08/08/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
August 8, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwob
Mark Jonnatti
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Mary K. “Sue” Diana
Gwen Legters
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Assistant City Clerk for
Board Reporter
Absent:
William Johnson
5th Seat Vacant
Board Member
Board Member
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process.
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
B. Continued Variance Requests
1. (Cont. from 5/9, 6/13 & 7/11/96) -- John G. Powell/PPS Interests (Computer City) for the following variances: (1) an open space variance for the lot of 5 percent to allow 20 percent
where a minimum of 25 percent is required; (2) a front yard open space variance of 20 percent to allow 30 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is required; (3) a parking variance of
6 parking spaces to permit 84 parking spaces where 90 spaces are required; (4) a landscape buffer variance of 5 ft to allow a 0 ft wide landscape buffer strip abutting nonresidentially
zoned property to West where a minimum of 5 ft is required; and (5) a landscape buffer variance of 10 ft to allow 0 ft wide landscaped buffer strip abutting residentially zoned property
to West where a minimum of 10 ft is required at 25000 US 19 N, Sec. 31-28-16, M&B 44.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). VR 96-50
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. This application was continued to revise the plan again, addressing board concerns regarding reduction
of open space. The applicant wishes to redevelop the unoccupied strip shopping center property with a computer store. Mr. Richter discussed open space requirements and how the proposal
was changed to minimize the variances and accommodate City and board concerns. Staff felt proposed improvements will eliminate the existing adverse conditions, benefiting the neighborhood
and the City. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated the plan was changed to reduce
the floor area by 240 square feet, thereby increasing open space and easing parking demand.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicants, reviewed the history of changes made to address board and staff concerns. The current proposal is for a 17,760 square foot building. He
discussed green space and landscaping, noting the application has the support of the
surrounding residential community. He reviewed other variances approved along US 19, including those for Discount Auto Parts. The variances are minimal, the plan eliminated an old
structure, and the significant investment will reflect positively on the US 19 corridor.
Discussion ensued regarding elimination of the rear landscaping buffer, an existing six foot high fence located on the adjacent property to the west, the applicants’ unsuccessful attempts
to acquire unoccupied property next door, the extent of the maintenance facility in the rear, and the dumpster area being regarded as open space. Discussion ensued regarding the percentage
of existing open space compared to what will be provided under the new proposal.
Two adjacent residents spoke in support of the application, as follows: Celeste Spaldi, Hillcrest Villas Condominiums Manager and resident, stated the board of directors and 400 residents
desperately desire approval of the Computer City proposal to prevent opening of another bar in the strip shopping center. She cited strong concerns regarding the history of poor property
maintenance and inappropriate patron behavior when the bar is open. She said many residents who wished to speak in support are up north for the summer. In response to a question, she
was not concerned with waiver of the required landscape buffer along the west side. Denis Kleinrichert, Secretary of Hillcrest Villas Board of Directors, agreed with Ms. Spaldi, stating
the application offers an improvement over the existing eyesore and its negative impact on the residential community. He felt a Computer City store would enhance the neighborhood and
the City.
No verbal opposition was expressed. One anonymous letter of opposition was submitted.
In closing, Mr. Pressman stated the variances have been reduced and he appreciated staff’s positive remarks.
Mike Giordano, representing the applicants, explained they researched and seriously attempted to acquire adjacent parcels, but the Discount Auto Parts parcel was economically unfeasible.
He felt redevelopment of the subject property will enhance it and the adjacent property.
Board discussion ensued. It was indicated the open space variances have been reduced to minimal levels, the building was decreased in size and moved back on the lot, and the lack of
landscaping buffer along the Florida Power right-of-way has negligible impact. Increased green areas along US 19 will please the public. It was felt the applicants have done all they
can and today’s proposal is a vast improvement over the first presentation. With the addition of a six foot fence to the plan, and revision of the plan to reflect the reduced floor
space and additional landscaping, board members supported the application. The board thanked Mr. Richter and Member Jonnatti for their recommendations and professional expertise in
reaching a solution acceptable to all.
Member Schwob moved to grant (1) an open space variance of 2 percent to allow 23 percent where a minimum of 25 percent is required; (2) a front yard open space variance of 6.7 percent
to allow 43.3 percent where a minimum of 50 percent is required; (3) a parking variance of 5 parking spaces to permit 84 parking spaces where 89 spaces are required; and (4) and (5)
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 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 a 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 one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) the open space for the lot shall be 23 percent
of the lot area and the open space for the front yard shall be 43.3 percent of the front yard area; 4) the plan submitted shall reflect a 17,760 square foot building; 5) a 6-foot high
wood fence shall be constructed on the western property line; and 6) additional landscape requirements shall be incorporated according to the applicant’s submitted plan. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. New Variance Requests
1. Betty M. Armstrong for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high within the setback area from Pin Oak Drive right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is permitted
at 2314 Pin Oak Drive East, Shady Oak Farms, Blk H, Lot 5, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-53
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a six foot high wood fence to enclose the rear yard, pool
and pool enclosure of the single family home located on a corner lot. The southernmost portion of the fence will be within the setback from the Pin Oak Drive right-of-way where the
height limit is four feet. Staff indicated conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
Donald Armstrong, Jr., the applicant’s spouse and representative, stated they wish to construct the fence five feet into the 25-foot right-of-way to provide privacy, reduce noise, and
accommodate existing landscaping around the pool. The neighbors do not object and landscaping will be provided outside the fence in the remaining 20-foot right-of-way. In response
to a question, he was not aware of any deed restrictions in the subdivision. It was indicated other fences in the area appear to conform to code. As the pool is visually screened with
a dense landscaping, the need for a six foot fence was questioned. Mr. Armstrong indicated a consistent height fence will provide visual continuity and enhance privacy for the pool,
the master bedroom and bathroom.
Betty Ann Armstrong, the property owner, stated privacy fences are normally six feet tall. She was uncomfortable that, because of the way the property is situated, people walking along
the sidewalk can look into the bedroom and bathroom when the windows are open. The existing landscaping around the pool is sparse at the bottom and does not provide adequate privacy
while she is sunbathing. They also wish for their children to have a dog in the future. She has discussed the design with the neighbors, who support the proposal. She hoped the fence
will buffer traffic noise from McMullen-Booth Road located one block away. They have made other improvements to the property and feel the fence will add to their enjoyment of their home.
In response to a question, it was indicated a gate has been planned in the small northeast section of the fence, but is not reflected on the plan. The applicant was advised of the
need to ensure it is reflected on the plan. Mr. Richter indicated addition of a gate will not be a problem.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board members agreed with the need for privacy.
Member Schwob 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, 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 of any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; and 2) the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Steven & Mary E. Morel for the following variance: a setback variance of 2.5 ft to allow a room addition 7.5 ft from the East side property line where a minimum setback of 10 ft
is required at 3260 San Mateo Street, Del Oro Groves, Lots 540-543, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-54
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct an 830 square foot addition to the east side of the single
family home. Staff felt conditions do not support approval because ample area exists on the 15,000 square foot lot for reasonable use of the land without encroaching into the setbacks.
The variance is not minimum. Staff did not recommend approval, indicating it is desirable to maintain the generous separation between homes in this attractive residential area.
Steven Morel, the owner/applicant, stated he moved in last year and wishes to build the addition for his mother. The addition will not be used as a rental unit and was designed to
fit on the lot without removing trees. Referring to a floor plan, he said the 14 by 14 foot bedroom will accommodate a hospital bed and wheelchair. Food is to be prepared in the home’s
kitchen, laundry facilities are located to be accessible to both parties, and living quarters are situated to buffer noise. He discussed site constraints and reviewed drawing details
with the board. Discussion ensued regarding how to reduce the size of the proposal to fit on the lot without a setback variance. The house currently contains 3 bedrooms, 2-1/2 baths
and laundry facilities are in the garage. Mr. Morel expressed concern size reduction would limit handicapped accessibility.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. In response to a question, Mr. Morel said he has not discussed the proposal with the adjacent property owner to the east.
While the board commended the applicant’s desire to take care of an aging parent, concerns were expressed comfortable living quarters could be constructed without a variance. It was
indicated no effective way exists to ensure the addition will not be converted to multi-family use in the future, and architectural modifications would allow handicapped accessibility
in a smaller area. It was felt the application is not in the best interest of the neighborhood and does not meet the criteria for approval.
Member Jonnatti moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The applicant was advised of the appeal process.
Minutes Approval - July 25, 1996
Member Jonnatti moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
Mr. Richter stated the applicants have been working on configuration of a telecommunication tower for which variances were approved on June 13, 1996 (VR 96-44--George L. Mallory TRE,
Edgewater Investments/Realty.) Mr. Richter circulated a photograph of a new design, stating the tower was redesigned to have less impact on the surrounding properties. In accordance
with standard condition #1, it was not wanted to deviate from the original plans without board approval. Christopher Rideout, the AT&T representative, was present to discuss a design
to allow antennas to be positioned more vertically than horizontally.
Member Schwob moved to approve modification of the plans submitted by the applicant in case #VR 96-44, to allow a new type of antenna as depicted in the photograph presented today.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Gans expressed concern the vacancy on the board has not been filled. He understood former Commissioner Sue Berfield had expressed an interest in serving on DCAB and urged staff
to process her application quickly.
John Richter referred to a report from the building inspector assigned to investigate construction activity at 440 West Condominium (VR 96-51, 7/25/96.) He will provide information
at the next meeting regarding contractors who work without permits.
Due to a change in the 1997 City Commission meeting schedule, Mr. Richter reported staff is proposing to change the January DCAB meeting dates to January 16 and 30.
The board’s annual report to the City Commission is scheduled for September 19. Mr. Richter will work with Chairperson Gans to prepare the report.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:42 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
Attest:
Board Reporter