Loading...
05/22/1980 "1':"", . " >' ' l.': . .'" . . I: ",~,., , . '. .;:, ',' ' . , ~! I' , , . '.., .~ ~.....' . ' , , <, ' ", " . .. , .' ."1, ~"~~I~"'~-'-~'" . ~ ,- .t~ - '" 1 . ,. [Ii. .:'\0 ~' I , I .. _ ~ ,_ ~ . .,1\l'4IIGt ' . / '\': , ',~ _"'!..r:'!'. '.1. ,'r"'F' , ' , ,:::...~ ~; , .t . ,-;, ,~ F' ".: . '. ',c ',~ ,,., ~. > I. ., .. lJ . I' r ~~ ~ C\ V C'\ V ~9' ".,'\ ..' e e '. . ~ . ~ d I .. In rebuttalt Mr. Sabbides stated there would be no kitchen added and the Florida room will be removed before the addition is made. :,' \ : ,. The City Attorney requested the record show that the Board is addressing only the lot coverage issue, not a change in usage of the property. Upon consideration of the Appeal of Myron Colton from the decision of the Building Official concerning the request for a 4.6% lot coverage variance to permit an addition to existing dwelling upon Lot 162t Blackshire Estates Replat, which property is located at 1772 Greenlea Drive and is zonedt RS~50 (single-family resi- dential), it appearing, after this duly constituted public hearing, that there are not such practical difficulties or unnecessary hard~ ships 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 varied in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, Mr. Gans moved that such appeal be denied. Mr. House seconded the motion. Upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Donnell, House, Ganst and Regulski voted "Aye"; Mr. Morris voted "Nay." Request denied. ITEM #12 - Request of William Foshe for side and waterfront setback variances. The Building Official displayed a drawing showing where the addition will be made and noted the existing roofed patio located 10 feet from the seawall seems to violate the plat restrictions which require buildings to be at least 20 feet from the seawall. William Foshe stated the building was erected in 1970 with the necessary footings for a second story addition installed at that time. 'He purchased the property two years ago and it was, always their intention to add a second story. He was unable to address the matter of the patio since it was in existence at the time of purchase. Lot 13 is used as a parking lot for a motel across the street and also has two shuffleboard courts on it. They need the addition to provide more living area as they cur- rently occupy an efficiency apartment. The second floor porch will conform to the first floor porch and will not be enclosed. Two letters of support were read into the record, as was one letter opposing the application. In rebuttal to the opposition, Mr. Foshe stated the pro- posed addition would be approximately 30 feet from the lot line on Lot 11. Upon consideration of the appeal of William Foshe from the decision of the Building Official concerning the request for a variance of 6 feet from the required l2-foot side setback and a variance of 15 feet from the required 25~foot upon re~ (waterfront) setback to permit second floor addition to owner's living quarters on Lot 12>> Bayside Subdivision No.2, which'property is located at 145 Brightwater Drive and is zoned CTP-28 (high density, commercial/tourist facility), it appearing, after this duly con- stituted public hearing, that there are practical difficulties ,or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter 10 5/22/80 '. :,.:[:,~;~, '""!=",,, .';'>;' ~,~. :J:,..' ;:.' '... : ' : " . f: :\~' ~', "'I 0: '. o @ - ,,8 . (,' ~ . ,~ l, . , .' " '..., \'f. ~ '. ;, c c ....~Sf.a:..-~~~!~.~~~~._....'~~~'It.................'.......;'I.... __ ......-t,.,.,...~p;..i~~>..., ,,: . 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. House moved that such appeal be granted in accordance with the applica~ tion 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. Upon the vote being taken, Mr. House vot(ld "Aye"; Messrs. Donnell, Gans, Morris, and Regulski voted "Na)'." Motion failed. Request denied. ITEM #13 - Appeal of William Handler from the decision of the City Manager regarding a tree removal request. William Handler stated the pine tree in question overhangs his parking space, resulting in bird droppings falling on his car repeatedly. The pine needles and cones dropping into the area surrounding the tree create a messy appearance, and the tree and the few plants surrounding it compete for survival. He proposes to replace the tree with a large plant or shrub. In his opinion, removal of the tree would have no adverse impact. He stated he went to a condominium association meeting to discuss the problem. and it was decided to ask for a permit to remove two trees. Removal of one tree was approved, but they were denied a permit for this tree. In response to a question, Mr. Handler stated the associa~ tion would pay for the removal of the tree as this was agreed upon prior to their seeking the original permit. He further stated the association would replace the tree with whatever plants were necessary to make the area attractive. He acknowledged that the cost to replace the tree with one of considerable size might create a problem with the association. The City Attorney reminded the board that representations made by the applicant arc not binding on the association. That could only be accomplished if a member of the association, so empowered, were present. The applicant responded by stating the association was aware of his presence at this hearing and approved of his making the request because he could present a better case. Mike Campbell, the City's Land Resources Specialist, reported his investigation had shO\ofn the pine to be fairly healthy and it created no hazard to the occupants of the building. Since the ordinance does not address the matter of bird droppings, he was unable to grant a permit on that basis. In his opinion there would be an adverse environmental impact, and replacement with another tree would only create the same problem in a fe\'l years t time. All trees, shrubbery, etc. benefit the environment through oxygen production, and carbon dioxide intake, and taking in of pollutant matter on their leaves which is subsequently washed into the soil. Trees also provide shade which in turn produces a more suitable microclimate for the City. , The City Attorney reviewed the criteria set forth in Section 23A-:- O) of the Code. .,. .,. . 5'1' ~'..:.',': I. '.' : .. ;:,:~;~'\~~t/ .;;, ' . , ' " 11 5/22/80 T~. ~,' c '.: 'J . ~, ,. .~<... " ....'.' ~ " " .','" - . r < c' " f:. '" " '. " , ~ ~ t~~ , '.