08/24/1995 (2)
, . . ' . ',' .. , . , .,' ..
;'.,. I .....:t .'
,., . '
. ",("
" J ~ ' '''.:
J
I
I
"
~:.') .'
~.{ ':: ' '.
'.
.1.,<:' ;
c'
..,. .'.
. '., .
:'~!' .\ .
~ ~t '; '; ~ .;' "
: ~":: :. .:' . " :
~:;'~""'., . ,
,. .
~"_"1""'H""" '
, .
. "
.i
~'.'O
DCAB
'1
I
I
. Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
c.
, ~.
. ,
Date A ~s1 l/-t,J!!l!iS'
..
" ,~~
,'.J
-1-/2-/;
. ~
.... "
,,--'
\,_....,. , . .T....... > ..,...." ~~ ",
~
DEVELOPMENT CODe ADJUSTMENT BOARD - ACTION AGENDA
Thursday, August 24, 1995 ~ 1 :00 p.m.
"""',",'
t.:~ '
~
r
Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
A. VARIANCE REQUESTS:
1. Lionel G. James. Edson F. Denny, Jo~1 T. Brannen, Howard D. & l,ynda B. Cowden
(Wa/greens Drug Store) for a variance of 22 parking spaces to permit 74 parking spaces
where 96 parking spaces are required at 1801 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Sec 13~29-15, M&B
32.17,32.18 & 32.22, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 9542
ACTION: Granted as requested subject to the fallowing conditions: 1) This variance is
based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant,
including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the
applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted
in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the
site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and
of no effect; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shalf be obtained within six months
from the date of this public hearing.
'.:)
2. Duane A. & Nancy J. Barton for variances of (1) 2 parking spaces to permit 5 parking
spaces where 7 parking spaces are required; (2) 5 ft to permit 0 ft of perimeter
landscaping along the north property line where 5 ft is required; and (3) 13 ft to permit a
driveway width of 11 ft where 24 ft is required to allow conversion to office use at 514
Brookside Dr., Brookside Sub, Lot 3, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 95-43
ACTION: Denied.
3. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for variances of (1) 9.5 ft to permit a
structure 15.5 ft from a street right-af-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 18.35 ft to
permit a minimum lot width of 51.65 ft where 70 ft is required at 1344 South Michigan
Ave, Lake View Heights Sub, Blk 0, Lot 24, zoned RM 8 (Multi-Family Residential). V 95-
44
ACTION: Granted 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 or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being nuJJ and
of no effect; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months
from the date of this public hearing.
4. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for variances of (1) 9.5 ft to permit a
structure 15.5 ft from a street right~of~way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 18.10 ft to
permit a minimum lot width of 51.90 ft where 70 ft is required at 1151 Howard St.,
~ Carolina Terrace Sub, Blk E. Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-45
DCAB ACTION
OB/24/95
.' ,. , ~ '" . . . , I . '. .
~'~~!.. '
~
,.". -~
ACTION: Granted 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 or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and
of no effect; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months
from the date of this public hearing.
<)
5. Charles vy. & Brenda N. Walter for variances of (1) 3.5 ft to permit a 6.0 ft high wall in
setback adjacent to addressed street where 2.5 ft is allowed; (2) to permit a 6.0 ft high
wall within a waterfront setback where none is allowed: (3) 3.0 ft to permit a wall setback
of 0 ft from a street (Magnolia Dr.) right-at-way where 3.0 ft is required; and (4) 3.0 ft to
provide 0 ft of landscape buffer where 3.0 ft is required at 208 Magnolia Dr., Harbor
Oaks, Lot H & submerged land in front, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential). V 95-46
ACTION: Granted 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 or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and
of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the
date of this public hearing; and 3) a landscape buffer shafl not be required in the westerly
area of the wall from the gate to the water.
B. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODe AMENDMENTS ~ None.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. August 10,1995 - Approved as submitted
D. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS - None
,
, I
E. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS ~ None
F. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS - Discussion
G. ADJOURNMENT - 3:10 p.m.
~.
DCAB ACTION
2
08/24/95
: ", ' ,'. ..' .' " . . , .
~1'''''''. '. '
~
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
August 24, 1995
Members present:
Alex Pliska, Chair
OUo Gans, Vice Chair
William Johnson
William Schwab
Members absent:
Joyce Martin
Also present:
Pam Akin, City Attorney
John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department
Gwen Legters, Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1 :00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of
City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined procedures and
advised anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment
Board may appeal through the City Clerk Department within two weeks. He noted Florida law
requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings
to support the appeal.
, -..",
" \
J
"-./
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily
discussed in that order.
A. VARIANCE REQUESTS
1. Lionel G. James, Edson F. Denny. Joel T. Brannen, Howard D. & Lynda B. Cowden
(Walgreens Drug Store) for a variance of 22 parking spaces to permit 74 parking spaces
where 96 parking spaces are required at 1801 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13-29-15, M&B
32.17, 32.18 & 32.22, zoned CG (General Commerdal). V 95~42
Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff
recommendation. The applicant proposes to build a new Walgreens Drug Store on the
southeast corner of Keene Road and Gulf to Bay Boulevard, with a drive-through facility to
offset the need for some of the parking spaces. He stated a proposed code amendment, if
adopted, will reduce the parking requirement for a number of uses, including indoor retail.
He said the appearance of the property will be improved by enhanced setbacks, open space
and landscaping. Staff recommended approval, subject to two standard conditions of
approval.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, gave an overview of the non~conforming
conditions existing in the general area. He said the proposal is to raze the site and construct a
conforming 15,900 square foot building with two drivewthrough service lanes and a traffic
stacking area to mitigate the need for some of the parking spaces. Mr. Cline indicated a drug
store is a not typical retail environment, because there is more storage and a smaller
percentage of retail floor nrea, and customers do not have the tendency to stay and browse. He
mdc08b.95
011124/95
(~
felt the request is minimal, and will benefit the community. He noted there have been no
objections to the proposal, and it has been previously endorsed by the Development Review
Committee and the Planning and Zoning Board.
In response to questions, Mr. Cline pointed out the location of the package liquor sales area and
said the proposal is virtually the same as the new Walgreens store on East Bay Drive. One Board
member stated he patronizes that store and has never experienced parking problems.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Schwab moved to grant the
variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for
approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the land Development Code, more specifically, because
the variance arises from a condition unique to the property and was not caused by the owner
or applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application
for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and
other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation
from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding
the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will
result in this variance being null and of no effect and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall
be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
<)
2. Duane A. & Nancy I. Barton for variances of (1) 2 parking spaces to permit 5 parking
spaces where 7 parking spaces are required; (2) 5 ft to permit 0 ft of perimeter
landscaping along the north property line where 5 ft is required; and (3) 13 ft \0 permit
a driveway width of 11 ft where 24 ft is required to allow conversion to office use at
514 Brookside Dr., Brookside Sub, lot 3, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 95~43
Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff
recommendation. He stated the applicant wishes to convert the single family into an office.
Detailing existing conditions on the subject property, he said there is no reasonable means of
providing additional conforming parking. Concerns were expressed the narrow 11 foot
driveway on the north side of the property adjoins the driveway on the neighboring property,
and lacks space for a landscaping buffer in between. Mr. Richter said the applicant and City
Traffic Engineering Department have studiec! the plan and now propose a driveway that curves
away from the north property line in front of the building. The Environmental Management
Group recommended a wider landscaping buffer, and/or a fence along the southerly
boundary. Mr. Richter stated staff recommends approval of the variances, subject to five
conditions of approval.
Discussion ensued with regard to the configuration of the driveway, parking, and landscape
buffering. A concern was expressed that variances to driveway width are not usually
considered. There was also concern that a narrow, curving drive was not safe to oncoming
traffic. Mr. Richter stated the Traffic. Engineer did not feel there was a safety issue except
regarding conditions in the street right-of~way.
',--,
Alan Goldsmith, realtor representing ~he applicant, stated the current plan is the result of
lengthy negotiations with the Traffic Engineer, conceming the property to the north of the
driveway. It was felt a buffer or small island between the two drives would be the only way
mdc08b.95 2 011/24/95
"""'F.....:,. ,.
~
< ,~
the two drives could be parallel, as the adjacent property owner would not agree to a shared
drive arrangement. Mr. Goldsmith said the property has been on the market since 1989. He
said Mr. Barton lives out of town and has expressed concern the property has deteriorated
because he is unable to maintain it. Mr. Goldsmith said the prospective buyer would not use
the property for a busy public use, but as a small daytime office and tool storage for his
painting and repair business. It would also provide overnight parking for his commercial
vehicle, which is not allowed in his residential neighborhood. He did not feel any public
traffic would be associated with the use.
A question was raised regarding the building's correct size. A previous variance application
stated the house was 1,344 square feet, wh ile. The current request states it is 1,500 square
feet. Mr. Goldsm ith said he is the agent for the buyer and could not account for the
difference. He said Mr. Barton did 'not proceed with construction after receiving the previous
variance. Mr. Goldsmith did not think the footprint had changed.
Kim Frank, residential property owner within 200 feet of the proposal, spoke in opposition to
the application. She expressed concern that a commercial use this close would hinder the sale
of her residential property. She also expressed concerns with not knowing what type of
business could occupy the site in the future, increased traffic and residents' safety.
Two letters from property owners within 200 feet were submitted in opposition to the
application. .
(.....~ In response, Mr. Goldsmith stated the subject property has suffered break-ins and vandalism
......,/ because it is vacant and not well maintained. He felt the neighborhood would benefit by
having a local owner to clean up and care for the property.
Discussion ensued with regard to conditioning approval based on the ownership or use of the
property. Questions were raised about the City's occupational license process and if any
safeguards regulate the type of future businesses allowed. Additional discussion related to
how conditions of approval are enforced.
Concerns were expressed with the proposed conversion from residential to commercial use in
view of the small size of the lot and non-conforming parking proposal. Discussion resumed
regarding relocating parking to the north side of the lot, or creating a narrow driveway with no
buffer. It was indicated the building could be reconfigured. Without the garage, a driveway
could be accommodated.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Johnson moved to deny the
variances 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:
1) The strict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the
reasonable use of the land. or buildings; and 2) the granting of the variance will not be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code, and has the
possibility of being materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to
the public welfare and safety. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
'--
mllc081J.95
]
0Il!24/95
...,."'1')...... .
~
3. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services. Inc~ for variances of (1) 9.5 ft to permit a
structure 15.5 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 18.35 ft to permit
a minimum lot width of 51.65 ft where 70 ft is required at 1344 South Michigan Ave, Lake
View Heights Sub, slk D, Lot 24, loned RM 8 (Muhi.Family Residential). V 95-44
4. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services. Inc. for variances of (1) 9,5 ft to permit a
structure 15.5 (t from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 18.10 ft to permit
a minimum lot width of 51.90 ft where 70 ft is required at 1151 Howard Sf., Carolina
Terrace Sub, Blk E, Loll, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-45
Agenda llems A. 3, V 95-44 and A.4, V 95-45, having the same applicant, were heard together.
Mr. Richter gave the background of the cases and presented, in writing, the staff
recommendations. He stated the two properties, located a half mile apart, are similar in terms
of substandard lot width and street setbacks. Many properties in the area have similar non-
conformities. Staff recommended approval subject to two ,standard conditions.
, . ~
E.J. Robinson, Construction Specialist for Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Service (CNHS),
stated they arc in partnership with the City of Clearwater and the Challenge 2000 program to
provide housing for low and moderate income individuals. He said this program has built
more than 50 homes in these two areas. loday's proposals are for homes to enhance the area
and serve two single parent families.
Mr. Robinson responded to Board questions, stating CNHS is a non-profit agency. He said
. '."') about 85 percent of those assistebd are single parents, althoulgh that is not a prerequisite. There
'-' is a waiting list due to the pro lem of obtaining affordab e lots. The program provides for
CNHS staff to monitor the homes and follow up with new homeowners for 12 months
regarding any needed construction details and reminders about regular pest control. After
that, the City's Community Response Team in the area monitors the property. He stated a
minimal amount of sod and shrubbery are provided for the homes and they are looking at
increasing the amount of this contribution. The Board fell this to be a great program and a
benefit to the community. It was noted home ownership is a strong incentive.
No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the application.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Schwab moved to grant the
variances as requested in cases V 95-44 and V 95-45 because the applicant has substantially
met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the land Development Code,
more specifically, because the variances arise from conditions unique to the properties and not
caused by the owners or applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are
based on the applications (or variances and documents submitted by the applicant, including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the appl icant's request for
a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the requests
for 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; and 2) the
requisite building permit(s} shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
'_.
mdcOIlI>.95
.1
011/24/95
"j
~
5. Charles W. & Brenda N. Waltc( for variances of (1) 3.5 ft to permit a 6.0 ft high wall in
setback adjacent to addressed street where 2.5 ft is allowed; (2) to permit a 6.0 ft high
wall within () waterfront setback where none is allowed; (3) 3.0 ft to permit a wall
setback of 0 ft from a street (Magnolia Dr.) right-of-way where 3.0 ft is requiredi and (4)
3.0 ft to provide 0 ft of landscape buffer where 3.0 (t is required at 208 Magnolia Dr.,
Harbor Oaks, Lot H & submerged land in front, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential).
V 95-46
Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff
recommendation. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a six foot high concrete waif in
the same location as an existing fence in the waterfront setback. Staff recommended approval
of the first three variances, however did not support a variance to the landscape buffering
requirement outside the proposed wall. It was felt an existing hedge outside the chain link
portion of the fence should be continued.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated policy is to allow lighting and decorative finials
up to 18 inches higher than the maximum wall height.
>...~..~,
Patrick Maguire, attorney representing the property owner, discussed the existing wall
condition and submitted photographs for the record. He said the proposal will be similar to
the existing wall on the property across the street to the south, being of the design needed to
maintain the historical nature of the neighborhood. He expressed concern with providing
landscaping outside the western section of the wall between the driveway and the sea wall.
He stated the area between the street and the wall is solid concrete and a City representative
has expressed concern that cutting the pavement for landscaping could allow water to
undermine the wall.
',...-."
Charles Walter, properly owner, responded to questions regarding existing conditions and
what is proposed. It was indicated the proposal is to replace sections of a concrete wall
damaged in the 1993 No Name Storm. Mr. Walter said replacement of the wall parallel to the
sea wall is being delayed pending other action. Only a segment of the east-west wall is being
addressed at this time.
Regarding deteriorated sections of chain link fencing, Mr. Walter said he is having a fence
contractor look it over and he will repair whatever is damaged that does not require a
variance. He indicated this is difficult because of the shrubbery interwoven with the fence.
Discussion ensued regarding the small driveway. Mr. Walter said the curb cut was done for a
maintenance drive and later converted by the City to a handicapped ramp. Although he said
no cars would be parked inside the west end of the property, he did not want to block off the
gate. He indicated access to the lower portion of the property was useful and will be needed
to clear out the remainder of the City dock debris still in his yard. In response to a question,
Mr. Walter said he has a continuing problem with the public using the former Cily do~k area
at night and leaving trash.
No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the application.
J
The meeting recessed from 3:00 to 3:03 p.m.
muc08b.95
5
011/24/95
(~
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Member Cans moved to grant the
variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for
approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because
the variances arise from a condition unique to the property, and not caused by the owner or
applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) This 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 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
six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) a landscape buffer shall not be required
in the westerly area of the wall from the gate to the water. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
B. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - None.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 10/1995
Member Schwob moved to approve the minutes of August 10, 1995 in accordance with copies
submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
D. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS - None
Ai ~.I..';'hl-
I )
~ E. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None
F. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Gas thanked Mr. Richter for following up with legible street names on the Board's
property location maps.
Mr. Gans also thanked City Attorney Akin for attending in response to his inquiry about legal
department representation for the Board. Ms. Akin stated a regular attorney is soon to be
provided on a consistent basis. Responding to issues raised earlier in the meeting, she stated
she would look into granting variances conditioned on ownership and report to the Board.
Regarding the Infill Housing Program, she said it is a wonderful program and she felt Alan
Ferri, Director of City Economic Development would welcome an opportunity to meet with
the Board for a brief presentation. Consensus was to invite Mr. Ferri to address the Board
regarding the program.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
."""-.......
.,t~
chaflr VA ~
6
UIl/24f95