05/09/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
May 9, 1996
Present:
William Schwob
William Johnson (arrived 1:02 p.m.)
Mark Jonnatti
Roberle Pratt
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Sandy Glatthorn, Manager
Gwen Legters
Assistant City Attorney
Central Permitting
Board Reporter
Absent:
Otto Gans
Chair
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.
Ms. Pratt was introduced and welcomed as a new member.
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
B. Continued Variance Requests
B1. (Cont. from 3/28, 4/11 & 4/25/96) L.O.M., Inc. for variance of 5.5 ft to permit a structural setback of 7.5 ft from a side (south) property line at 309 S Gulfview Blvd, Lloyd-White-Skinner,
Lots 60, 61, 62, 108 and 109, together with part of Lot 107, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). VR 96 19
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the board approved two variances at the April 25 meeting. The three board members present were deadlocked on the third
variance and it was continued to today’s meeting. It was not felt conditions support this variance, as granting the setback would restrict the view corridor of the properties to the
rear. Staff did not recommend approval. It was indicated three letters of objection were attached to the board packets.
Steven Fowler, architect representing the applicant, did not wish to postpone this issue to a full board, indicating the applicant wants to get the project started. He gave a brief
history of the subject property, surrounding conditions and board action to this point. He felt the plan before the board today is a good solution to board and neighbor concerns. He
explained two reasons for the request are the geometry of the site and the desire to orient the proposal to Gulfview Boulevard, instead of in an east/west configuration. He felt it
was important to present to the public an attractive building face instead of a parking lot. Responding to concerns about an existing six foot high concrete block wall along the south
side property line, he stated they are working with staff and the property owner of the adjacent hotel as to the ownership of the wall.
One adjacent resident spoke in opposition to the request. She gave a history of the wall ownership, construction, height and configuration. She supported removal of the wall she felt
was unsightly, asking that it be replaced with a three or four foot tall barrier to discourage
pedestrian traffic through that area. She said she was happy with the building plans shown to her last week.
No written or verbal support was expressed.
Mr. Fowler responded to the citizen, stating if it is determined the wall belongs to the applicant and is no longer required to separate residential from commercial areas, they will
be happy to tear it down and replace it with a barrier to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. In response to a question, Mr. Fowler estimated 253 square feet of building space will be
lost if the variance is not granted. He has been talking with Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford about the possibility of administratively granting a variance for one parking
space to recoup 400 square feet of restaurant space on the north side. If granted it would allow in increase of the north building four feet to the east, still meeting the rear setback
requirement.
Board discussion ensued. One member agreed the wall should be removed because young people have been observed gathering and loitering there in the evenings. He felt this will be an
attractive commercial development and was inclined to grant the variance. Two members disagreed, feeling the need to pay attention to the carefully established setback requirements.
All indicated an inclination to support an administrative variance for one parking space. It was pointed out the board’s rules do not support cumulative approvals. Ms. Dougall-Sides
said the applicant is not precluded from applying for an administrative variance and it would be considered at the discretion of Mr. Shuford.
Member Jonnatti moved to deny the variance in Item B1 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. Discussion ensued regarding the recourse for the applicant if this request is denied. The motion was duly seconded. Members Schwob, Johnson, and Jonnatti voted
"Aye"; Member Pratt voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Unanimous consensus of the board was to recommend that staff consider administrative approval of a one parking space variance to accommodate the lost square footage resulting from the
denial of the variance.
C. New Variance Requests
C1. Robert H. Lickert for variances of (1) 20.35 ft to allow a lot width of 49.65 ft where 70 ft is required; (2) 5 ft to permit a structure 20 ft from a street right-of-way where 25
ft is required; (3) 19.45 ft to allow a lot width of 50.55 ft where 70 ft is required; (4) 7 ft to permit a structure 18 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (5)
10 ft to permit a structure 15 ft from a secondary street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 800 through 810 Vine Ave, Pinecrest Sub, Blk 4, Lots 1 through 12, zoned CI (Infill
Commercial) & RM 8 (Multi-Family Residential). VR 96-28
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating construction of eight homes is proposed on the eastern portion of the subject property. The request is consistent with
the development pattern of the neighborhood and staff recommended approval with two standard conditions.
Randy Mears, representing the applicant, stated this two acre parcel is designed to match and promote the neighborhood feeling of the surrounding properties, in tune with Clearwater
Neighborhood Housing Services (CNHS) recommendations. In response to a question, he said he will build the homes.
Jerry Spilatro, Assistant Executive Director of CNHS, welcomed Ms. Pratt to the board. He spoke in favor of this opportunity to build new homes for low and moderate income families.
He said they have built more than 60 new houses in the North Greenwood neighborhood and ten in south Clearwater. They are always aggressively seeking new lots on which to build. He
said the lot sizes are standard for the neighborhood and many homes in their plan books will fit and look well on a 50 foot lot. One member commended Mr. Spilatro and CNHS for doing
a good job on a recently completed project at the corner of Myrtle Avenue and Marshall Street.
In response to questions, Mr. Spilatro said the majority of the homes are 1,200 to 1,250 square feet with a variety of room configurations. Prospective homeowners are educated on budgeting
and maintenance, and CNHS monitors their progress. He said the original homes built on Fairburn Avenue five years ago are still being well maintained. He noticed neighbors tend to
show more pride in their homes wherever CNHS homer are built. The board agreed this is a worthwhile project.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Johnson 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, 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. James B. & Marlene K. McCullough/Eagle's Glen Condo Association, Inc. for variances of (1) 3.5 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high wall where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed
within a structural setback area to a street right-of-way; and (2) 2 ft to permit a wall 3 ft from a street right-of-way where 5 ft is required at 3175 Landmark Dr, Sec 20-28-16, M&B
14.02, Sec 21-28-16, M&B's 23.04, 23.05, 23.06, 23.08, & 23.13, zoned RM 16 (Multi-Family Residential) & RS 6 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-29
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant proposes to construct a bridge across a pond to provide access from Landmark Drive to new home sites on
the east side of the pond. The variances will allow construction of six foot high security fences and walls to provide an entry feature at Landmark Drive and secure the area west of
the pond.
James McCullough, the applicant and project developer, stated the bridge will access this upscale development of 21 lots. The bridge and walls were proposed as an elegant and attractive
alternative entrance to the subdivision. The bridge is currently under construction. He said bronze plaques will decorate the entry feature and a decorative gate on the bridge will
provide subdivision security. The proposal is about 22 feet back from the sidewalk, so it does not appear to crowd the right-of-way. The landscaping and wall height and design will
match and blend with the
surroundings. He said both were designed to look like a continuation of the adjacent Turtle Brook development. In response to a question, it was indicated a four foot black aluminum
fence at the rear will not be seen from Landmark Drive and is not part of this request.
Member Jonnatti 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, 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. True School, Inc/d.b.a. Delphi Academy of Florida for variances of (1) 1.5 ft in height to permit a 4 ft high fence where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed within a structural
setback area to a street right-of-way; (2) 8 percent to allow 17 percent open space for the lot where 25 percent is required; and (3) 14 percent to allow 41 percent front yard open
space where 55 percent is required at 1831 Drew St, Skycrest Unit No. 5, Blk G, Lots 1 through 8, zoned P/SP (Public/SemiPublic). VR 96-30
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant wishes to replace a deteriorated chain link fence protecting the children from Drew Street traffic, and
construct a new concrete sidewalk to improve a walkway on the site. Staff noted while relatively small, the variances further reduce already nonconforming open space. As the parking
lot does not conform to landscaping requirements, it was recommended the applicant work with staff to ascertain whether space exists to remove some of the existing parking lot pavement
to provide a landscape buffer adjoining Drew Street. This would improve the appearance of the property and replenish some of the open space. Staff felt conditions support the request
and recommended approval with three conditions.
Sandy Adair, Headmistress of the Delphi Academy, reiterated the proposal outlined by staff. She said they would like to plant trees along the new sidewalk to improve the building and
lot.
Member Johnson 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, 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; and 3) The applicant shall contact the City Environmental Official to determine the feasibility of providing the required landscape
buffer. If determined to be feasible, the applicant shall provide landscaping in accordance with the recommendations of the Environmental Official. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
C4. John P. Coale & Greta C. Van Susteren for variances of (1) 3.5 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high masonry wall and a 6 ft high wood fence where a maximum height of 2.5 is allowed
within a structural setback area to a street right-of-way; (2) 3 ft to permit a masonry wall and a wood fence zero ft from a street right-of-way where 3 ft is required; and (3) 3 ft
to permit zero ft landscape buffer where 3 ft is required at 1090 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 70, Lot 14 and riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-31
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant wishes to enclose the front yard of the new home with a security fence and wall. It was indicated the
building on the neighboring property to the south extends forward of the masonry wall and proposed wood fence, diminishing visibility and negating any adverse effects that would otherwise
occur. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions.
Member Jonnatti declared a conflict of interest, stating he is the architect for this project. The Chair announced that unanimous approval of the three remaining members was needed
to grant the variances. The applicant chose to proceed today.
Jake Bruynzeel, representing the applicant, stated Ms. Van Susteren is a television news celebrity who needs privacy and security for her home. Mr. Bruynzeel referred to photographs
in the board packet and presented additional photographs of conditions on the subject property and surrounding area. He reviewed the location of the fence and wall, stating the wall
will shield from view the unsightly rear wall of the yacht club. It was indicated the proposal is located in an area removed from public view, has limited traffic access, and will not
negatively impact other property.
Member Johnson 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, 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; and 3) The applicant shall contact the City Environmental Official to determine the feasibility of providing the landscape buffer
within the Eldorado Ave. Right-of-way, and if determined to be feasible, the applicant shall provide landscaping in accordance with the recommendations of the Environmental Official.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C5. John G. Powell/PPS Interests (Computer City) for variances of (1) 5 percent to allow 20 percent open space for the lot where 25 percent is required; (2) 20 percent to allow 30 percent
front yard open space where 50 percent is required; and (3) 6 parking spaces to permit 84 parking spaces where 90 spaces are required at 25000 US 19 N, Sec. 31-28-16, M&B 44.03, zoned
CH (Highway Commercial). VR 96 32
In a memo dated April 26, 1996, representative Todd Pressman requested a continuance to the next meeting to allow time to discuss and clarify issues with staff.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item C5 to the meeting of June 13, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C6. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for variances of (1) 9 ft to permit a structure 16 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; (2) 18.46 ft to allow a
lot width of 51.54 ft where 70 ft is required and (3) 234 sq ft to allow a lot area of 4766 sq ft where 5000 sq ft is required at 1112 Kingsley St, Lakeview Heights, Blk F, Lot 14, zoned
RM 8 (Multi-Family Residential). VR 96-33
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant proposes to develop the lot with a single family home. Staff felt conditions regarding setbacks and relatively
small building size support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
E.J. Robinson, representing the applicant, described this Infill housing program as a partnership between the City and CNHS to construct homes for single parent families. He said conditions
in blighted areas have been improved tremendously by the program and he has processed about three-quarters of a million dollars worth of loans in the past three months.
Jerry Spilatro said this program is publicly funded and he recently filed a report that about $4 million worth of property have been put on the tax rolls by this agency. He tries to
place families in 25 to 30 new houses per year. He has about 70 clients in the process of getting financing and approvals to build, with 40 more an a waiting list.
In response to a question, Mr. Robinson said this applicant is a single mother with two children, ages 7 and 9. The board felt the proposed location near a beautiful park, within walking
distance of many facilities, is a wonderful place for children to grow up.
Member Jonnatti 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, 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.
C7. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for variances of (1) 10 ft to permit a structure 15 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 1 ft to allow a
lot width of 69 ft where 70 ft is required at 1300 Fairmont St, Betty Lane Heights Sub, Blk A, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-34
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the home proposed for this corner lot will be larger and will not comply with setback requirements as do other homes
in the neighborhood. It was indicated the lot is not small and staff felt a conforming home could be designed or selected to fit comfortably without variances. Staff felt the application
does not appear to comply with three of the four standards for approval.
E.J. Robinson, representing the applicant, stated this would be the first Infill house in this section of the neighborhood and they are eager to get underway. In response to questions
regarding the apparent oversizing, he explained the size of the house and lot are selected according
to the applicant’s ability to pay. This applicant is a single mother of two children and qualifies for a larger house. He said she specifically selected this neighborhood, lot and
house plan, and will have no other. In response to a question, he said reducing the square footage would destroy this floor plan, and the house would not fit on a 50 foot lot. It was
pointed out the house will be overpriced for the neighborhood, and the view of the garages across the street is not attractive. Mr. Robinson indicated the applicant is adamant this
is where she wants to live. He stated, while there is no way of knowing how long someone will stay in a given location, this is her first home, she can afford it, and felt it would
be a good investment for her. He explained they have a very good track record with their new homeowners. He could think of only two instances where the homeowners have not been successful.
It was indicated pride in ownership is a strong incentive.
Jerry Spilatro stated he was not aware of staff’s concern regarding the size of the house on the lot. He felt fortunate to have a larger lot available for this homeowner. He said
they usually have to accommodate a larger home on two lots. He does not like to do this, when those two lots could be used to place two families. He said the house presents itself
well on the site. Staff has indicated the proposed new home aligns with only one other home.
One member felt a smaller house would not be the best use of the property and was not concerned about varying setback. In response to a question, he said the proposal will upgrade
the neighborhood.
Member Jonnatti 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, 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.
Minutes Approval -- April 25, 1996-- Approved as submitted
Board and Staff Comments
Member Schwob extended best wishes for speedy recoveries to Mr. Richter and Mr. Gans. He thanked Ms. Glatthorn for her service as planning official today.
Member Johnson requested questioned the address and telephone numbers of staff’s new location. Ms. Glatthorn reported the new Municipal Services Building (MSB) is located on the northwest
corner of Myrtle Avenue & Pierce Street. Public parking is on the east side of the site. The new telephone number for the Central Permitting Department is 562 4567. Mr. Johnson expressed
concern the old number was disconnected without reference to the new number. Ms. Glatthorn indicated staff is working to correct this oversight.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said discussion items regarding the board’s rules of procedure, the lobbyist registration ordinance, and ex parte communications were continued to a full board.
She recommended deferring these items until all five members are present. In response to a question, she affirmed the amendments are being proposed for the lobbyist ordinance.
Member Schwob acknowledged Member Pratt, stating she is a welcome addition to the board.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
Board Reporter