Loading...
12/13/1979 ,,< .....: ..1L.. .. :...............,~:t.~+.....O'IiI;U..__...al_q~_ ~_,:.~.. I.i'....,;.,;~..'l:. ~.~.... ~"... \.~-.~'-, .,. o carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the zoning ordinance as it affects such property and that the same can be varied in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance, Mr. Regulski moved that such appeal be eranted in accordance with the application submitted therewith, w~th the provision that landscaping be provided between the proposed sidewalk and the fence on the public right-of-way, access to Michigan Avenue be cut off, and with the further provision that the right to obtain a building permit in accordance with such variance shall cease after six (6) months from this date, Mr. House seconded the motion. Discussion ensued concerning normal placement of sidewalks, which is one foot off the property line. Mr. Morris requested the motion be amended to place the landscaping on the west side of the $idewalk in the public right-of-way. The amendment was accepted by Messrs. Regulski and House. The amended motion carried unanimoUSly. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal to the City Commission within ten (10) days. ITEM #5 - Request of William Sykes for a special exception to construct a Type A Marina. The Planning Official pointed out the proposed dock would be constructed at the westerly edge of the property, 10 feet out from the seawall and 54 feet in length. He expres5ed concern that the dock might actually be increasing or extending the property area for the motel. The Planning and Zoning Board has recommended approval. William Sykes stated his property is located in an area where there is very little tidal activity and his primary reason for wanting the dock is cosmetic to help camouflage the messy area at low tide, Over the years, the corner has silted in to such an extent that, except possibly at very high tide, it is not feasib~e to bring in a boat. In addition to the cosmetic application, the dock would be for the use of his guests for fishing or sunbathing. Howard Smi th J 315 Harnden Dr! ve, spoke in support of the application. Two letters from adjacent property owners in support were read into the record, e Frank Morrow, Island Estates, stated the best solution is for the City to clean up areas of this kind. He expressed concern generally for the granting of variances to extend docks further and further into the waterways. In his opinion, this only in- creases the sedimentation problem. ,In rebuttal, William Sykes displayed photographs of the area to show the appearance of. the property at low tide.. . , . ~ 12/13/79 ". ..,; '~f.~....:. ,. :" . . .0/' , ' ,( , : '. ~:( . ~ ~ ."., ~~'~-'-~~~-' ., I .' , ~ ,_..~~......-.' ..~~>,.~. ~ ~ Discussion ensued concerning the property owners' liability to remove construction in an easement if necessary. The City Attorney advised that would be the property owners' responsibility. not the City's. Upon consideration of the appeal of K.R. Pople from the de- cision of the Building Official concerning the request for a vari- ance to erect a 4 foot chain link fence in building setback area abutting Countryside Boulevard upon Lot 127, Woodgate of'Country- side Unit 3, which property is located at 2319 Hawthorne Drive and is zoned RS-SO (single-family residential). it appearing, after this duly constituted public hearing, that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the zoning ordinance as it affects such property and that the same can be varied in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance, Mr. Gans moved that such appeal be granted in accordance with the application submitted therewith, with the provision that said fence be set back not less than three feet from the property line with an access gate for maintenance purposes and the finished side facing out, and that a planting plan be submitted for approval by the Building and Planning Departments, and with the further provi- sion that the right to obtain a building permit in accordance with such variance shall cease after six (6) months from this date. Mr. Morris seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal to the City Commission within ten (10) days. ITEM #7 - Request of Nick James for a) front and b) side setback variances and c) a variance to permit expansion of a non-conforming structure. The Building Official advised an accessory room is permitted in a crp zone for a motel if the applicable setbacks are observed. The Planning Official explained the non-conformity exists because the applicant exceeds the allowable density. In response to a question, the City Attorney advised con- sideration may be given to variances on non-conforming uses, but the aim is to always restrict such uses and eventually eliminate them. Requests for variances to such uses must be considered in n stricter light. Nick James stated he wishes to provide a recreation area and laundry facilities for his guests and needs the side setback to conform with the existing structure and the front setback to pro- vide the desired space. One letter of support was,read into the record. No one spoke in opposition. e ,': ~ . ' .. 6. ' 12/13/79 . r.:.c I i, f.....:::"t:.{.... ./< ~ :~, ~~".' .... '...,-. +. ;. __~ .:J, ,I \ '. }. ,,' , if' lJ , . . . ~ , 'J I' ", ,'.i . . ....... .r_";-'~ '; :.h.... ,\, '. , . -''1' , . Q ITEM HID - Requ~st of R.C. Development, Inc. (Donaldson Homes, Inc.) for a dock variance. The Building Official pointed out this application comes before the Board under Ordinance 1998 rather than the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Official reported the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval of the dock plan provided the dock lengths be reduced to 30 feet since they felt the size was disproportionate to that of the lots. Phillips Evans, representing Donaldson Homes, acknowledged the plan is unusual, but stated the grouping of the docks in two's on alternate lot lines presents a more esthetic effect as well as increases the maneuverable water area for each lot. Six foot width is needed to provide lateral stability in the event davits are used. The 36 foot length is needed because of the shallow water, and a reduction to 30 feet would be critical for some lots. In his opinion. approval of a Master Dock Plan is more preferable than dealing with 72 individual applications at a later date. He stated Bill Burchfield, Harbormastcr, and Andrew Nicholson, of the Engineering Department, felt the plan posed no navigational problems. He said a modification of length could be made on Lots 1 through 15. A Mastcr Plan would permit a reasonable, uni~ form prescntation to prospective buyers. In response to questions from the Board, Mike Kenton, Assis- tant Public Works Director. stated the area is quite shallOW and there is very limited area to maneuver. He stated for the record that he will not support any future dredging on the north side of this fill where there are numerous grass beds which are beginning to recover from past dredging activities from the 50's and 60's. The south side poses no problem. In rebuttal, Phillips Evans, stated the 36 foot length is needed to extend the docks to mean low tide. e' No citizens spoke in opposition. Upon consideration of the appeal of R.C. Development, Inc. (Donaldson Homes, Inc.) from the decision of the Building Official concerning the request fOT a variance to exceed maximum width and length and permit location on property lines for Master Dock Plan (Type A Marina) upon 12.94 acres more or less known as Marina Del Rey Townhouses, which property is located in portion of Section 19- 29-15, east of Gulf BOUlevard and is 'zoned ro.r~ 16 (medium density mu1 ti- falni1y), it appearing, after this duly constituted public hearing. that there are not such practical difficulties or unneces- 'sary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the zoning ordinance as it affects such property as 9. 12/13/19 >.~';' <-:. ~ ......';. '. "I '.' . ~. , _.J. ~. . . ;: ~ I ']Ij C) ,e. " ". I :')~;j<YfJ! " ~ ' I, .. ___....~__..........................~~....~~.;;+,;:~'~llfISV..;,....."'~_.__""'__....._ ,_..~...':~ .._i"'~~"..~ ;;::c'~.... ~~ .. with several hundred signatures was submitted for the record. David Healey, Planning Director. summarized the request as follows: 1) 26 additional fcet in height 2) a variance of approximately 2 feet of the vista requirement plus discounting the drive area. Depression of parking in the vista is not a requirement but is an available alternative. Depression in this particular area would not be desirable as the drive area must be treated as a part of the parking area. and it is not a matter of choice to depress one and not the other. In response, Mr. Greer stated no vehicles will be parked in the vista and the need for providing sufficient parking for the convention center has been one of their problems. There is over- whelming support for a privately financed convention center, which this facility will provide. The single tower will not create a "canyon effectll as it is 980 feet to the nearest privately-owned property to the south and 440 feet to the first property to the north zoned CTF. The impact of the Coastal Con- struction Control Line and Pine11as County Construction Code upon the City Code mandated this request, not the City Zoning Code. I) Upon consideration of the appeal of John S. Taylor III, et a1 from the decision of the Building Official concerning the request for a variance to permit construction of.a hotel 110 feet in height upon part of the north 725 feet of the south 1575 feet of the north one half of Section 8-29-15, which property is located west of Mandalay Avenue between Marianne and Papaya Streets (Seashell Motel and Mobile Home Park) and is zoned CTF-Z8 (high density commercial tourist facilities) ~ it appearing, after this duly constituted public hearing, that there are not such practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the zoning ordinance as it affects such property as would justify a variance of such provisions and that the same cannot be variedin harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, Mr. Regu1ski moved that such appeal be denied. Mr. Gans seconded the motion. Upon'the vote being taken~ Messrs. Donnell, Gans and Regulski voted "Ayeff; Messrs. Morris and House voted "Nay." Request denied. III) Upon consideration of the appealof John S. Taylor III, et a1 from the decision of the Building Official concerning the request for a variance to permit use of both sides of property without depressing site so as to vary clear space requirement upon the property described above, it appearing, after this duly constituted public hearing, that there are practical difficulties or unnecessar)" hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the zoning ordinance as it affects such property and that the same can be varied in harmony with the ~. . I; . 11. 12/13/79, . > '.' ~t~:~ ~ ::: .(: . .~ ~>f I cO] " , I . 'I ~u J :\ '; \ !..t"...... I. i a:'\ '\J;I e \~ ..lor: J .1' /0. ,. '., ,.1 ".. , , , . . . . ~. ~ - '. , '. ~ ;.... ~... ' .' . ~, ;. I.:.. .. c '. .- >. ::. ~. ' .' .1 " .' ...:.....~~"I"~,h~~nt'..L...tL........."'In______..~~~.~ . . "'.. _u.><l-."."/... .: - . general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance, Mr. Regulski moved that such appeal be granted for a. 3 foot variance in the north vista setback requirement from Papaya Street and consideration that the driveway area on the south setback area near Marianne Street be considered not part of parking space in accordance with the application submitted therewith, with the provision that the right to obtain a bUilding permit in accordance with such variance shall cease after six (6) months from this date. Mr. Gans seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal to the City Commission within ten (10) days. ITEM #13 - Request of Gary Goodman for a lot cover!lge variance. In response to a question, the Building Official stated there was a period of time when the 25% lot coverage rule was not adhered to because there was a proposed change pending to increase per- mitted lot coverage to 35%. During that period, several houses were constructed and there are undoubtedly some of those which do exceed the 25%. J.T. Lyons, Lyons Construction Company, stated he had built homes on Island Estates several years ago but had never heard of a 25% coverage limitation and was unaware that it existed. He has drawn plans to conform with the Goodman's stated require- ments for floor space. Gary Goodman stated he needs the floor area to provide for his family, which cons~sts of his wife, two children. his mother and his mother- in-law. His mother is elderly and that is \'lhy they need the single story level. He also needs a study, and his work requires extensive entertainment of clients. One citizen spoke in opposition and a petition bearing 13 signatures opposing the application was read into the record. In rebuttal, J.T. Lyons stated he thought the construction Oftllis home would enhance the neighborhood and would be in no way detrimental. In his opinion, both the applicants and opponents should have to prove hardship. If the variance is denIed. the delays will undoubtedly result in increased building costs. Upon consideration of the appeal of Gary Goodman from the decision of the Building Official concerning the request for a lot coverage variance to construct a single-family dwelling upon Lot 1S. Island Estates Unit 7C. which property is located at 679 Harbor Island and is zoned RS-75 (sinR1e-family residential). it appearing, aftoT this duly constituted public hearing, that there are not such practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the W;+.::;:';,::\ ' ~;.::,. ":, . . " . 12/13/79 ',' . .' .12. " ' .: ! '. ~ . :,':"~' ~ ., :" ..~:~ ,!~,~,. ~ r>~: ~ :;L,~r .', ~ , , . ~----...J: /-1;:)7 I: ~' .. ~. , .\' -/ n. ;:.c. :1 " <." . ..__.,.vu.tJ~!L.&:'mj-;1o.~.4'";".W .~dkk.- __....... ._.. zoning ordinance as it affects such property as would justify a variance of such provisions and that the same cannot be varied in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, Mr. Gans moved that such appeal be denied. Mr. Morris seconded the motion which carried unanimously. <Z> The applicant was advised of his right to appeal to the City Commission within ten (10) days. ITEM H14 - Request of Ann Seyforth and Nickolas DeTrano for a special exception. The Planning Official observed the property is vacant and it is unusual to be constructing docks for vacant property. This implies that the docks are to be rented and it is questionable how compatible the docks will be when the property is developed. It is recommended that a side setback of no less than lS feet be required. Val Grabowski, agent for Admiral Marine, stated the property will be developed with townhouses. The owner wants the docks now to provide income while construction is under way. Don Gunderson, Jr.. 606 Bayway, questioned whether adequate provisions will be taken to maintain the seawall since it is not uncommon for large sections to go if there is a break. In response, Val Grabowski stated the rip rap is being spanned by a catwalk to protect seawall repairs. Considerable discussion ensued concerning whether this is ~. Type A Marina. Upon consideration of the appeal of Ann Seyforth and Nickolas DeTrano from the decision of the Building Official concerning a special exception to construct a Type A Marina on Lots 11-14 inclusive, Block A, Bayside Subdivision HS, which property is 10-, cated at 626-648 Bayway Boulevard and is zoned CTF-28 (high density commercial tourist facilities), it appearing, after this duly constituted public hearing, that the proposed use is consistent with the general zoning plan and with the public interest, ~fr. Morris moved that said appeal be granted in accordance with the application submitted therewith. with the provision that the right to obtain a use permit in accordance with said special exception shall cease after six (6) months from this date. Mr. Regulski seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ITEM H15 - Request of Sun Bank and Trust of St. Petersburg (Burger King Corp.) for a special exception. " The Planning Official noted the plan submitted provided for 76 parking spaces, approximately twice the number required. If the Board grants this number. it is suggested they consider . .\ 13. 12/13/79 , ., .... " :1 ~ i' . . ~.. .. c ,...~.:_ '. : ~ ~ c'" I ~.. , ... ~~. ';: . ~.",~..,..:.t ~'.f?~~t~:_~ : ':r : . ~ r:' . .:'-~"c ,......, ~ 1.~:._,......"t'. :' ....'). '. <" >: ,< ! ". " "'.:,r... (,. permeable surface for the overflow. He also reviewed the criteria set forth in Section 35.09 for consideration of off-street parking in a residential zone. He stated neither the Resource Development Committeenor the City Commission has reviewed the site plan as yet. o Don McKenzie, Site Development Engineer for Burger King. stated he had met with various City Departments concerning the plan and the driveway on Lotus Path had been relocated at the re- quest of the Traffic Engineer. Concerted effort has been made to draw a plan which will have the least impact on the neighborhood and at the same time satisfy City Departments. He stated their experience has shown that during peak hours parking of this mag- nitude is required. A driveway on Lotus Path is needed because that is the only street which allows a left hand turn on and off Missouri because of the median strip. Ken Kepper, representing the developer of the property immediately east of this site, spoke in support. Several area property owners spoke in opposition citing increased traffic, noise, disturbance by headlights, and the location of the drivers' testing station on Lotus Path. Ira Pensick, real estate manager for Burger King, stated that the first 100 feet abutting Missouri Avenue is zoned com~ mercial and the potential for the use of Lotus Path for ac~ cess is inevitable, regardless of how the property is developed. He pointed out that adequate parking is being provided to prevent overcrowding and the driveway on Lotus Path is completely variable as far as Burger King is concerned. One citizen spoke in support and several spoke in opposition. Upon consideration of the appeal of Sun Bank and Trust of St. Petersburg (Burger King Corp.) from the decision of the Build- ing Official concerning a special exception to permit off-street parking on Lot 7, Block H, McVeigh's Second Addition and a por- tion of M&B 7 in Section 15-29-15, which property is located at the northeast corner of Missouri Avenue and Jeffords Street and is zoned CG (general business), it appearing, after this duly con- stituted public hearing, that the proposed use is consistent with the general zoning plan' and with the public interest, Mr. Gans moved that said appeal be Rranted in accordance with the appli- cation submitted therewith, with the provision that no operation will be permitted between the,"hours of 12 midnight and 7:00 a.m. and with the further provision that the right to obtain a use permit in accordance with said special exception shall cease after six (6) months from this date. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. II . ~ ~ r 14. 12/13/79 ~ 1t. '. '1~~:_. '.~'..\'.:1~: \ (', . . j ;';:,y\:;-:.:\....,, ,:' . , ::. '!,.. .r' \ .\ :.' . .. ..,' ," . - I c;, , ';J " , , _: I " " ."L ...,.. ,.-.....,- ....J--ll-l. :.%..::"'~;,..':.,:;~ c~~. QD., .,,'1 , . Mr. Regulski requested the motion be amended to provide a 5 foot light.proof wall be constructed where the property abuts RS-50 and RM-8 property to the east and also in the residential sectidn of the Lotus Path Right-of.way; that said fence be set back not less than three feet from the property line with an access gate for maintenance purposes, with the finished side facing out, and that a planting plan be submitted for approval by the Building and Planning Departments; that no overhead lighting be permitted in the residential area; that the drive'~ay access on Lotus Path be restricted to the commercial zone area, and that the right to obtain a use permit in accordance with such special exception shall cease after six (6) months from this date. <<b Mr. Gans and Mr. Morris accepted the amendment. The Planning Director reminded the Board that the driveway was located where the Traffic Engineer had requested. Mr. Regulski acknowledged he was aware of that provision and felt strongly enough about the location to say that no access will be permitted on Lotus Path if the Traffic Engineer fails to approve relocation into the commercial area. The amended motion carried unanimously. The applicant and citizens were advised of their right to appeal to the City Commission within ten (10) days. ITEM #16 ~ Appeal of John Mancini from the decision of the City Manager regarding a tree removal request. Mike Kenton, Assistant Public Works Director and the City Manager's designated agent for tree removal permits, advised the Board the tree in question is an 86-inch diameter banyan tree, which is an exotic species and unique in this area. The tree is healthy and should survive a long time. It does have large sur- face roots and can present a construction problem. He reviewed the criteria set forth in the code but pointed out'that( since there is no site plan or house layout to view at this tlme, it is impossible to apply these criteria and suggested the appli- cation may be premature. The recommendation is to deny the appeal for the following reasons: 1) There is no hazard or physiological reason for removal 2) It is felt there are no environmental or esthetic reasons to approve the application and 3) There is no building plan available to use as a guide for approval or denial. He suggested the appropriate time to consider the matter would be when plans are submitted. Harry Cline, Attorney representing the applicant. reviewed the history of the property and advised the City had. after many revisions, approved a final site plan. The owner is in the pro- cess of installing improvem~nts so he can obtain final plat ,approvaL In the attorney's opinion the application is not " . j',. 12/13/79 . '.I.r'f .~~. ~ "". . ,. ~ . ~ .. . '.__~, ,__ ___ 'l.: " .,. I . \. ' , ' . ~ ',; '. ~ A ~t,e's ,f: ,,\, -:: , ~ ~::~;..., ~:::Jjj..':..;;.'-'J ~~ _ · . .l" .~~ ~w ~..~L.J~~., ~-.-J'-', ,;;~y I' ,.:, . '.,' c~(:r;;~~~~k a~.. ,Se~retary to '.1 'f. ... . 1(1 t".. / / '"r," . '~\'A', ',,',":, :,' " "I//"I',!, ' ;~}'i){:Y):';:':i,?~~;'::'.~~":~:;':":" ,::'\':A~ '/ ,:' , ~ ~ - . r -: ~:. : I: i ., ..,-I..' .' I. '..,. " _,~...._~._~....,-....J,t,.,.....,.~.~.,. ...k~'~. premature, as they do have a contract on the lot involved. The original tree canopy study, which has been in existence for a long time, showed this tree was to be removed. The tree roots would interfere with utilities installation and hinders reason- able use of the land. He indicated the applicant is willing to plant 3 additional oak trees as replacements. Discussion ensued concerning the criteria to be considered. Mike Kenton advised the Board the tree-removal process is not governed by site plan approval. Relocation of trees would be considered once a building plan were submitted. Obviously, the dollar formula in the code could not be followed in estimating replacement costs. The recommendation made by the City Forester was made without benefit of a building plan, and he could only assume the entire lot within the setbacks would be used. Were it not for possible economic hardship, the request would probably not be before this Board. He acknowledged the possibility that the eventual construction planned for the lot would require severe trimming and root pruning were the tree to remain. Mr. Regu1ski moved that the appeal of John Mancini from the decision of the City Manager regarding denial of tree removal permit No. 2689 be granted. Mr. Gans seconded the motion. Upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Donnell, House, Gans and Regu1ski voted "Aye"; Mr. Morris voted "Nay." Appeal granted. ITEM #17 - Request by the Planning Department for clarifica- tion of motion regarding request of Carl Dallape for a fence vari- ance (Item "3, October 25, 1979). The Planning Official reported the questions concerning loca- tion of the fence have been resolved and a building permit has been issued. MINUTES - The Chairman presented the minutes of the meeting of November 8. 1979, for consideration. Hearing no objection, he declared'the minutes approved in accordance l~ith copies sub- mitted to each Board member in writing. Consensus of the Board was to defer discussion of the memoran- dum from Commissioner DeBlaker until the meeting of December 27, 1979, due to the lateness of the hour. The meeting adjourned at 8:59 P'~~ a1rman ," < " the Board 16, ,12/13/79':", ' " ' . r .. L ~ ~ '. '" r. - . .r.:". L ~",~.~t ~. :-,;~~; ;~.I ,l'."- , ." ~ c 'J <" , , .." .-1. ;.~~'. ':/.'''/ ':~,~.., 'IF '. . ._,.~.~' ~I~C ~jo' ) c '" j ~ 'W .1""