03/26/1998 (2)
, '. , . +,,' '.0,.., . " ~ _ .' '.,'. . .' 0 .'. . . , . .\. 0 o. ..' _. . ' j. ' . ..' '. ...' . .,... ~.:- . ~ .:' ."
"
,/
((~~'/';:~,,~r,~;,,:;:,::..:::,;\, " ~~ ."
{: ; ',~> . :,' , ~ ': .
..' \.-
','
,~> "
"
, I .{
"Q
, , '
" '.,......:
'.,
, '
, '.
"
I'T'
DCAB
"
"
(,I,: ,
~~ ~ . :.
<' ~,I '
'"
., .
'.':
. ,
;... .
Develop'ment Code Adjustrnent Board'
Minutes
:. ~ ~,
, "
':,.:,
:':.'
Ii .
., : \~
,I/":'Q
, .
'>~' ~ . \.,
'D'ate
~ " ,.,\ ,
J"
i ~ .
f: . ,
.:.'
~. '
("'
, '
"
I '
I . .'
:;
, .
;'
09-ff;;;2.
'.~:' ,
"
.. T,....... ,.d " ~ ......"...~ ,...'..~:~~~~".,
. ...t...'~J~I.~~.'i.-....;. ..r...... .<'....:'~.: .~I...; "
, J': .:r :l' " '11. '.: " \:, ~ ,
1.... .+:... ! ",'
Present:
William Schwob
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Ron Stuart
Shirley Moran
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Patricia O. Sullivan
Chair
Vice-Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
~
'"
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
March 26, 1998
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1 :00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the
Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, review of meeting procedures, and explanation of appeal
process.
To prov,ide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily
discussed In that order.
ITEM #A - Time Extension Reauests - None.
ITEM #B - Continued Variance Reauests - None.
i;i:~~
f,i~l
~I.-iil
ITEM HC - New Variance Reauest~
C1) Diane F. Heve for the following variances (1) a height variance of 2.8 ft to allow a wall
5.3 ft high within the setback area from the Druid Road South right-ot-way where a
maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed; (2) a setback variance of 3 ft to allow a wall zoro ft
trom a street right-ot-way (Druid Road South); and (3) a landscape buffer variance to allow
a wall with no landscaping adjacent to a street right-at-way (Druid Road South) at 902
Druid Rd. S., Harbor Oaks, Lot F and submerged land, zoned RS 2 (Single Family
Residential). V 98-25
This property is developed with a single family home. The owner proposes to relocate
the driveway entrance approximately 14-feet North of its current location and remove the
necessary portion ot wall along Druid Road. The owner also proposes to reconstruct the wall
at the current entrance and enclose the property's Southeast corner. The applicant requests:
,1) for new wall in front building setback, variance to allow 5.3-foot wall where height is limited
to 2.5 feet; 2) to allow wall to abut the Druid Road right-ot-way, variance requested where
3 feet is required; 3) where a landscape buffer is required within the setback, variance to
allow wall with no bufter.
Staff feels conditions support approval. Enclosing the current entrance after the
new driveway is constructed will be necessary. The wall now presents a good appearance
along Druid Road. The new portion will replicate the existing wall. Approval will not
adversely affect this neighborhood. In response to a question, Senior Planner John Richter
~
mdc03b98
1
03/26/98
1
~
I'
I
I
~.
i
This property is developed with a single family home. The owner wishes to erect a 6-
foot wood fence along the entire East property line and extend the existing 4-foot chain-link
fence on the West side of the home approximately 25-feet to the South to enclose more of the
yard on the West side of the home. Both fences will extend into the 25.foot front setback
from Regal Road where the maximum allowable fence height is 2.5 feet. A height variance of
3.5 feet is requested to accommodate both fences.
.tI~
said appropriate action will be taken regarding any desirable tree with a root zone in the
construction area.
Harry Cline. Representative. said the applicants~ home is in a historical area where
many properties are walled. Due to the construction of a home on the vacant lot next
door. the applicants wish to complete their wall and retain their privacy. The request is
consistent with neighborhood standards. The driveway will be moved North of the oak
tree which the residents will take the necessary steps to protect. He referred to Charles
Walter's March 23, 1998. letter of support. No other support or opposition was expressed.
Member Jonnatti moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the land
Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variances based on variance application and
documents submitted by 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 work to be done to the
site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no
effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing; and 3) to protect the large oak tree, prior to any construction within the critical
root zone of the tree. the applicant shall consult with an arborist or the City's Urban Forester.
The motIon was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C2) Lois A. Forgoes a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the
setback area from the Regal Road right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is
~ allowed at 1400 Reaal Rd., Solar Crest. lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential).
.' V 98-26
Staff feels conditions support approval. The owner wishes to improve the security of
the property. Pinellas County Sheriff's Office reports substantiate the need for the fence along
the East property line. On the West side of the home, the fence will eXtend no closer to the
Regal Road right-of-way than the front of the home. A petition supporting the variance, signed
by 7 nearby property owners, accompanied the variance application.
Linda Forgacs, Representative, said her mother, Lois Forgacs, owns the property. She
said the fence is necessary for protection and privacy. She hoped the fence will resolve
security problems. No other support or opposition was expressed.
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the land
Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and
.J
mdc03b98
2
03/26/98
f-'~!t
Hans Schlereth, Representative, said the addition will align with the existing home
which is located 8 feet from the property line. In response to a question, Mr. Schlereth said he
had designed the addition for a new master bedroom. The home is smaller than surrounding
ones and the master bedroom has only 121-square feet. He said the addition cannot be
located elsewhere on the property. It was noted the addition will not be visible from the street.
No other support or opposition was expressed.
~
documents submitted by 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 work to be done to the
site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no
effect; and 2) 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) L. Aubrev & Iris R. Griffin for a setback variance of 1.9 ft to allow a room addition 8.1
ft from the West side property line where a minimum setback of 10ft is required at .a3.1Q
San Bernadino St., Delara Groves, Lots 413 & 414 and part of Lots 412 & 415, zoned
RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 98M27
This property is developed with a single family home. On the home's Northwest corner,
the owner proposes to construct a 400-square foot addition that will extend into the required
10-foot side setback from the West property line. A 1 .9-foot variance is requested to allow the
addition to be constructed 8.1 feet from the West property line.
Staff feels conditions support approval. The home was constructed 8.1 feet from the
West property line. The addition will align with the home's West wall and will be no closer to
the West property line than the home. Approval will not adversely affect the developed
character of this neighborhood.
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and
documents submitted by 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 work to be done to the
site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no
effect; and 2) 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.
C4) John L. & Carolvn J. Hamm. Jr. for a setback variance of 12.67 ft to allow a new
single family home 1 2.33 ft from the CR 1 93 right-ot-way where a minimum setback of
25 tt is required at 1850 Castle Woods Dr., Castle Woods Sub, Lot 17, zoned RS 6 (Single
Family Residential). V 98-28
The applicants propose to develop this vacant lot with a single family home. The
garage will be positioned in the building setback from CR 193 where 25-feet is required. The
proposed setback for the garage is 12.33 feet.
~
mdc03b98
3
03/26/98
~
Staff feels conditions support approval. Two large specimen oak trees near the
property's center have large spreading root systems which make it difficult to design a home
that saves the trees. The property owners have worked closely with the City's Urban Forester
to design 8 home that respects the trees. In his February 24, 1998, memorandum, Urban
Forester Alan Mayberry indicated the proposed design will result in a minimum amount of
stress on the trees. Another mature oak tree near the South property line will help buffer the
garage and lessen its impact on the setback. Approval will not adversely affect this
neighborhood.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter said staff had not recommended a condition
requiring the property owners to work with the City's Urban Forester due to the applicants'
well established pattern of cooperation.
John Hamm, Jr., Applicant, indicated his respect for the beautiful trees on the property
and his plan to continue working closely with Mr. Mayberry to design c.. home with the intention
that the trees will live. It was stated one impressive oak tree on the property is about 150-
years old. It was felt this proposal represents a good solution to difficulties associated with
developing this property, No other support or opposition was expressed.
(2Jl
:li~'
Member Jonnetti moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has
substantially met.all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and
documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted in support of the appiicanfs variance request. Deviation from any of the above
documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the
site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no
effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing; and 3) prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the home, shrubs
shall be planted along the length of the South side of the garage to soften its encroachment
into the setback. The motlon was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C5) Doualas J. Weiland & Elizabeth C. Sirna a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a fence 6
ft high within the setback area from the landmark Drive right-of-way where a maximum
height of 2.5 ft is allowed at :i.273 Landmark Dr., Geiger Tract, lots 3 & 4, zoned RS 4
(Single Family Residential). V 98-29
This property is developed with a single family home and guest house. The owners
propose to erect a 6-foot decorative fence along the front of the property within the landmark
Drive setback where the maximum allowable height is 2.5-feet. A 3.5-foot height variance is
requested.
Staff feels conditions support approval. The fence will separate the home from
Landmark Drive, a busy arterial roadway. The owners have identified properties and
subdivisions along Landmark Drive enclosed with fences up to 6-feet high. Many of those
fences restrict visibility beyond the fences. The applicants propose to construct a fence with
uprights, spaced at intervals, to allow visibility through the fence and maintain the openness of
-..J
mdc03b98
4
03/26/98
~
the property's front yard. Approval will not alter the developed character of Landmark Drive
and will not adversely effect the neighborhood or City.
Steve Klar, Representative, said the applicants previously had received a variance to
construct this fence. They did not meet the conditions and the fence was not built. No other
support or opposition was expressed.
Member Moran moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variances based on variance application and
documents submitted by 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 work to be done to the
site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no
effect and 2) 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.
e6) Glenn A. & Marjorie A. Harkrader 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 Howard Street right-of-
way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed; and (2) a fence setback variance from a
street right-of-way at 1550 S. Jefferson Ave., Sail's Sub, Blk G, Lot 18, zoned RS 8
(Single Family Residential). V 98-30
( . ~I
....,..~
This property is developed with a single family home. The recently erected 6-foot wood
fence encloses the side yard on the home's West side. The applicants request: 1) a 3.5-foot
variance where the maximum allowable height for the fence in the front building setback is 2.5
feet and 2) a variance to allow the fence's West end to have no setback from the Howard
Street right~of-way where 3 feet is required.
Staff feels conditions support approval. This corner lot has little privacy; the North and
East yards adjOin public streets. The home, built near the South property line, has no back
yard. Even though it is small due to the 63-foot lot depth and location of the screen porch 14-
feet from the North property line, the only reasonable space for a private yard area is on the
home's West side. Moving the fence away from the street would crowd the porch. Approval
will not adversely affect this neighborhood. The adjoining commercially~zoned property is used
for automobile sales. The variances are reasonable to accommodate the property owner's
interest in securing a private yard. Mr. Richter reported the Traffic Engineer had recommended
a 4th condition that the owner remove unnecessary paving in the street right-of-way.
Glenn Harkrader, Applicant, said he had erected the fence without a permit due to
ignorance of the raw. He said the fence screens his yard from the used vehicle safes lot
abutting his property to the West. He said he will remove the chain link fence if the variance
for the wood fence is approved.
In reference to the Traffic Engineer's recommendation, Mr. Harkrader said the
referenced paving provides the only access through a double gate to his 2-vehicle carport. Mr.
Richter withdrew the recommendation. In response to a question, Mr. Harkrader said
~J
mdc03b98
5
03/26/98
This property is developed with a 7-unit motel. The applicant proposes to enlarge the
owner occupied unit with a 1 ,500.square foot 2rd-floor addition. The applicant requests: 1) a
7-loot variance to allow the addition 18-feet from the Bay Esplanade right-of-way where
26-feet is required; 2) a 25-foot variance to allow the addition 0 feet from the Somerset
Street right-ot-way where 25.feet is required; 3) a 40-foot variance to allow the addition
on a 11 O-foot wide lot where the minimum lot width is 1 50 feet; 4) a 1 5-foot variance to
allow the addition on an 85-foot deep lot where the minimum lot depth is 100 feet; and 5)
a 5,OG3-square foot variance tor the addition on a 9,037-square foot lot where the
minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet.
t)
customers of the business next door park on that paving. He said he needs to shield his
property from the commercial use next door due to privacy and safety concerns. In response
to a question, he said he had purchased the property in August 1996. He stated only the lit
panel of the fence impedes on the front setback.
June Weiglein supported the fence. She expressed concern a fence not be built that
blocks the site lines for vehicles at the Jefferson Avenue and Howard Street intersection. No
other support or opposition was expressed.
..(~
C'~":~;!1
~' . ~
Member Johnson moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and
documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted in support of tho applicanfs variance request. Deviation from any of the above
documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the
site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no
effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing; and 3) within 60 days, a landscape buffer shall be planted on the outside of
the fence parallel to the Howard Street right-of-way. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least
18 inches in height at the time of planting. The plants shall form a solid screen at maturity,
broken only at tJ:le driveway. Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the
City's Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the official. Failure to maintain
the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the variances. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
C7) Systems Realty Corooration for the following variances (1) a setback variance of 7 ft
to allow a second floor addition 18 ft from the Bay Esplanade right~of-way where a
minimum of 25 ft is required; (2) a setback variance of 25 ft to allow a second floor
addition zero ft from the Somerset Street rightMof-way where a minimum of 25 ft is
required; (3) a lot width variance of 40 ft to allow a width of 110ft where a minimum of
150 ft is required; (4) a lot depth variance of 15 ft to allow a depth of 85 ft where a
minimum of 100 ft is required; and (5) a lot area variance of 5,063 sq. ft to allow an area
of 9.037 sq. ft where a minimum of 1 5.000 sq. ft is required at 692 Bav Esolanade,
Mandalay Unit No.5 Fleplat, Blk 83, Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, zoned RM 20 (Multiple
Family Residential). V 98-32
,..J
mdc03b98
6
03/26/98
~
Staff teels conditions support approval. The property's size cannot be increased. As
the 2nd story's exterior walls will align with the 1" floor, the addition will extend no clossr to the
property lines than the existing building. Approval will not adversely effect this neighborhood.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter said the parking requirement will not change as no
new units are proposed. '
Fred Segesman, Representative, said he had purchased the property after it was
damaged by the NNo Name" storm 5 years ago. He has invested a great deal of money in
renovations. A buyer is interested in purchasing the property if the owner's residential
aree is enlarged. The current owner's unit #1 is quito small. It was felt an on-site owner
will bonefit the property and discourage problems associated with transients.
In response to a question, Mr. Segesman said the buyer had incorrectly sketched
the elevation included with the application. The 2nd story's exterior wall and deck will not
extend farther into the setback than the 11t floor. In response to a question, Mr. Segesman
indicated the buyer is aware the addition will have to conform to the City's tropical
seascape design criteria and be approved by a board. Three letters of support were
received. No other support or opposition was expressed.
~:::.!f
.....</0:10"
Membar Moran moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the land
Development Code, subject to conditions: 1} variances based on variance application and
documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents .
submitted in support of the applicantts variance request. Deviation from any of the above
documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the
site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no
effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing; 3) prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact Central
Permitting staff to review tropical seascape design criteria proposed for Clearwater beach; and
4) no additional units shall be added. The stairway to the second story shall remain interior to
the unit below as shown on the plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
C8) Robert W. Byrd & Winfred L. Bailey (Arthritis Pain Treatment Center of Clearwater) for
a parking variance of 12 additional parking spaces to allow 0 additional parking spaces
where 12 additional parking spaces are required to permit a change of use at 712 Grand
Central St., Milton Park, Blk 4, part of lots 10, 11 & 12, zoned IL (Limited Industrial) and
OL (Limited Office). V 98-33
This property is developed with a 4,560-square foot building previously used for general
offices. The applicants proposed use of the building for medical offices requires more parking
spaces than general offices. Where 27 off-street spaces are required, 15 exist. The applicants
request a 12-space variance.
Staff feels conditions support approval. The 11 spaces in the Grand Central Avenue
right-at-way in front of this property provide additional parking space and result in 26 available
\~
mdc03b98
7
03/26/98
.'" ""'" """.','" ',,' '" .1'."(,, "...J . ..,I',:~::.f.." j~'1 .,. ". ..., , '....,.,
.!. . " .r,,:' ."....:.. ',"( . ,.',.,~,.'. ',hi I'" .:'~. ", ~I.....' ~....,...~.~..,. + ,". ,( ....".... o. " .
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the land
Development Code, subject to conditions: 1} variance based on variance application and
documents submitted by 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 work to be done to the
site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no
effect and 2} 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.
~
parking spaces for this medical office. This total is one space shy of the 27 required spaces
, and should serve this use adequately.
Harry Cline, Representative, said the new owners of this historical office building
plan a medical use for the property. He felt the City's vehicle impact fees imposed on this
property are 8 secondary economic imposition on property owners who make similar
changes. He said surrounding uses support' this use. He said current law disallows the
owners from counting the front parking spaces that have been lIsed since 1953 when the
building was constructed. The March 17, 1998, letter of support from R. M. Thompson,
Jr., of Thompson Executive Center Partnership was noted. No other support or opposition
was expressed. It was stated Grand Central Street is not heavily traveled. It was felt backing
out of the front spaces is not difficult.
C9) Maria A. Curry for the following variances (1) a separation variance of 480 ft to allow
f:~;t a Group Care level I Living Facility 20 ft from a single family residential zone; and (2) a
separation variance of 460 ft to allow a Group Care level I Living Facility 740 ft from an
existing Family Care Living Facility at 1823 - 1827 East Dr., Quail Run, lot 13, zoned RM
8 (Multiple Family Residential). V 98-31
, This property is developed with a triplex which the applicant proposes to use as a group
care facility, housing up to 14 elderly persons. The applicant requests: 1) a 480-foot variance
to allow the facility within 20-feet of a single family lone where 500-feet is required and
2} a 460-foot variance to allow this facility 740~feet from a family care facility where
1 ,20Q-feet is required.
Staff feels conditions support approval. The separation requirements were developed to
ensure that each care facility is compatible with nearby uses and to avoid a concentration of
care facilities in a single neighborhood. This proposal appears to satisfy these purposes. The
proposed facility should integrate well with the triplexes that line both sides of East Drive. The
closest care facility, at 1743 Sharondale Drive, appears to be in a different neighborhood.
Sharondale Drive is developed with single-family homes and is separated from East Drive by
Greenloa Drive which accesses the Woodmont and Blackshire Estates subdivisions to the East.
The proposed group care use should not adversely impact this area.
Mr. Richter said AClFs (Adult Congregate Living Facility) are unobtrusive once they
are established in a neighborhood. AClFs generate no additional traffic. In response to a
question, Mr. Richter said the facility on Sharondale Drive appears to be in a different
'J
mdc03b98
8
03/26/98
C':"',j
.l.'"r;r
Irene Heinige, Arlene Woldt, and Frances Varsec spoke in opposition to the
proposed ACLF stating a petition in opposition, submitted March 19, 1998, had been
signed by more than 70 people, the Sharondale ACLF is rundown and its neighbors are
unhappy, traffic will increase and trucks will deliver oxygen, the neighborhood is family-
oriented, elderly ACLF residents will wander the streets and scare neighborhood children,
fighting by ACLF residents will disturb neighbors, ambulance sirens will be disruptive,
nearby property will be devalued and become more difficult to sell, the ACLF will have too
many residents for proper supervision, a business should not be allowed to operate in the
neighborhood, the ACLF should be located in a commercial lone, and the 1991 variance
application had been opposed by the neighborhood and was defeated.
"'"")
neighborhood of single family homes and separated by Greenlee Drive. Five parking
spaces are required for the proposed facility. The ACLF will not be permitted to house
juvenile delinquents. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the application
indicates the ACLF will house ambulatory elderly residents and will not offer limited
medical service.
Julia Galpin, Representative, said the purchase of the subject property is contingent
on approval of thes~ variances. An application for these variances had been made in
1991. She said she works in the home health care field as a registered nurse. She said
not enough well run facilities exist which care for the elderly. She said the structure will
lend itself to a 7 bedroom facility with common room areas. She said the buyer is a
registered nurse who lives across the street from the subject property.
Gillian Vaile, Buyer, said she lives with her parents, children, and husband, who is a
EMT (Emergency Medical Technician). She said the ACLF will house elderly people who
need assistance with transportation and other needs. She said she will not allow the
property to deteriorate. She welcomed neighbors to knock on her door regarding
problems. She has completed the required course through the Florida Department of Elder
Affairs. Fire protection and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) regulations must be met
and approved by the Fire Marshal. It was noted the necessary improvements will be
substantial ~nd expensive. It was stated obtaining the necessary State license takes about
90 days. Margaret Dietrich said she is an area property owner who supports the ACLF.
, It was indicated no documentation supports the theory that ACLFs lower property
values. Mr. Richter indicated the submitted petition had 72 signatures by his count.
Ms. Vaile said elderly residents enjoy children. Her children enjoy their visits to
elder care facilities. She said she will not apply for a mental health service license. She
said the trucks that deliver oxygen are unobtrusive. She said the State is required to
inspect ACLFs each time a complaint is received. Ms. Dietrich said the ACLF will care for
elderly human beings. She felt it inhumane to suggest these people should have to live in
commercial areas.
Ms. Varsec, Ms. Woldt, and Ms. Heinige said it is wrong to operate a business in a
residential neighborhood, ACLF residents as young as 18 could disturb the neighborhood,
~
mdc03b98
9
03/26/98
. ~, . .',': +< ..... :. :". ..., "': ..... ..\.... . . ~."; '.,.',~' ,',.,:"". ~ ','. : ':':.' ":. ,'. .:~. ......,:.. ':~ ,'... :,: ',' :".;\~." ..<., ..,: '.:+ .-;.... ..' '." <. ': :'..' ..... ~\, . . :/' .' .', . :....:~. . .: ' . ~h ......:,
1
and the petition should be considered. Ms. Galpin said ACLF residents will not breach the
6-foot fence separating the property from the single family residence behind.
In response to a question, Ms. Vaile said the ACLF will care for retirement age
residents as licensed by the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. The ACLF will not be
licensed to care for young, disturbed residents. She said most residents who seek this
type of living arrangement can no longer drive. It was stated few ACLF residents have
visitors.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter reviewed Code requirements for ACLFs. In
response to a question, Ms. Dougall.Sides said the ACLF also must adhere to health
department regulations. It was noted no documentation had been presented to prove an
ACLF causes nearby properties to devaluate. It was felt a family neighborhood is an
excellent location for a well run home for elderly residents. It was indicated an ACLF
would be a good use of the property.
It was stated the board gives careful consideration to written and verbal testimony.
It was felt most complaints against this type of facility are misguided. It was stated
ACLFs are humane and needed facilities. History indicates AClFs do not cause traffic to
increase. No other support or opposition was expressed.
(~~.;:~
. "
Concern was expressed the 480-foot variance requested to separate the ACLF from a
residential zone is substantial. In light of code restrictions, the appropriateness of this location,
abutting a single family neighborhood, was questioned. It was felt the 480-foot variance
request is not minimal.
Member Johnson moved to grant a separation variance of 460 feet to allow a Group
Care level I Living Facility 740 ft from an existing Family Care Living Facility as requested
because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section
45.24 of the land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance
application and documents submitted by 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 work
to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance
being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year
from the date of this public hearing; and 3) within 60 days after issuance of the occupational
license, landscaping shall be installed along East Drive and on the perimeter of the parking lot.
Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City's Environmental Official and
shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain the landscaping in a healthy
condition shall void the variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Johnson moved to grant a separation variance of 480 feet to allow a Group
Care level I Living Facility 20 ft from a single family residential zone as requested because
the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of
the land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance
application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and
other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from
J
mdc03b98
10
03/26/98
-:';"i:":':'~,::,:"<:"";:,:,,,'<"-:',,,:,<, . ..,.: ,::t:....;....;":,,:.</,l:,,.>~....,J~..~:...:: :,.:~l:"." l::,:""";,: ...':...",>.. '...'.Y_:.,,'.
The importance of the board providing careful consideration of citizen feelings was
noted. Mr. Richter complimented the board for their businesslike demeanor through this
afternoon's lengthy agenda.
~
" '
any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work
to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance
being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year
from the date of this public hearing; and 3) within 60 days after issuance of the occupational
license, landscaping shall be installed along East Drive and on the perimeter of the parking lot.
Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City's Environmental Official and
shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain the landscaping in a healthy
condition shall void the variances. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson,
Stuart, and Moran and voted IiAye"; Member Jonnatti and Chair Schwab voted "Nay."
Motion carried.
ITEM #0 - Land Develooment Code Amendments - None
ITEM HE M Aooroval of Minutes
Member Stuart moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 12,
1998, as recorded anc:l submitted in written summation to each board member. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #F - Board & Staff Comments
Mr. Richter said the minor variance report requested by the board will be included in
the next meeting's packet.
~;):~~
~:- l:PfJ
"'",,-l~~'
Ms. Dougall-Sides said she will represent the City at the May 8, 1998, hearing
regarding the appeal filed by Bay Aristocrat residents regarding the parking variance
previously approved by the board for a new Oaf' Pablos restaurant on US 19N.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
.~j;P<f~__LJ#J--
Chair ,/
Development Code Adjustment Board
.,,)
'-.,:
mdc03b98
1 1
03/26/98