07/08/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 8, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman (arrived 1:18 p.m.)
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Also present:
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision
of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. He noted Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this
Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (continued from 5/27/93 and 6/10/93) Scot M. Trefz for variances (1) of 3 ft to allow perimeter landscape buffer of 4 ft where 7 ft is required (east ern p/l) and of 5 ft to
allow perimeter landscape buffer of zero ft where 5 ft is required (southern p/l); (2) of 3 ft to allow circula tion aisle zero ft from perimeter landscape where 3 ft is required and
2 ft to allow parking space 1 ft from perimeter land scape where 3 ft is required; and (3) to allow turf block or perme able concrete on circulation aisle at rear of property at 125
S Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.04, zoned CG (general commercial). V 93-40
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the application was continued to allow time for the applicant to meet with staff and put together the best possible
solution. In this two-phase redevelopment proposal, the first phase will require variances that will no longer be necessary upon completion of the second phase. Ms. Glatthorn stated
the appli cant has made every effort to meet the necessary require ments and the proposal appears to support the standards for approval.
In response to questions, Ms. Glatthorn indicated Phase Two will delete the existing dog grooming facility and she believed that a metal-roofed structure has already been removed.
Discussion ensued regarding permeable and all-weather paving surfaces. It was indicated turf block does not meet City stan dards for permanent paving; however, is subject to the approval
of the City Engineering Department where a permeable surface may be permissible.
Scot M. Trefz, the owner/applicant, stated he began expansion of his facility in 1990; however, was unable to secure financing to complete the project until November of 1992. Dr. Trefz
said the architect who represented him at the variance request hearing of February of 1993, did not accurately present the facts. There fore, Dr. Trefz met with City staff, presented
the entire plan and clarified his proposal relating to the building and parking plans. He stated the proposed second floor improvements are solely for employee use and the City Traffic
Engineering Depart ment is in support of continuing to use the area in the rear of the property for employee parking. Dr Trefz said he has SWFWMD authorization for permit modification
and the support of sur rounding property owners. He described the conditions surround ing his property, saying the proposed changes will aesthetically improve the appearance of the
site and meet the spirit and intent of the Code.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. The outdoor pet run, the dumpster and a 450-square-foot metal laundry shed are to be removed. Phase One will allow upgrading of the present
facility, provide for adequate parking and expand the retention pond. Phase Two involves demolishing the existing single-story animal hospital and replacing it with a modern facility
to include a doctor's office and a radiology lab.
Dr. Trefz presented photographs showing what currently exists on the subject and surrounding properties. He was not unduly concerned with the appearance of the surrounding commercial
properties; however, did not like having his neighbor's oil drums encroaching onto his property due to leakage concerns. He said a privacy fence will alleviate the appearance problem
in the future.
In response to a question, Dr. Trefz stated his business is growing and he hopes to go forward with Phase Two within five to ten years.
Dr. Trefz presented two letters from adjacent property owners in support of the application.
Anna Trefz stated she and her husband got into this business in 1989 and they want to see completion of Phase Two in less than ten years. She said they want to have the best veterinary
hospital
and they propose to do this within five years.
Dr. Trefz was commended for the improvements he has made to the facility and the planning and preparation he has devoted to bringing this plan before the Board.
Discussion ensued regarding permanent all-weather paving. Dr. Trefz stated he was told permeable concrete deteriorates quickly and turf block was recommended. It was noted turf block
breaks down under heavy driving traffic; however, is allowed in parking stalls.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 which is unique to the property and are not caused by the owner
or applicant; the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size prior to the entering of the building improve ments in Phase Two and these variances
are granted with the under standing that they will become null and void upon completion of Phase Two of this project subject to the following conditions: 1) these variances are based
on the variance appli ca tion and documents submitted by the appli cant, 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 applicant shall amend the certified site plan to reflect the changes proposed in this application and 3) the
initial building permits shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
1. Jeffrey J. and Kimberly A. Halma for a variance of 3 ft to allow building addition 2 ft from side property line where 5 ft is required at 1531 Ridgewood Street, Glenwood Sub, Lot
118, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Resi den tial). V 93-44
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence which has a nonconforming setback
of 2.8 feet. The proposed structure would further encroach into the setback and it was felt the application does not appear to support the standards for approval.
Daniel Williams, representing the owners, stated he was asked to
enclose the courtyard area and build an addition to the master bedroom because the applicants need more space in their home. He presented a drawing of the proposal for the record, stating
the plans include a master bathroom and additional closet space. The exterior of the new construc tion will match the existing cedar lap siding. Mr. Williams stated a previous contrac tor
forfeited his contract to build this addition and the applicants wish to go forward with the project as soon as possible.
Discussion ensued regarding the side setback calculations. Mr. Williams stated the requested variance would allow the addition to be built in line with the existing master bedroom.
However, he indicated the owners are aware of the site limitations and are willing to construct with a notch in the wall, if neces sary, to stay within the existing 2.8 foot setback.
Jean Stuart and Robert Cioni, owners of adjacent properties, spoke in opposition to the applica tion, expressing concern that any further encroachment would hurt the resale values of
their properties in the future. Mr. Cioni said water runs off the subject property onto Ms. Stuart's property. It was indicated individual owners are responsible for retaining run-off
water on their properties and Mr. Williams stated guttering will be installed.
A question was raised regarding a 1988 survey showing a wooden fence which appeared to encroach onto the Halma property. Mr. Cioni stated the fence has been moved since the survey was
done.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. While this was considered to be a minimal request, concern was expressed with increasing an existing non-conformity. Building closer to
the property line was felt to be detrimental to adjacent properties.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant a variance of 2.2 feet to allow a building addition 2.8 feet from a side property line because the applicant
has substan tially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which
is unique to the property and is not caused by the owner or applicant; the physi cal shape of the lot and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result
in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the size and shape of the lot and the placement of the home
subject to the following condi tions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the appli cant, 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 build ing permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The following Land Development Code Amendment was also consid ered:
ORDINANCE NO. 5411-93 OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING SECTION 42.21, CODE OF ORDI NANC ES, RELATING TO NONCONFORMING USES, TO PROVIDE
FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES OCCUPIED BY NONCON FORM ING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED IN EXCESS OF FIFTY PERCENT OF THE REPLACEMENT
COST; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (LDCA 93-03)
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the proposed amendment would provide for replacement of a structure without any expansion or enlargement.
Concern was expressed with allowing a non-conforming structure to be reconstructed to the same non-conforming standards. However, it was felt since there are so many buildings in the
City which were built prior to the current code, not allowing rebuilding would cause many properties to be unusable.
In response to a question, it was noted this ordinance would apply City-wide; however, would not apply to waterfront standards which are more restrictive. Clarification was requested
regard ing the cover sheet accompanying the proposed ordinance language.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval with the recommendation the ordinance apply only to non-conforming single-family residential uses. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Approval of Minutes of June 24, 1993
Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of June 24, 1993, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Gans left the meeting at 2:25 p.m.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
Discussion ensued regarding having a disclaimer on the variance applica tion form. The Board had no problem with this.
A question was raised regarding the exterior landscaping require
ment for the new doctor's office at 505 Druid Road. Staff is to investigate and report at the next meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding having each meeting start with the Chairman leading the Pledge of Allegiance and the members alter nat ing turns in giving an invocation. Consensus was to
follow this procedure, using the non-denomination al invocation used by the Planning and Zoning Board. Voting on the matter was deferred to the next meeting.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:28 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk