Loading...
09/11/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER September 11, 1997 Present: Otto Gans Chair William Schwob Vice Chair William Johnson Board Member Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, meeting procedures and explanation of the appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. New Variance Requests C1. Nadine R. Smith the structural setback variance required to permit a screen enclosure within the structural setback from a street right-of-way (Arlington Place) at 2248 Hemerick Place, Palmetto Terrace, Blk B, Lot 6, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 97-53 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to build a new screen porch on the north side of the single family home. He detailed the property location, site conditions, and setback requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Nadine Smith, the owner/applicant, stated she has owned her home for 19 hears. She wishes to screen the porch to enhance outdoor enjoyment. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. 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 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 this variance 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; and 3) Foundation plantings shall be provided to soften the encroachment of the porch into the setback area. Specifically, landscaping shall be installed on the northwest and northeast sides of the porch within 30 days after completion of the porch. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. Church of Scientology/Flag Service Organization, Inc. (Sandcastle Retreat) the rear waterfront setback variance required to permit an enclosed deck within the rear waterfront structural setback from Clearwater Harbor at 200 North Osceola Ave., Sec 9-29-15, M&B 43.07, zoned UC(B) (Urban Center Bayfront). VR 97-55 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicants wish to enclose an existing deck for use as part of an existing restaurant, on the west side of the property near the sea wall. He detailed property location, parking and setback requirements. Staff felt conditions support approval of the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. In response to questions, Mr. Richter said the intent of the waterfront setback requirement is aesthetic, to preserve open space and view. Flood plain requirements to do apply to this proposal. James Bond spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Bond was advised to will need to file an affidavit of authorization with the Central Permitting Department allowing him to speak for the applicants. He submitted an artist’s rendering of the proposed enclosure, stating standard commercial grade construction will be used. The deck floor will be elevated to match the restaurant floor level. The deck is to be completely enclosed for a more exclusive dining area. Another deck often used by parishioners exists to the south of the restaurant. He explained the multiple uses in the restaurant, for courserooms, counseling, and dining. The restaurant is a part of the religious retreat and will not be open to the general public. He explained setback requirements to not allow for expansion of any other part of the restaurant. He responded to questions regarding use of the south deck. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Johnson 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) 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) An affidavit authorizing James Bond to represent the applicants shall be submitted to Central Permitting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to questions, Mr. Bond said he will submit his affidavit of authorization within seven days. C3. University High Equity Real Estate Fund -11/Jean F. Shelling, TRE/TM Clearwater Realty, LTD (Lowe’s) for the following variances (1) the structural setback variance required to permit a new building within the structural setback from the North side property line; (2) the structural setback variance required to permit a new building within the structural setback from a right-of-way (Enterprise Rd); and (3) for a fence height variance to allow fences to exceed the maximum height of 6 ft at 26990 US 19 N, Sec 30-28-16, M&B 31.04, 31.03 and part of 31.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center). VR 97-56 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes to redevelop an existing shopping center with a new Lowe’s home building supply store. He detailed setback and fence height requirements in relation to the proposal. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions. In response to questions, Mr. Richter clarified locations of new fences, stating he did not see a problem with adding a condition specifying the proposed fence heights. He affirmed a good portion of the existing shopping center is being torn down to accommodate the new store. Ed Armstrong, attorney representing the applicants, outlined the applicant’s proposal to purchase the portion of the shopping center immediately south of an existing K-Mart store, and demolish the existing structures. An existing gas station, seafood restaurant, and medical clinic will remain on their respective outparcels. He submitted three color photographs of a completed center in Tampa, to give the flavor of the proposal. The applicant will seek conditional use approval for an outdoor garden center. He detailed the business and commercial uses existing in the surrounding area. Steve Henry, with the engineering firm representing the applicant, referred to a site survey. He pointed out where buildings will be demolished, what will remain, how the Lowe’s building will be situated, site access, landscaping and stormwater retention. He responded to questions regarding the increase from 40 foot to 60 foot setbacks along Enterprise Road, changing from angled to 90 degree parking, and property ownership. He stated sufficient parking will exist for all businesses on the site, including the outparcels. He responded to questions regarding vehicular access, and traffic circulation. He said driveway width was reduced to accommodate a sidewalk and ten foot landscaping buffer on site. The sidewalk could not be placed in the right-of-way without reconfiguring existing drainage ditches. Tom Wilkinson, site assessment manager for Lowe’s, responded to questions regarding driveway width, loading and unloading, storage bays, staging, lumber areas, and general storage. General discussion ensued regarding attention to architectural detail, ensuring a pleasant view from Enterprise Road, and installing signage oriented toward Enterprise Road. Board members noted the project is ambitious, and long overdue. Mr. Henry related the history of home improvement centers in Florida. Staff was requested to coordinate an overall site improvement effort with the principals of this location. Mr. Armstrong summarized the proposal is consistent with existing development, is an appropriate and fair addition to the community, and the proposed fences are extensions of the building consistent with other home improvement centers in the City. He noted only a parking garage and two retention ponds are south of the subject property. He clarified for the record, the applicant is requesting a ten foot high fence for the rear storage area, where a four foot fence is allowed. A 20 foot high fence is requested to enclose the proposed garden center where a six foot fence is allowed. The applicant was cautioned to avoid unapproved storage and display outside the fences. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. One member indicated the setback variances are appropriate for a commercial property. While the fences are of greater magnitude than normally seen, the proposal does not encroach as far into the Enterprise Road right-of-way as the K-Mart structure. 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)  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; 3) A landscape buffer averaging at least 10 feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the Enterprise Rd. right-of-way; 4) Upon review of the site plan by the Development Review Committee, City staff shall carefully evaluate the architectural detail and landscaping to ensure that a pleasant view of this property is provided from Enterprise Road; and 5) The fence around the storage area shall be 10 feet in height; the fence around the garden area shall be 20 feet in height. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval – August 14, 1997 Member Schwob 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 Ms. Dougall-Sides reported the City Commission has approved appealing the Ken Marks case to circuit court. Election of Officers Member Johnson moved to re-elect Mr. Gans as Chair and Mr. Schwob as Vice Chair until Mr. Gans term on the board expires January 31, 1998. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Otto Gans and William Schwob were declared re-elected as Chair and Vice Chair, respectively. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m.