gwen Legters
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member (arrived 1 :02 p.m.)
Board Member (left 5:41 p.m.)
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
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
r~1I
I,.........)
B1. (cant. from 10/24/96) Lawrence H. Dimmitt. III for the following variances: (1) a
setback variance of 17ft to allow a swimming pool without a screen enclosure 8 ft
from Bruce Ave right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; (2) a
height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a 6 ft high masonry wall within the setback area
from the Bay Esplanade right-ot-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is permitted;
(3) a setback variance of 3 ft to allow a 4 ft high wall to be located zero ft from the
Bruce Ave right-of-way; (4) a landscape buffer variance to waive the required
landscaping on the right-of-way side of the wall along Bruce Ave where shrubs are
required along at least 50% of the length of the wall; (5) a setback variance of 5 ft to
permit a house 20 ft from Bruce Ave right.of-way, rather than the 25 ft setback
required; (6) a variance to permit an opaque masonry wall to be placed in a waterfront
setback area where walls are not permitted to be located; and (7) a height variance of
one ft to permit a house 31 ft high, rather than the 30 ft maximum allowable height at
1015 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub, Blk 273. Lot 6 together with the easterly one-half
of Lot 5, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-64
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations,
stating this case was continued for revisions to the plans and the variances. The applicant
wishes to demolish an existing home, replacing it with a home and a swimming pool. A
masonry wall in line with an existing wall is proposed to separate the home from the
adioining street rights-of-way. He detailed the location, site constraints, height, setback,
and landscaping requirements. in relation to the proposal. Staff felt conditions support the
request and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
'0
mdc12.96
1
12/12/96
, ' j ~, , ,,', . .' r . ,.' ~', . ~ ' ," '.. . '..' ./.," , .. ': _~
.'...
.~rI:': I
" ,
t~
In response to a Question, Mr. Richter said the purpose of not allowing fences and
walls adjacent Clearwater Harbor is to preserve the view from neighboring homes. The
three foot high wall near the northeast corner of the property is perpendicular to the
seawall, will not affect any views, and is needed for drainage.
Alex Pliska, architect representing the applicant, distributed a revised site plan
showing the footprint of the existing house superimposed into the drawing for the new
home. He said the applicants wish to use this property for their full-time residence. He
explained the need for each of the variances. The building height is needed to enable
elevating the home three feet above grade in this flood zone. The three foot high masonry
wall is ten feet long, and will channel stormwater runoff from adjacent Bruce Avenue. The
50 percent landscaping waiver was requested because the Dimmitts have planted and
maintain existing vegetation along the Bruce Street right-of-way. He displayed a rendering
of the proposal, explaining setbacks, lot configuration, and how the house will be situated
on the site. He responded to questions regarding estimated square footage. number of
bedrooms, bathrooms, ceiling heights, and a proposed widow's walk on the roof. Lengthy
discussion ensued regarding whether any special circumstances exist to' justify granting
the building height variance.
No one spoke in support or opposition to the request. Mr. Pliska submitted two copies
of a site plan signed by ten neighbors in the Carlouel area indicating they have seen and
approve the proposal for the new Dimmitt residence.
...-.. \
I ,
...w'"
Concern was expressed with the appearance of an existing masonry wall near the
southwestern corner of the site. Mr. Plisko said the applicants have owned the property
since the 1970's and wish to retain the wall where it is to buffer the property from the
Bruce Avenue access to Clearwater Harbor. It will be outfitted for use as a flood wall,
stuccoed and attractively landscaped.
Board discussion ensued. It was felt the Bruce Avenue right-of~way creates a special
circumstance to justify the first six variances. Strong concern was expressed with the
building height and lengthy discussion ensued. Some felt a widow's walk to be an
attractive architectural detail that contributes greatly to the design. It was indicated the
need to elevate due to the location in a flood plane is sufficient justification for a height
variance. It was indicated the character of the neighborhood is changing because of the
trend to level the properties and construct larger, elevated homes. Others questioned the
usefulness of the proposed widow's walk, stating no special circumstance exists to justify
a height variance. While ten foot ceilings are not uncommon in larger houses, it was felt
opportunity exists through design decisions to bring the proposal into compliance with
height requirements. Discussion ensued regarding the difficult height calculations for
multiple roots, and whether a variance would be needed without the widow's walk. Mr.
Pliska noted Central Permitting signed off on the plans. One member requested a separate
motion for variance #7.
Member Schwab moved to grant variances II 1 through #6 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
v
mdc12.96
2
12/12/96
. . ,', . . .... ~,' . ~ ..' . ~ . .I . . " , . '. . t
'. , .
1(<:'<'
1< <
..-...
,
are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicanCs
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; and
2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing; 3) The pool shall not be enclosed; and 4) Landscaping shall be provided
along the entire length of the masonry wall along Bay Esplanade. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Membor Johnson moved to grant variance 117 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 four conditions as stated in the previous motion. The
motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Schwab, and Stuart voted "Aye";
Members Gans and Jonnatti voted llNay. II Motion carried.
<:::>
82. (cant. from 10/24/96) William & Hope Geomilas for the following variances: (1) a
height variance of 62 ft to allow a telecommunications tower 112 ft high where a
maximum height of 50 ft is permitted; (2) a setback variance of 25 ft to allow a
telecommunications tower 31 ft from the north side property nne where a minimum
setback of 56 ft is required; and (3) a setback variance of 47.75 ft to allow a
telecommunications tower 8.25 ft from the rear property line where a minimum
setback of 56 ft is required at 505 Virginia Lane. Sec. 13-29-15, M&B 32.05, zoned
CG (General Commercial), VR 96-69
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations,
stating this case was continued to explore the potential to co-locate antennae on a tower
proposed on the Clearwater High School property. The applicant has requested that this
application proceed while the Pine lias County School Board administration investigates
pros and cons of co-location. He detailed height and setback requirements, indicating the
request will negatively affect the view from surrounding residential properties. Staff did
not support variance approval, stating an alternate location for the proposed facility would
better serve public welfare.
Ms. Dougall-Sides reminded the board to incorporate the record from the previous
hearing into today's record, state specific reasons in the motion and to refer the issue to
the City Attorney's office for drafting the conclusions. She will bring the draft to the next
meeting for ratification and adoption.
Bob Kersteen, representing GTE Wireless Communications, and David Littell, architect.
addressed the board. Mr. Littell displayed a map showing many properties in the vicinity of
the proposed tower owned by Mr. and Mrs. Georgilas. Mr. Kersteen disagreed with staff's
analysis, relating the special circumstances he feels qualify this application for variances.
He felt FCC imposed frequencies, line of sight service, and the need to upgrade the quality
of service to vital City of Clearwater facilities, are adequate reasons for granting variances.
The shallow lots along State Road 60 leave little opportunity for perimeter landscape
buffering. Many towers exist in harmony with many residential areas throughout the
~~
mdc12.96
3
12/12/96
. , ' . .
, ' '. , " . ',' ,I ....," " > ," . " .
'.1..'~' ~', '.
I,':
~' " Tampa Bay area. He displayed color coded images representing areas of coverage, noting
the poor service level in the vicinity. He said the application substantially meets City code
and the applicant has met the burden ot proving the antenna must be at the subject
location.
In his meetings with the School Board, Mr. Kersteen said he was told the School Board
would not support co-location on school property as long as they did not need the
proposed services. He said it will be months before the School Board completes their
investigation. and GTE cannot wait that long to improve service. He said the application
only affects property under the applicants' ownership; no verbal or written support or
opposition was expressed at the last meeting; and the board has heard no facts to refute
the testimony. He felt there is no substantial competent evidence to support denial.
Discussion ensued regarding service level. One member verified his cellular phone
frequently drops calls while in the vicinity. One member questioned whether the tower at
nearby Clearwater Community Hospital could' be used. Mr. Kersteen related terrain
conditions that require an antenna at the subject location. Because the site only covers a
two-mile radius, two towers would be needed at another location.
,'''''')
...~-ttf'
No verbal or written support was expressed. Two persons spoke in opposition to the
request, citing. concerns no vegetation exists to block the adjacent residents' view of the
proposed tower; the City enforces a stringent sign code to avoid visual obstructions; the
public hearing is held during the daytime when many of the residents in opposition cannot
be present; and fears a tower would negatively affect property values and health. It was
noted three letters and a petition with 38 signatures had been submitted in opposition at
the October 24 hearing.
Mr. Kersteen spoke in rebuttal, summarizing as follows: case history proves residents
are not expert witnesses regarding property values; the impact of radio emissions on public
health may not be used in board deliberations; towers are not signs; and testimony has
been heard in other cases from witnesses who said they seldom notice towers in their
neighborhoods. He would prefer to co.locate on the School Board property, but the School
Board has not found the need for GTE service. In the absence of expert testimony to
refute his claimst he asked the board to approve this site as his only alternative.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding discussions with the School Board regarding co-
locating antennae on school property. Mr. Kersteen affirmed GTE successfully co-locates
with AT&T in many locations, and has agreed in writing to share the Clearwater High
School site. The only resistance is from the School Board. He reiterated the Development
Code Adjustment Board has no expert witnesses or pertinent criteria to serve as a basis tor
denial. Ms. Dougall-Sides affirmed legislation prevents using the radio frequency as a basis
for denialt and nothing about impact on property values has been offered in writing. As
the Federal Telecommunication Act requires local decisions to be made within a reasonable
timet and the applicant has requested a decision, she cautioned the board against further
continuances. In response to a question. Mr. Kersteen affirmed that is a correct
interpretation of his position.
v
mdc12.96
4
1 2112/96
.\. .i
,~ Board concern was expressed the application does not appear to be in harmony with the
f surroundings; the City has exerted considerable effort to remove visual Impediments from the
area; the applicant has not received an answer from the School Board; and several points were
made that could affect the School Board's decision in the applicantsi favor. It was indicated
the board has no choice but to deny the application, based on the existing standards of
approval. The strict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of
the reasonable use of the land or buildings: and in the opinion of the surrounding homeowners,
granting the variance will be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
It was felt to be unfortunate that telecommunication towers are not referenced in City
code. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said the City is working with Pinellas County to
draft an ordinance regarding telecommunication towers. It is hoped the ordinance can
encompass, or serve as a model to multiple jurisdictions. Ms. Dougall~Sides responded to
questions regarding the technicalities of making 'a motion in this case. It was Indicated denial
of the proposed business use would not deny the property owner reasonable use of the land for
other types of development.
Member Schwob moved to deny the variance(s) as requested because the applicant has
not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development Code. more specifically because: the strict application of the prOVisions of the
code would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings; and the
granting of the variance will be potentially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare. He directed staff to include previous testimony and evidence
f .';''i as part of today's record, and referred this issue to the City Attorney's office for preparation of
',.~.!-, written findings. The motion was duly seconded.
Some members felt a better solution was to delay a decision until the School Board comes
back with their response. The applicant was offered a last chance to accept a compromise
before the board's vote. Mr. Kersteen thanked the board for the opportunity, stating Mr.
Georgi/as is amenable to a delay of up to two months. In the meantime, he will push the
School Board for a decision.
The motion and the second were withdrawn.
Member Schwob moved to continue Item 82 to the meeting of March 13. 1997, to pursue
co~location with the antenna on the School Board property. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
In view of the Federal legislation, one member urged the City Commission to take quick
action on the upcoming telecommunication towers ordinance. Another member strongly
encouraged the applicants, representatives. and interested citizens to attend a School Board
meeting to express their desires on the record. Consensus of the DCAB was to allow Member
Johnson to serve as the DCAB delegee at a School Board public forum. Ms. Dougall-Sides
cautioned Mr. Johnson against taking a position pro or con to the application, and to phrase his
comments in terms of cooperation among the entities. Mr. Richter said staff will relay to the
City Commission the need for quick action regarding this issue. He said staff has been trying
without success to reach the School Board property manager.
l,,_J
mdc12.96
5
12/12/96
~I :'..'
'-.
The meeting recessed from 2:48 to 3:00 p.m.
c. New Variance Requests
C1. R. Wayne Temme tor a height variance of 1 ft to allow a fence 7 ft high where a
maximum height of 6 tt is permitted at 421 Jasmine Way, Harbor Oaks, Lot 38 and
the East 20 ft of Lot 40, zoned AS 6 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-77
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to replace an aging fence along the rear and one side property
line of his single family home. It was indicated the request is the minimum to address a
variety of site conditions and staff recommended approval with two standard conditions.
Wayne Temme, the owner/applicant, listed the reasons for the variance. He wants
the fence to be level for aesthetics, but a 30 downward slope toward the back of his yard
produces a 1.5 foot grade differential for which he wishes to compensate. He discussed
his proposed custom design, colors, and wooden fencing materials. The highest point
above grade would be approximately six feet. ten inches.
No verbal support or opposition was expressed. Four letters were submitted with the
board packets from surrounding property owners in support of the application.
"A.,~,
'~"rflI'1
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance(s) as requested because the applicant
has substantially met all of the standards tor approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the
Land Development Code, 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's
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; and
2} The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C2. RODe Developments/Stout Investment. Inc. (Proposed - Florida Mini~Storage) tor a
height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the
South Ft. Harrison Ave right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is permitted at
1505 South Ft. Harrison Ave, See 21-29-15. M& B 44.07, zoned CG (General
Commercial). VR 96-78
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to develop a vacant property with a mini-storage facility. A six
foot high fence is desired to enclose and secure the property. He detailed site conditions,
adding the application states the fencing will be open and decorative. As no elevation
drawing was submitted, he suggested the board may wish to discuss the design with the
applicant. He noted City Environmental staff recommends approval because landscaping
will exceed minimum standards. Staff felt conditions support the request and
recommended approval with two standard conditions.
\,.,)
mdc12.96
6
12/12/96
. I' . ' " r , , . e ..' t'.',' ' ", ~' . ~ '
(!
~~:~!' e '. .
/"". ,
,I' ,
{
f)
Mike Gaylor, of the engineering firm representing the applicant, displayed renderings of
the proposed fence needed to enclose the 42,000 square foot, single story facility. He
said Development Review Committee site plan approval and Planning and Zoning Board
conditional use approvals have been obtained. He recognized the need to create an
aesthetically pleasing site, avoiding a barracks-like appearance from tho street. He
reviewed conditions in the surrounding areas and displayed scaled color graphics showing
the relationship to the adjacent single family neighborhood in back. He said the fence is
needed to secure the property. A residential structure on the site will house 24-hour
security personnel. He responded to questions, stating trees and shrubs along South
Ft. Harrison Avenue will meet minimum code requirements. The landscaping along
Woodlawn Avenue will surpass code requirements, to buffer the adjacent residential
neighborhood. Mr. Gaylor offered a historical perspective at the site. stating he has
worked extensively with City Environmental staff to save large oak trees on the site.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
; .,~'~.')
'-c<t'
Member Schwab moved to grant the variance(s) 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 variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's
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; and
2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C3. Fred A. & JOY S. Thomas for a variance to allow a 24 ft boat to be parked in a
residential neighborhood in the setback area from the Eldorado Ave right-of-way at
730 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 2, Lot 8 and riparian rights. zoned RS 8 (Single
Family Residential). VR 96-79
Mr. Richte~ presented background information and written staff recommendations. To
preserve the attractive appearance of residential neighborhoods, the City restricts parking
large boats in rights-of-way and setbacks of residential neighborhoods. No means exists
for screening the view of the boat in this attractive and well maintained neighborhood.
Staff did not support approval, stating no special cohditions exist to set this property apart
from any others in the neighborhood. and the application does not meet the standards for
approval.
Attorney Harry Cline spoke on behalf of John Thomas, the boat owner residing on the
subject property. He related property conditions in the area, stating the four foot variance
is minor; the building's location within ten feet of the right-of-way is a special condition not
caused by the applicant; a beach access to the north provides a 60~toot landscaping buffer
from the property to the north; and property owners to the north and south have indicated
their approval in writing. He said it is reasonable l;lse of the land to park this low profile,
~~
mdc12.96
7
12/12/96
~ '. .' I' .. "'. .. ~', . ~ .', _
~1. '.,.
.;.
. '--'"
open fishing boat in an area where 20-foot long boats are authorized. He said the request
is reasonable in this water-based Clearwater beach community and the request is not for
economic gain. There is no other location on the property to park the boat.
Mr. Cline submitted a photographic display comparing the subject boat to numerous
boats parked on neighborhood residential properties in conformance with code. He wished
to illustrate his point that most people cannot tell the difference in size. He submitted
eleven photographs offering a panoramic perspective of the boat on the subject property
and its surroundings. Eight photographs were submitted showing the negative impact of
cars parking in the street and across sidewalks in the neighborhood. He said Mr. Thomas'
boat is reasonably sized, is not obtrusive, does not extend into the street, and is able to
park in line with the house. He summarized for the record and submitted two letters of no
objection from nearby property owners.
John Thomas asked for latitude from the board, stating the boat's only impact is that
it blocks a portion of the direct view of his front door. One member noted parking the boat
offsite would not prohibit reasonable use, because the boat is not launched from the
subject property. Mr. Thomas expressed concern numerous launches are nearby, but the
only opportunity for offsite parking he has found is in County jurisdiction. As a result, the
boat is not used as much, because at the inconvenience of an oUsite location.
..'.....')
t..,.....~
Three persons spoke in opposition to the request, citing concerns the application does
not meet the standards for approval; failure to conceal boats creates an eyesore not in
harmony with the neighborhood; the subject boat has frequently overlapped the sidewalk,
creating an obstacle for pedestrians using canes and wheelchairs; the boat is enormous in
height and should be in the marina; the boat is too large for the property; the boat devalues
the subject property; and established rules should be followed. In response to a question,
property owners reported values of their homes in excess of .$200,00, indicating they
considered those values commensurate with the neighborhood.
Two letters from property owners within- 500 feet were submitted in opposition to the
request, citing concerns with view and sidewalk obstruction; violation of right~of.way and
setback restrictions without good reason; alternative boat storage is available; and fears
that approval would set a precedent for parking other non-conforming recreational vehicles
in the neighborhood.
Mr. Cline reiterated how this application meets the standards of variance approval,
stating the difference between this boat and a conforming 20-foot boat is inconsequential.
He felt the photographs he submitted belie what the surrounding property owners said
about the negative impact of the boat on the neighborhood. Discussion ensued regarding
the photos, and whether all the depicted boats are parked in compliance. Staff was
requested to make the photographs available to the City Community Response Team for
research into code compliance. It was indicated Mr. Thomas' boat has been observed
parked across the sidewalk several times, and this variance request is a result of a code
enforcement notice of violation. Mr. Richter noted other property owners were cited, but
chose to move their boats rather than file variance requests. Mr. Thomas felt his boat was
being confused with one parked at the house next door.
\~
mdc12.96
8
12/12/96
! t. f : . ~ . . , . .' , ,'..
"
\\';'" ,,',
"
'I ~~
.-.......,
Discussion ensued regarding the intricacies of parking and maneuvering the boat in
front and at the side of the subject property; whether trailer length is factored into the
calculations; deed restrictions prohibiting boat parking; some members' opinion that boats
should not be parked in driveways; 20 feet is a reasonable length for the code
requirement; and general' reluctance to grant anything to detract from the appearance of
this lovely neighborhood.
Member Johnson moved to deny the variance(s} as requested because the applicant
has not substantially met aU of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the
land Development Code, more specifically because: 1) No special circumstances exist
related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable
to the land or buildings, or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land or buildings
and do not apply generally to the land or bl;lildings in the applicable 20ning district: 2} the
strict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the
reasonable use of his boat; and 4) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of the land development code and comprehensive plan and
will be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public
welfare. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
......."
I )
.......,..
C4. John P. & Marilvn J. Humphries (Country Guilts & Bears) for the following variances:
(1) a setback variance of 6.25 ft to allow a covered walkway 18.75 It from the Drew
St right~of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; and (2) a setback
variance of 10ft to allow a covered walkway zero ft from the Easterly side property
line where a minimum setback of 10ft is required at 1983, 1983A & 1985 Drew St.,
Skycrest Unit No.8, Blk C, Lot 1 and Skycrest Unit No.7, Blk K, the Easterly 30 ft of
Lot 2, zoned CG (General Commercial). VR 96-80
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to construct a covered walkway in front of the larger of two
existing buildings on the commercial property. He detailed site conditions, stating the
proposal will not interfere with tuture Drew Street widening. He referred to an aerial view
and updated site plan distributed to board members. Staff felt conditions support the
request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. In response to a
question. Mr. Richter said the site has sufficient parking without the non-conforming
spaces to be removed in conjunction with the Drew Street widening.
Hans Schlereth, architect representing the applicant, said the property was purchased
to house the owners' quilt store. The building was conforming when it was constructed in
the late 1950's or early 1960'5. The applicants wish to do extensive interior and exterior
renovations that are not possible under the current zoning. He detailed the proposed
fa9ade improvements.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance(s) 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
\~
mdc12.96
9
12/1 2/96
,. . ~ " J " ~ I ',' ',' .
, . .
., ..' ' -
~":... ~l" ~ '.
> I ,."",
based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's
variance request. Deviation from any at 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; and
2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and canfed unanimously.
C5. Tema Investments for a parking variance of 12 spaces to allow 9 spaces where 21
spaces are required at 516-524 Mandalay Avenue, Miller's Replat, Lot 7, zoned CR 28
(Resort Commercial). VR 96-81
This item was heard at approximately 6:40 p.m., at the conclusion of Item #11,
below, because no representative was present when the item was called.
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations.
The applicant is seeking a parking variance to allow use at an existing building as a
restaurant. He compared the proposed use, conditions, and site constraints to other
existing properties in the vicinity where additional parking has not been required. Staff felt
conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
(~)
Paul Voulgaris, the landlord and proposed business owner, addressed the board,
stating he wants to create a nice restaurant. The property is being updated to City codes.
No verbal or'written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance(s) 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: 11 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 applicantls
variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support at 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; and
2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing. Members Gans, Johnson, Schwab, and Jonnatti voted "Aye"; Member
Stuart was not present. Motion carried.
e6. Olen K. & Pamela A. Marks. Jr. for the following variances: (1) a lot width variance of
5.07 ft to allow a width of 94.93 it where a minimum of 100 it is required; (2) a
setback variance of 7.5 ft to allow a proposed house and detached garage 7.5 ft from
the Northerly side property line and 7.5 ft from the Southerly property line where a
minimum setback of 15 ft is required; and (3) a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a
wall S ft. high where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is permitted at 906 Druid Rd. 5,
Harbor Oaks Sub, Lot llG" and submerged land No. 17492, zoned RS 2 (Single Family
Residential). VR 96-82
y
mdc 12.96
10
12112/96
Ken Marks, Jr., the owner/applicant, was invited to speak in support of his application.
He submitted the site plan signed by the Heyes, property owners to the north.
" -..........
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to develop the vacant property with a single family home. He
detailed the location, lot width constraints, setbacks, and conditions on the property. The
application is consistent with the developed character of the Harbor Oaks neighborhood.
While the narrow property could be developed without variances, aligning the house along
the length of the property is not desirable due to the waterfront location.
Alex Pliska, architect representing the applicant, distributed a drawing, showing the
non-conforming setbacks on existing surrounding properties, where the requirement is 1 5
feet. He related the history of trees and construction in relation to the property lines. The
applicant proposes to modify a wall to create a driveway identified with the Marks' house.
A freestanding garage is to be constructed sideways on the lot, 180 feet back from Druid
Road to free the vista between the house to the south and the proposed Marks home. The
property owner to the north signed off as having no objection to the Marks' plan.
Mr. Pliska said the new home will contl')in approximately 5.000 square feet of floor space.
Patrick Maguire, attorney representing Mr. Walter, adjacent property owner to the
south, spoke in opposition to granting a setback variance. He felt the requested 7.5 foot
setback on the south side of the Marks property will negatively impact the Walter home,
,.......,\ which is set back 3.3 feet. He stated his client has no objection to the lot width or the
,_~ wall height variances, but teels a home can be built within the setbacks. He said the prior
owners tore down the previously existing home, forfeiting their rights to grandfather
setbacks. He felt the applicants have not addressed standards for approval 111 , 112, or 114.
In response to a question, he asked for two minutes to review the site plan, to determine
how far apart the two homes will be. After reviewing the plans. he said the proposed
location will adversely affect the Walters. reducing their view of the water. Discussion
ensued regarding location of the Walter residence, and variances granted to thJ;lm in the
past. Mr. Maguire reiterated his objection. stating the proposed setback encroaches into
the Walters' light, view and air.
Mr. Marks was invited to speak in rebuttal to the opposition. He said the beauty of
the trees in the middle of the Jot attracted him to the property. They have designed the
new construction on the back of the lot to save trees and avoid blocking their view of the
water. He was not previously aware of any objections.
Mr. Plisko said the Walters ~o not currently have a water view across the Marks
property because of existing trees. He listed other properties in the vicinity for which
variance applications were approved, illustrating the Marks' request is in character with the
neighborhood. He called attention to renovations of non-conforming structures on the
Walters' property, in violation of the setbacks. In response to a question, he said both
sides of the Haye, Marks, and Walter properties are thick with dense. cultivated vegetation
that screens their view of each others' houses. Their only water view is straight out from
the properties. He agreed the 'applicant can orient their house parallel with the side
Y property lines, but felt they deserve the right to fully utilize their properties.
mdc12.96
11
1 211 2/96
"'n..'.'.
r
!
"'....
Mr. Maguire requ~sted a final opportunity to speak in rebuttal, as the board's rules do
not allow an opportunity for cross examination. Discussion ensued regarding whether the
opposition was entitled to anothor opportunity to speak. Ms. Dougall-Sides suggested
allowing counsel to cross examine, based on the representative's summation.
Mr. Maguire questioned if a home can be built without granting side setback variances.
Mr. Pliska responded yes, but reiterated such a desig n does not all ow full utilization ot the
property.
Board discussion ensued regarding distance between the houses. One member
expressed concern with the narrow side setbacks and requested a separate motion for
variance 112. One expressed concern with the possibility of limiting the neighbor's view by
locating the home toward the rear of the lot. One member noted this neighborhood of
expensive, high quality homes is beset with variances and special circumstances. He felt
the applicant should be allowed to develop his property compatibly with the existing
neighborhood. It was indicated the proposal should not affect the Walters' view.
Member Schwab moved to grant variances #1 and /13 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: special circumstances exist
related to the particular physical surroundings of the existing type of home development;
1'....".,\ the strict application of the provisions of the code would deprive the applicant of
....,rI"i reasonable use of his land; the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire for
economic or other material gain by the applicant or owner; and the variances will not
negatively impact the neighborhood or the Walt~r property, nor impact his view; 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 ;n support of the applicant's 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; and 2) The requisite building permiHsl shall be
obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Schwab moved to grant the variance 112, as requested, based on the same
rationale and conditions listed in the previous motion, adding, the surrounding properties
have three and five foot setbacks, and the application is in keeping with conditions existing
in the area. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Johnson, Schwab, and
Stuart voted "Aye"; Member Jannatti voted "Nay." Motion carried.
C7. Davton Andrews. Inc. for a setback variance of 10.45 ft to allow a proposed building
14.55 ft from the Shelly 51. right.of.way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is
required at 2388 Gulf to Bay Blvd, See 18.29.16, M&B 24.06 together with Gulf to
Bay Estates, Unit 3, Lots 594-597, zoned CG (General Commercial). VR 96.83
'.......,)
mdc12.96
12
12/12/96
"
. . '. . . ,.,'.". . . . ' '. > .
!l':'
1,.....'...\
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to construct a new building toward the rear of an existing auto
dealership property. He noted an opportunity exists to improve landscaping in the unpaved
areas around the entire property perimeter. Staff felt conditions support the request and
recommended approval with five conditions. In response to a questionl it was indicated
required Development Review Committee site plan review has not been conducted.
Bill Adams, construction contractor, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He agrees with
staff's recommended conditions. He said several of the conditions were imposed by the
Planning and Zoning Board when they approved a conditional use permit for this building.
He reported the landscaping package includes a plan to improve the area around the old
oak tree.
t~~)
,,':!":'.
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance(s) as requested because the applicant
has substantially met all of the standards ior approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the
Land Development Code, 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's
variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the
va~iance 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 requisite building permit{s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing~ 3) The applicant shall landscape the permeable areas around the perimeter
of this property. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the City Environmental Official for
review and approval, prior to installation. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for
t~e new building until landscaping is installed in accordance with the plan; 4) There shall
tie no outdoor speakers; and 5) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 900 cutoff
mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential
properties and street rights-of-way. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
ca. Anthonv & Rosemarv B. Menna for the following variances: (1) a height variance of 2
ft to allow a wall 6 ft high within the setback area from the Mango St. right-of-way
where a maximum height of 4 ft is permitted; (2) a setback variance of 3 ft to allow a
6 ft high wall zero ft from the Mango St. right~of-way where a minimum setback of
3 ft is required; (3) a landscape buffer variance to waive the required landscaping on
,the right-of-way side of the wall along Mango St. where shrubs are required along at
least 50% of the length of the wall; and (4) a setback variance of 20 ft to allow a
room addition 5 ft from the Mango St. right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft
is required at 780 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 4, Lot 8 and riparian rights, zoned
RS 8, (Single Family Residential). VR 96-84
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to construct additions to the front and rear of an existing
single family home, located five feet from the Mango Street right-at-way to the north. The
additions will be in line with the north side of the home. A six foot high wall is proposed
V to screen the property from Mango Street, used as a pedestrian walkway to the beach.
mdc12.96
13
12/12/96
, 1. " . ': . J, , .~ oil . . ,.. '. ". .' ' ~ .
r~": '
.,... --....~...,
The existing heavy vegetation along the walkway will sufficiently screen the wall from
view. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two
standard conditions. One member noted the wooden walkway with space on both sides is
very attractive.
Patti Stough, architect representing the applicant, stated the application meets all four
standards for approval. Although treated as a right.of-way, this segment of Mango Street
is a beach access. She related the history o.f setbacks in relation to beach accesses. The
applicant cannot take advantage of block face averaging due to being the only home on
the block. She related the applicants' square footage requirements, stating they need
more room for their expanding family. She submitted a color enlargement of a photograph
of the home adjacent the accessway, pointing out the existing vegetation and location of
the building five feet from the property line. She said it would be impossible to set the
wall back three feet from the propertY line and still allow the side door to open. She
submitted a group of 13 photographs illustrating conditions on and around the subject
property, and other properties that enjoy wall and setbacks simile r to the applicants'
request.
Clarification was requested and discussion ensued regarding the extent of the wall
toward the front of the property. A dimensional change in the drawing of the 6.25 foot
front setback was noted.
.""'" Anthony Menna, the owner/applicant. responded to questions, stating he has lived at
I \
',.,.",..r' this location about four years. He maintains the vegetation along the walkway, installed
before he purchased the property. He will install a sprinkler system for the extensive
landscaping he proposes in front of his property.
One member expressed concern the two-story design with the exterior staircase could
easily be converted for use as a two.family home. Discussion ensued regarding the design
and use of the home. It was indicated the ground floor must remain unoccupied to meet
flood requirements. Mr. Menna verified the ground floor will not be used as a residential
area.
Ms. Stough submitted four letters in support of the application, one from the property
owner across the street. The board noted three letters were from property owners on Say
Esplanade, far removed from the subject property. Ms. Stough said those properties are
similarly located along beach accesses and the owners wished to emphasize the need for
privacy in such a situation. No written opposition was expressed. No verbal support or
opposition was expressed.
Member Schwab moved to grant the variance(s) 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 variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's
variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the
....,1 variance request regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical
mdc12.96
14
12/12/96
, . . j , . " . . . I.' ., \ . ," , . ' , . ~ ~ ,I ,', I I' " ~
~l: .:.,.. -:. .,
;~
I
structure located on the site, will result in ,these variances being null and of no effect: and
2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
pubtlc hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
e9. Church of Scientology Flea Service erg. Inc. (Hacienda Gardens) for the following
variances: (1) a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area
from the Saturn Ave. right.of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is permitted; (2) a
height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the sotback area from the Airport
Rd. right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is permitted; and (3) a height variance of
2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft within the setback area from the Keene Rd. right-of-way where a
maximum height of 4 ft is permitted at 551 N. Saturn Ave, See 11-29-15, M&B 41.03,
zoned RM 25 (Multiple Family Residential). VR 96-85
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staft recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to enclose an existing apartment development with a six foot
high wall. He detailed the height variances needed along three sides of the development.
Staff felt conditions support the request and recomn1ended approval with two standard
conditions, plus a third condition for dense landscaping to soften the exterior appearance
of the wall.
(;>
Clarification was requested regarding Mr. Richter's presentation. It was indicated
inspector's approval will not be signed off before the code required landscaping is installed.
Mr. Richter understood the proposal was to be a wall. The application states "security
fence. "
Jeffrey Litton, representing the applicant, stated the proposal is a non.opaque,
wrought iron fence, not a wall. The fence will meet the 50 percent landscaping
requirement. He submitted a photograph of the apartment building with a drawing of the
proposed fence superimposed. The applicants wish to maintain a consistent fence height
throughout the project, for security. The fence permit has been obtained. The fence is
needed because of incidents with gang members causing trouble on the property.
A question was raised whether additional height is needed to allow corner ornaments.
Mr. Richter responded the City allows some latitude for installation of decorative finials of
limited size. Mr. Litton reiterated the fence style will remain consistent: no wall is
proposed. He displayed and submitted for the record a large color rendering of the site
layout, pointing out the locations landscaping in excess of 50 percent will be installed. Mr.
Richtor stated staff has no problem with the 50 percent provision, but is looking for more
visual interest than just a hedge. Mr. Litton responded he has worked with City Urban
Forester Alan Mayberry to develop his landscaping plan. He will request a copy of the
landscaping suggested by Mr. Mayberry to be forwarded to Central Permitting staff.
Member Stuart left the meeting at 5:41 p.m.
No verbal or written support was expressed.
~...)
mdc12.96
15
12/1 2196
,/ '. . ~'. . " , ,.' I ;. . 'p. .' ,~. ,~J , . .' r ,~ . '.' .
i":,':''''
, "'""'"
Six persons were sworn in; three spoke in opposition to allowing the applicants to
construct a fence outside the subject property line. While not opposed to the fence, one
wished to ensure his property is not fenced in after the proposed Keene Road widening;
two wished to ensure the applicants' landscaping and bus parking do not occur on the
neighboring properties.
I::)
Member Jonnaui moved to grant the variance(s) 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 variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's
variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the
variance ~equest regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical
structure located on the site, will resuit in these variances being null and of no effect;
2) The requisita building psrmit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing; and 3) A dense, interestingly designed, well-maintained landscape barrier,
including trees, shall be provided to soften the exterior appearance of the wall along all
public streets. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the City Environmental Official for
review and approval, prior to installation. No inspection shall be approved for the wall until
landscaping is installed in accordance with the plan; and 4) The fence location shall be
within the applicant's property boundaries and shall be verified by a current survey. The
motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Johnson, Schwob. and Jonnatti voted "Aye";
Member Stuart was not present. Motion carried.
The meeting recessed from 5:54 to 6:00 p.m.
C10. JQhn S. Tavlor. III/Clearwater Surfside Hotel Trust (Double tree Resort Clearwater
Beach Surfside) for the following variances: (1) an open space variance for the lot of
13.76 percent to allow 11.24 percent where a minimum of 25 percent is required; (2)
a parking variance of 42 parking spaces to allow zero additional parking spaces where
42 additional parking spaces are required; and (3) a clear space variance of 137.8 ft to
allow 0 ft of clear space where 137.8 ft is required at 400 Mandalay Ave. See 08-29- .
15, M&8 23.01, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial) and OS~R (Open Space-
Recreation). VR 96-86
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to construct a new swimming pool, gazebo and tiki hut bar
south of an existing swimming pool at the hotel facility. A smaller bar/grille existing on the
northwest corner of the building will be closed. He detailed the resulting outdoor alcoholic
beverage service area, open space, clear space. and parking requirement calculations.
Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions
listed on the staff report, plus three additional conditions he read into the record.
One board member was gratified the bar with the outdoor band will be moving further
away from the residential neighborhood to the north. Another member noted removing the
northerly tiki hut bar will correct problems with the property owner having failed to meet
V the parking requirements associated with a 1986 variance approval.
mdc12.96
16
12/12/96
. . I. ~ .,' ~~~ ' . - .... .. ," , ,'10-' . - . '.' .' . >', ..' , -..' ,
{~~ '.' . ; .
.--......
Richard Kimbrough, architect representing the applicant, and Bob Walter, hotel general
manager, addressed the board. Mr. Kimbrough profiled recent face-lifting and interior
renovations. He said the new tiki hut structure will incorporate cooking and seating areas,
handicapped restrooms and pool equipment. The existing pool deck will extend to
encompass the second, pool. He displayed a site drawing and explained the proposed
layout. He responded to questions about closing the old tiki hut. Regarding the parking
variance, he said guests often arrive by limousine, taxi and bus. Personal transportation is
frequently not needed because the hotel is a destination resort providing complete needs
for guests. He said they have never experienced a parking problem. He briefly related the
history of construction since the' 1980's, and said they have no problem with staff's
recommended conditions. He submitted a conceptual drawing and partial site plan for the
record.
Bob Walter responded to questions regarding the parking service. Valet parking is
optional, and the parking lot is monitored and controlled with gates. He plans to soften the
feel by building a gata and guard shack in front. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Walter's
plans to relocate activities that formerly accessed the beach through the back of the
parking lot. He said the new tiki hut bar will be open to the public as well as guests.
It was indicated the board had previously received complaints regarding loud music
directed toward Mandalay Avenue. One member responded the noise problem has been
-..... corrected during the ten years he has lived in the vicinity. He said he has not observed
<,-.../' parking problems, in general. Mr. Walter agreed the entertainment style has changed to a
more acoustic sound to attract a different type of clientele.
Two persons spoke in support of the application as an improvement to the property
and to the beach. One speaker said Mr. Walter graciously alleviated her concerns by
explaining the proposal to her in detail. She is satisfied the new structure will not block
her view of the Gulf. No letters were received and no opposition was expressed.
In summary, Mr. Walter said the Clearwater Surfside and Ramada Inn Gulfview have
the same owners, who have invested approximately $1 3 to $14 million into Clearwater
beach improvements. He telt the proposal will be positive for everyone. In response to a
question, he said they will have a grand opening.
Member Schwab moved to grant the variance(s) 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 variance application and documents submitted by the applicant. including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's
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 requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing; 3) Prior to approval of a final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of
\.J Occupancy for the new pool and bar/the bar/grille located in the northwest corner of the
mdc12.96
17
12/12/96
" :' ;1' , " , . . , '~ >' ~~, , ," \ l" .' "', , " . ' , '., '. ..'
.; ,~,I~. . ,
,"-""""
building shall be closed; 4) The peak of the roof on the new tiki hut bar shall be no higher
than 17 feet above grade: 5) the planting or replanting of any trees within the clear space
shall be closely coordinated with the City Environmental official to ensure that views are
preserved through this property for the general public and for the residents of the 2nd story
dwellings located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue; and 6) The applicant shall provide
shrubs on the east side of the new building that, upon ma turity, will substa ntially screen
the east wall of the building. Prior to installation, the applicant shall submit a landscaping
plan to the City Environmental official for review and approval. Members Gans, Jolmson,
Schwab, and Jonnatti voted "Aye1t; Member Stuart was not present. Motion carried.
C11. Brown Associates. ltd, II/Roberts Associates. Ltd. U/Kennedv Associates. ltd for
the fall owing variances: (1) a height variance of 5 ft to allow a partment buildings 35
ft high, rather than the maximum permitted height of 30 ft; and (2) a building
separation distance variance of 5 ft to allow a minimum building separation of 30 ft
rather than the 35 ft separation otherwi5e required at 2900 Drew St, Sec 08~29-16,
M&B 43.01, zoned RM 16 (Multiple Family Residential). VR 96-87
I "'''''1,
'...,,~
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to develop vacant property with a 376 unit apartment
complex. He detailed the requested height and building separation requirements. He said
two wetlands covering about one, fourth of the property require development to be
concentrated upland. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval
with two standard conditions.
Terry Foote, of the Wilson Company, said they are buying the property from Brown
Associates. He referred to ORC approved site plans outlining the wetlands to be dedicated
as a preservation area. He profiled the surrounding property uses and the amenities
proposed for the new apartments. Brief discussion ensued regarding a State funding
program related to wetlands. In response to a question Mr. Foote said the facility will be
gated, but no walls are proposed.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance's) 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: l' 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; and
2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing. Members Gans, Johnson, Schwob, and Jonnatti voted "Aye"; Member
Stuart was not present. Motion carried.
Item C5 was heard at this point in the meeting.
1 '
V
mdc12.96
18
12/12/96
, , ..' ..' :, . . '. '. . ", ,.... . -' '., ,.", ,
I:'~,"i'.'."".
. .' ~ . ,
.' 't ",.". ~'"
"-....
,
.....,r
Minutes Approval' ~ November 14, 1996
Member Jonnatti questioned whether he may abstain from voting on the minutes, as
he was not present for the November 14 meeting. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded a member
may choose to vote or abstain, at their discretion.
Member Gans pointed out typographical errors on page 5. paragraph 3; and page 8,
last paragraph. He questioned a staff comment on page 10 regarding preparation of the
comprehensive Land Development Code amendment. Mr. Richter said Mr. Shuford will
update the DCAB after the beginning of the year. .
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes ot November 14, 1996, as corrected.
Members Gans, Johnson, and Schwob voted "Aye"; Member Jonnatti abstained; Member
Stuart was not present. Motion carried.
Board and Staff Comments
1. Letter of objection to Case UVR 96~ 70 (DCAB 11/14/96; Roffey)
( ,. ,
,.,~
"
Mr. Richter distributed copies at the letter signed by owners of five properties on and
near Gleneagles Drive. Mr. Richter was not aware of the letter at the time of the public
hearing. Board members reviewed the letter and determined it would not have changed
their decision to grant the variance. Staff was requested to write to the objectors,
thanking them for their comments; advising them the board considered their letter, but
determined no further action was necessary. Mr. Richter noted Mr. RoHey was present in
the audience to hear the board's reaction to the letter.
:.'
2. Board Holiday luncheon
Consensus was for board and staff to meet for a holiday luncheon on Friday,
December 20; 11 :45 a.m.; at Tio Pepe Restaurante, 2960 Gulf to Bay Boulevard.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
~~
Chair ~
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
~~~tu~
Board Reporter
'v
mdc12.96
19
1 2/12/96