08/22/1991 (2)
> ......
I.
. 1 ~ '.
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
DATE dr/2.~/9l
~ 7--- 7ucP
.1
(
. ........ ~~
\
...... .
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, August 22, 1991 - 1:00 p.m. - Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 3rd
floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida
To consider requests for va,';ances of the Land Development Code:
1.
Time Extensions
1. Don Curtis Pierson - continued
from 7/11/91 - request for six months
time extension to 1/13/92 for
variances of 1) 1,753 sq ft to allow
construction of a triplex on a 8,247
sq ft lot: 2) 5 ft to allow
construction of a triplex on a lot 95
ft wide: and 3) 13 ft to permit
construction of a triplex on a. lot 87
ft deep, at 7 Heilwood St, Revised
Map of Clearwater Beach, Blk 6, Lot 3
and part of Lot 2, zoned RM-20 per
RM-12 (multiple family residential).
V 91-40
II. Public Hearings
1. Don Curtis Pierson for variances
of (1) 18 ft to permit construction
of triplex 7 ft from a street right-
of-way; (2) 2 ft to permit
construction of a triplex 6 ft from a
side property line: and (3) 6 ft to
permit (triplex) height of 31 ft at 7
Heilwood St, Clwr Beach Rev, Blk 6,
Lot 3 and part of Lot 2, zoned RM 20
(multiple family residential).
V 91-54
2. Hans Frederic Heye for variances
of (1) 5 ft to permit lot width of 95
ft; and (2) 14.1 ft to permit second
floor addition 0.9 ft from a side
property line at 800 W Druid Rd,
Harbor Oak s , part of Lot B, zoned
RS 2 (single family residential).
V 91-55
DCAB
I.
Time Extensions
1. Granted Six month time
extension to January 13, 1992.
II. Public Hearings
1. #1 Granted 15 feet to permit
construction of a triplex 10 feet
trom a street right-ot-way.
#2 Granted as requested.
#3 Withdrew request.
2. Granted as requested subject to
the following conditions: 1) the
applicant shall submit elevation
drawings to the Planning and
Development Staff tor review to
determine consistency with the
architectural design of the existing
structure and 2) the applicant shall
obtain the requisite building permit
within six (6) months from the date
of this public hearing.
1
8/22/91
,~..
r ~,
.._~
3. John G and Mar 1 ene M Deery for
variances of (1) 7 parking spaces to
provide 23 parking spaces: and (2) 15
ft to permit building 10 ft from a
street (Gulf-to~Bay) right-of-way at
1467 Gu lf -to-Bay Blvd, Bou 1 evard
Heights Sub, Blk J, Lots I, 2, and
part of Lots 31 251 & 26, zoned CG
(general commercial) and RM 12
(multiple family residential).
V 91-56
4. Bruce A and Jacque 1 i ne 0 Capra
for removal of condition placed on
previously approved variance of 11.5
ft to permit house 36.5 ft above
grade that 1 imits use of the roof
surface to maintenance and repair of
roof and mechanical equipment at 810
Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 5,
Lot 4, zoned RS 8 (s ingle family
residential). V 91-57
III. Review: "Rules of Procedure
and policies"
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
V. Approval of Minutes of July 25,
and August 8, 1991
VI. Adjournment
DCAB
"; . ":..: . - . '..I,: '.. .' . _:" " .: I , .' .~...'. :..'. ...., ' '.. : . . .~. : ':' . r' ,+' .,.~. I" : .. . L ;'. ~ ~ /. :'> ~."". , . :.{~
3. Granted subject to the
following conditions: 1} this
variance is applicable only for use
as a paint store i 2) the app licant
shall meet all of the other land
development code requirements and 3)
the requisite building permit shall
be obtained within one (1) year from
the date of this public hearing.
4.. Granted request for remova 1 of
condition placed on previously
approved variance.
III. Continued to September 12,
1991.
IV. Reviewed IIIssue/Response
Schedule".
v. Continued to September 12,
1991.
VI. Adjournment 6:00 p.m.
2
8/22/91
,f;,~
.~-
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
August 22, 1991
Members present:
Thomas J. Graham, Chairman
Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman
John W. Homer
Emma C. Whitney
Absent:
Alex Plisko, excused
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sandy r,latthorn, Senior Planner
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was ca l'led to order by the Chairman at 1 :05 p.m. in the Commi ssion
Chambers of City Ha 11. He out 1 i ned the procedures and advi sed that anyone
adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may
appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. He noted
Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a
record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although
not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Time Extensions
1. Don Curtis Pierson (continued from 7/11/91) - first request
for six months time extension to 1/13/92 for variances of 1) 1,753
sq ft to allow construction of a triplex on a 8,247 sq ft loti 2) 5
ft to allow construction of a triplex on a lot 95 ft widei and 3) 13
ft to permit construction of a triplex on a lot 87 ft deep, at 7
Heilwood St, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, Blk 6, Lot 3 and part
of Lot 2 zoned, RM-20 per RM-12 (multiple family residential).
V 91-40
This item had been continued in order to obtain additional backgrou~d.
Discussion ensued regarding previous variances granted and/or denied for the
subject property.
George Greer, attorney repr'e sen t i ng the app 1 i cant, gave a br i ef history of the
subject property stating in April 1990. the Board approved variances for minimum
lot requirements to allow the construction of a triplex. The Board's decision
DCAB
1
8/22/91
was appea 1 ed by a ne i ghbor but was uphe 1 d by a Hear i og Off i cer. Mr. Greer
indicilted the application does not affect the density; it is a customary time
extension request to allow for the repair of the damage caused by the storm on
April 25, 1991.
In response to questions, Mr. Greer indicated partition walls could be used to
convert the existing duplex into a triplex and Mr. Pierson is seeking to
"legitimizell the lot for a proposed triplex.
Discussion ensued in regard to the granting of this request not causing the
footprint of the building to be changed.
Based upon the ; nformat i on furni shed by the app 1 i cant, Ms. Wh i tney moved to grant
a six month time extension to January 13, 1992 as requested. The motion was duly
seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer and Graham
voted Ilayell; Mr. Gans voted Ilnayll. Motion carried. Reauest aranted.
II. Public Hearings
1. Don Curtis Pierson for variances of (1) 18 ft to permit
construction of triplex 7 ft from a street right-of-way; (2) 2 ft to
permit construction of a triplex 6 ft from a side property line; and
(3) 6 ft to permit (triplex) height of 31 ft at 7 Heilwood St, Clwr
Beach Rev, Blk 6, Lot 3 and part of Lot 2, zoned RM 20 (multiple
family residential). V 91-54
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the subject
property has a history of variance applications. In 1983 the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals (BAA) approved variances to allow the construction of a duplex which
was subsequently built. On April 12, 1990, variances were granted to allow for
the conversion from a duplex to a triplex but setback variances were denied.
George Greer, attorney representing the applicant, stated a height variance is
not needed and withdrew variance #3. He gave a brief history of the property
stating Mr. Pierson received approval from the State to cross the Coastal
Construction Control Line (CCCL). On May 26, 1983, variances for height and front
and rear setbacks were granted by the BAA. The decision was appealed by a
neighbor and the Board's decision was overturned by a Hearing Officer; however,
the Hearing Officer said the lot met all other requirements for a triplex. Mr.
Greer further stated the app 1 ;cant has been denied reasonab le use of his land due
to the CCCL prohibiting construction on about 81 percent of the property, many
of the neighbors have built closer than the applicant to the street, traffic is
using his front setback as a turn-around and bringing the front setback in
conformance with others in the area would inhibit the public from using it as
part of the street.
Joe Alexander, representing the neighbor to the east, referred to past variance
requests indicating Mr. Pierson is looking to add what has been historically
denied. He expressed concern the proposed construction would obstruct the view
of the Gulf, be materially detrimental and affect the supply of light and
ventilation to the surrounding area.
DCAB
2
8/22/91
f'.. "1
Two citizens spoke in opposition to the application indicating the applicant
wi shes to increase his renta 1 income at the expen se of his ne i ghbors . The
subject property is not being used by the public as there is a public beach
walkway and a steel cable has been placed across the driveway. It was stated the
parking problems are caused by tenants' cars blocking access to the beach and the
street is wide enough for a car turn-around. The surrounding neighborhood is
primarily residential and it was felt this property detracts from the quality of
the neighborhood.
Photographs of the subject property were submitted for the record.
A petition with eight names was submitted in opposition to the application.
Mr. Greer stated Mr. Pierson has owned the subject property for 29 years, the
CCCL restricts reasonable use of the property and this property meets the parking
code requirements.
Discussion ensued regarding the long-standing dispute between Mr. Pierson and his
neighbor, the impact of the CCCl on the subject propertYI the area being zoned
for rental properties and the impact on the neighbors' view of the Gulf if the
setback variance is decreased.
The meeting recessed from 2:20 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.
There was also discussion regarding this property being located in an income
producing area and being judged as an RM 12 in an RM 20 zoning district.
In response to a question, it was indicated the two existing units total
approximately 2,000 square feet.
The Chairman noted for the record there were no supporters, . therefore, no
rebuttal from the opposition was necessary.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant
variance #1 for 15 feet to permit construction of a triplex 10 feet from a street
right-af-way and variance #2 as requested because the applicant has substantially
met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) af the land
Development Code more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition
which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the CCCL
restricts the use of two-thirds of the property, allowing only 19 percent use;
the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the
property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this
development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and
the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the
minimal use of the property subject to the requisite building permit being
obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was
duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer and
Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. Request Qranted.
DCAB
8/22/91
3
..-
f'" "I
2. Hans Frederic Heye for variances of (1) 5 ft to permit lot width
of 95 ftj and (2) 14.1 ft to permit second floor addition 0.9 ft
from a side property line at 800 W Druid Rd, Harbor Oaks, part of
Lot 8, zoned RS 2 (single family residential). V 91-55
Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes
to construct a second-floor addition over an existing garage in the Harbor Oaks
National Register Historic District.
Richard Churchill, architect representing the applicant, presented a drawing of
the proposed construction stating due to the irregular configuration of the lot,
room for expans ion is 1 imited. He i nd i cated the new owners wi sh to add a
playroom and additional bedrooms for their family. The integrity of the original
house will be maintained and the existing garages will remain in their present
location.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant
the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the
standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development
Code more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition which is
unique to the property and not caused by the owner or applicantj the particular
physical surroundings or shape of the property involved and the strict
application of the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant subject to the following conditions: 1)
the applicant shall submit elevation drawings to the Planning and Development
Staff for review to determine consistency with the architectural design of the
existing structure and 2) the applicant shall obtain the requisite building
permit within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request qranted.
3. John G and Marlene M Deery for variances of (1) 7 parking spaces
to provide 23 parking spaces; and (2) 15 ft to permit building 10 ft
from a street (Gulf-to-Bay) right-of-way at 1467 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd,
Boulevard Heights Sub, Blk J, Lots 1, 2, and part of Lots 3, 25, &
26, zoned CG (general commercial) and RM 12 (multiple family
residential). V 91-56
Ms. Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes
to convert the 5,000 square foot structure from a restaurant to retail use, the
size of the structure requires it to have a loading zone, the property has an
irregular boundary, is located in two different zoning districts and the proposed
use appears intense for the lot size.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated only 2,000 square feet
of the structure will be for retail use with one-third of the property zoned
RM 12. He said a paint store is one of the least traffic~oriel1ted of any retail
applications. The lot is almost 100 percent paved and in an older neighborhood,
this is a minimum variance with no adverse impacts to the area and much of the
property in the neighborhood is built out to the street. He said this is a
difficult site due to the mixed zoning.
DCAB
8/22/91
4
.,.'~I..~:I.~L:"j",:~""\~i~,;:,; .~....'.:..t"':~,,".:i."'..:~I,'.'~.':".l'''''~''-~\'~''-I::'';'f'.~'.:' \~:.":'~~.~'I..,r,~.~:I~.,~'I.:~'~"\". :,~ .J~L::'.:':I~"r' '.~. '. -":p'. ...;,t.. ~.;.....~ :.: .... .....I;~.' ..""~'.
,. -\
Concerns were expressed regarding the Traffic Engineering Department's comments
that a new project on a vacant lot should not receive a parking variance, that
a hardship does not exist and with the proposed new building and change of use
it was not believed the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) would approve
the access to Gu If-to-Bay Boulevard. Concerns were a 1so expressed regarding lack
of green space, short handicapped parking spaces and access from De leon Street.
Discussion ensued regarding parking spaces being lost due to landscaping, the
requirement for a loading zone and the dumpster location. It was felt use as a
paint store, although intense, did not require a lot of parking spaces.
In response to a question, it was indicated rezoning of the property could take
up to a year.
Concern was expressed in regard to the lot coverage calculations due to the
combination zoning and granting a variance on something that could be changed.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant
the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the
standards for approval as listed in Section I37.012(d) of the land Development
Code more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition which is
unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, primarily due to the
combination zoning of CG (general commercial) and RM 12 (multi-family
residential) and the complications this combination zoning creates subject to the
following conditions: 1) this variance is applicable only for use as a paint
store because of the anticipated less intense requirement for parking; 2} the
applicant shall meet all of the other land development code requirements and 3)
the requisite building permit shall be obtained within one (1) year from the date
of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being
taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer and Gans voted "aye"; Mr. Graham voted "nay".
Motion carried. Request granted.
Discussion ensued in regard to the proposed structure being a standard prototype
free-standing building for the Southwest and this type facility having a large
storage requirement.
4. Bruce A and Jacque li ne D Capra for remova 1 of cond i t i on placed
on previously approved variance of 11.5 ft to permit house 36.5 ft
above grade that limits use of the roof surface to maintenance and
repair of roof and mechanical equipment at 810 Eldorado Ave,
Mandalay Sub, Slk 5, lot 4, zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
V 91-57
Ms. Glatthorn explained the request in detail stating a variance was approved
May 10, 1991, to permit construction of a house subject to the condition the roof
surface shall not be used as a recreational deck, but only for maintenance and
repair of the roof and mechanical equipment. Plans were permitted which included
a spa and barbecue on the roof.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the standards for approval should
apply to conditions imposed on variances.
DCAB
5
8/22/91
William Kimpton, attorney representing the applicant, stated the standards for
approval were met in granting the variance. He said recreational roof decks are
not prohibited by Code and felt the condition imposed was unfair and
unreasonab 1 e. He i nd; eated the roof deck prov i des a safe area for persona 1
belongings as theft is a problem due to being located on the beach front. He
submitted a diagram and a letter from an audio professional stating sound from
a roof travels up and away and would not be a nuisance to neighbors or
beachgoers.
Discussion ensued regarding the height of the structure and it was stated the
variance was granted to allow the applicant to have high ceilings and for
aesthet'ics. A condition was imposed that the roof not be used for recreation due
to concern for noise problems encountered from other structures on the beach that
had recreational areas on the roof.
Mr. Kimpton stated the roof and structural components meet code, the house is in
a velocity zone making the ground area unsuitable for a recreation area,
Mrs. Capra has back problems which are helped by the theraputic spa on the roof,
the house is designed to minimize nuisances to the neighbors by not having
windows on the sides facing adjacent properties and the neighbors are in favor
of granting the request. He submitted photographs of the subject property and
houses with roof decks in the surrounding area.
It was stated Mrs. Capra and the bu ilder were present when the cond it ion
restricting roof recreation was imposed.
Bruce Capra, owner and applicant, stated he relocated his family and business
from New York two years ago, is very community-minded and has brought over two
million dollars worth of business into the area. He indicated he was not aware
of the condition restricting roof use when the plans were submitted for approval.
He noted the small fireplace on the roof is not a barbecue. He feels it is
unfair for other home owners to use roof decks when he is restricted from the
same use.
DCAB
6
8/22/91
It was indicated the sketches presented to the Board when the height variance
came before the Board contained detail of each of the floors, but not of the
roof. Concern was expressed the final plans were Significantly different than
what was previously presented to the Board.
Jacqueline Capra, owner and applicant, stated they would not have proceeded with
construction without receiving a height variance.
Randy Laird, builder, stated it was never their intention to deceive the Board;
however, he did not recall the Board discussing roof use. He questioned why the
restriction was imposed and found it to be unreasonable.
Twenty-three letters were presented in support of the application.
It was indicated the Board took action based upon the information provided and
if there had been discussion of using the roof area for recreation, the height
variance may not have been granted. It was felt the attorney representing the
applicant on May 10th was aware of the condition imposed.
_. Mr. Kimpton indicated at the time of the previous hearing the plans were in the
early stages and did not include roof facilities. He said it was unreasonable
to restrict the use of the roof especially in the velocity zone because a height
variance was given. He then read a legal memorandum stating why he felt the
condition should be removed.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the applicant received adequate notice of the
condition imposed in the granting of his variance and whether the Board should
remove this condition. There was some concern expressed regarding the handrail
on the roof.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant
the request for removal of the condition placed on the previously approved
variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all the
standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development
Code, more specifically because, the notification to the applicant by the City
was inadequate and did not specify the imposition of this condition, this
deci s ion is not to be interpreted as a precedent I it is un i que and is based
strictly upon the actions of this Board in connection with notification to the
applicant, the condition was established based on the endeavor of this board to
protect the general welfare of the community and was originally established with
the feeling it would violate the general spirit and intent of Land Development
Code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. There was no second.
Discussion continued in regard to the removal of the condition. It was felt the
City did provide adequate notice to the applicant, that the Board did take
appropriate action in placing the condition on the variance and it is in the
Board's jurisdiction to decide whether or not to remove the condition.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to approve
the removal of a condition on a previously approved variance because the
applicant has substantially met all the standards for approval as listed in
Section 137.012{d) of the land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Request Qranted.
There was discussion regarding granting variances subject to certain conditions
and the Assistant City Attorney indicated there is no problem with placing
reasonable conditions on variances.
III. Review: "Rules of Procedure and Policies"
Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 12, 1991. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
The Development Code Adjustment Board reviewed the Issue/Response Schedule dated
August 22, 1991. Staff was requested to research the City's regulations
regarding bui lding height, using roof areas for recreation and the procedures for
notifying an applicant in writing of the Board's decision on a variance request.
DCAB
7
8/22/91
,~:,~\~+.":,t:liIL... .,."I~.:(...,:...~,1''''i'.'~~.,,,,I,,:";.;::'I.i;',,,,,:.1,:,;,{'''~. ;"'4~ ~"'.' ~<,"-';~I:/:'''''.: '."", ....~. ~~.' .',: . ..L......~. "~.';'.-:'. :'i'~" .... ", ," ~:.I. . "',I ..'r". .'... ',1' ::~" ......,'~..... :
;r--...
{'.,,,.,,
'(;r^.('
\...~,./
.J j; ., b-.;' II
'I ~ '" .
dl,.l f"
{/JI)I ;I (c (I)
J ( ,I e,' I .
f <p. ,
,
. .).
v.
Approval of Minutes of July 25, and August 8, 1991
Mr. Gans moved to continue approval of the minutes to the meeting of September
12, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.'
ATTEST:
Assis
DCAB
/ /!2t./V--It-~..>
-I. ,
"
8
8/22/91