12/18/1991 (2)
, DATE
d/
~.'
" '
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
l~8bJ
775
-
, I
-
,r~"'"
t
.........
~<
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Wednesday, December 18, 1991 - 1:00 p.m. - Commission Meeting Room,
City Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida
To consider requests for variances of the Land Development Code:
1.
Time Extensions
A. (1st request for extension)
Charles E. Knell, as Trustee, for
vari ances of 1) 7 ft 11 inches to
permit height of 32 ft 11 inches as
measured to midpoint of a sloped
roof, 2) 1 ft 11 inches to permit
ridge height 5 ft 11 inches above
midpoint of sloped roof and 3) 33 ft
4 inches to permit house 33 ft 4
inches beyond Coastal Construction
Control Line (CCCL) at 1170 Mandalay
Point Road, Mandalay Point Sub, Lots
18, 18A, 19 and 19A, zoned RS-4
(single-family residential) and OS/R
(open space/recreation). V 91-02
B. (1st request for extension)
Valentino Koumoulidis for variances
of (1) 83 ft to permit a 67 ft wide
lot; (2) 3 parking spaces to permit 6
spaces; (3) 24.85% front yard open
space to allow 25.15%; (4) 3.5 ft to
permit 1.5 ft of perimeter landscape
buffering; and (5) 12.8 ft to permit
o ft of clear space at 606 Bayway
Blvd, Bayside Sub No 5, Blk A, Lot 7,
zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V
91-25
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 11/14/91)
Westchester Lakes Development Corp
(Westchester Lake Townhomes) for
variance of 42 in to permit a 72 in
high wall in setback area adjoining a
street right-of-way to which property
is addressed at 2644 through 2658
Sabal Spring Or, Westchester Lake
Townhomes, zoned RPD 10 (residential
planned development). V 91-75
DCAB
1.
A.
Time Extensions
Granted six months to July 10,
1992
B.
Granted six months to June 27,
1992
II. Public Hearings
Item A - Gl~anted a variance of 18
inches to allow 48 inch high
pilasters and gate to be located as
indicated on the site plan for
vehicular traffic subject to the
conditions: 1) Traffic Engineering
shall review the location of the gate
before a building permit is issued
and 2) the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within six (6)
months from the date of this public
hearing.
1
12/18/91
, ' , . . ...':. . I '. . . i' , . '::. . ~ / . , ' ., '..'. '" ,', . " ", ~:" " ," ; j i'." . I: '. It,' ," .. " "'," . . ,,' . . \ .'., f " ~. . "" '.'
""'"""'\
I,
""",.,-
1. Joseph C and Jayne M Jurgelonis
for variances of (1) 11 ft to permit
construction on a 59 ft wide corner
lot: and (2) 15 ft to permit bedroom
addition 10 ft from a street right-
of -way at 55 Verbena St, Manda 1 ay
Sub, Blk 29, Lot 6, zoned RS 8
(single family residential). V 91-80
2. Wi 11 iam Kebort (Is land Breeze
Cafe & Gri 11) for vari ances of (1)
600 sq ft to permit a 400 sq ft
alcoholic beverage service
establ ishment, iVld (2) 34 interior
seats to permit 16 seats in alcoholic
beverage serving establishment at 740
S Gulfview Blvd, Bayside Shores, Blk
C, Lots 1 thru 10, zoned CB (beach
contmercial). V 91-81
3. Treva L Crimens for variances of
(1) 20 ft to permit construction on a
50 ft wide corner lot: and (2) 15 ft
to permit construction of veranda 10
ft from a street right-of-way at 1746
Sunset Dr, North Shore Park, Blk 12 ,
Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family
residential). V 91-82
4. Roy E and Patricia Corrall for a
variance of 2.5 ft to permit air
conditioner platform 2.5 ft from a
side property line at 228 Bayside Dr,
Bayside Sub No 4 Unit A, Blk I, Lot
G, zoned RS 8 (single family
residential). V 91-83
DeAB
1. Granted subject to the
conditions: 1) the bedroom addition
shall be constructed as indicated on
the site plan and 2) the requisite
building permit shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date
of this public hearing.
2. Granted subject to the
conditions: 1) sales of alcoholic
beverages shall be restricted to
sales for on-premise consumption, 2)
the sale of alcoholic beverages shall
be prohibited after 9:00 p.m. all
days of the week; 3) the variance
granted shall remain in effect only
as long as Robert Shanahan is the
operator of this establishment and 4}
all permits and licenses shall be
obtained within six {6} months from
the date of this public hearing.
3. Granted subject to the
conditions: 1) the proposed veranda
be constructed as indicated on the
plans and not be enclosed in the
future and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within six
(6) months from the date of thi s
public hearing.
4. Granted subject to the
condition the requisite certificate
of occupancy shall be obtained within
six (6) months from the date of this
public hearing.
2
12/18/91
l '
'..--- ~
'-.J
5. Doug 1 as L and Joyce W Alderman
for variances of (1) 32.08 ft to
permit lot depth of 47.92 ft; (2) 5
ft to permit addition 20 ft from a
street (Narcissus Ave) right-of-way:
(3) 18 ft to permit addition 7 ft
from a street (Lantana Ave) right-of-
way; (4) 42 in to permit a 72 in high
fence in setback adjoining street to
which property is addressed: and (5)
2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in
setback area adjacent to street to
which property is not addressed at
958 Narcissus Ave, Carlouel Sub, Blk
257, part of Lots 1 and 2 and part of
vacated street on west, zoned RS 8
(single family residential). V 91-84
6. John E Jr and Patricia Slaughter
for a variance of 3 ft to permit
carport 4 ft from a s ide property
line at 711 Bay Ave, Harbor Oaks Sub,
Lot 21 and part of Lot 19, zoned RS 6
(single family residential). V 91-85
III. ,Board and Staff Discussion
IV. Approval of Minutes
November 14, 1991
of
V.
Adjournment
DCAB
5. Variances #1, #2 and #3 granted
subject to the conditions: 1) the
bedroom and bath additions be
constructed as indicated on the site
plan and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within six
(6) months from the date of this
public hearing.
Variances #4 and #5 continued
to the meeting of January 9, 1992
There may also be an additional
variance request.
6. Granted subject to the
conditions: 1) the appl icant shall
provide the Planning and Development
Department staff with information
concerning the proposed carport
elevation design. This design shall
contribute architecturally to the
historic integrity of the existing
residence. 2) the carport shall not
be enclosed and 3) the requisite
bUilding permit shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date
of this public hearing.
III.
IV. Approved as submitted
v.
Adjourned at 3:33 p.m.
3
12/18/91
...'~~....
. "
'"""........-.
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
December 18, 1991
Members present:
Thomas J. Graham, Chairman
Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman
John W. Homer
Alex Pliska
Emma C. Whitney (arrived at 1:05 p.m.)
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission
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 liste~ in agenda order although
not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Time Extensions
A. (1st request for extension) Charles E. Knell, as Trustee, for
variances of 1) 7 ft 11 inches to permit height of 32 ft 11 inches
as measured to midpoint of a sloped roof I 2) 1 ft 11 inches to
permit ridge height 5 ft 11 inches above midpoint of sloped roof and
3) 33 ft 4 inches to permit house 33 ft 4 inches beyond Coasta 1
Construction Control Line (CCCl) at 1170 Mandalay Point Road,
Mandalay Point Sub, Lots 18, 18A, 19 and 19A, zoned RS-4 (single-
family reSidential) and OS/R (open space/recreation). V 91-02
A letter from the applicant1s representative requesting a one-year extension was
read into the record. The letter stated construction was delayed pending
approval of the Department of Natural Resources (ONR) due to the properties being
seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and requested to have the
record reflect the change in ownership of the subject properties to Cecilia Odio.
Discuss ion ensued regard i ng whether or not a one-year extension cou 1 d be granted.
Tom Nash, representing the appl icant, stated a one-year extension is being
requested as DNR approval will be subject to many issues, one of which is the
turtle nesting period. It is hoped final DNR approval will be obtained by
October, 1992.
DCAB
12/18/91
1
I"", Planning Manager Shuford said an extension granted by the 'Board shall not exceed
six months. The app 1 i cant can request an add it i ona 1 six-month extens ion, if
necessary.
Ms. Whitney moved to grant a six-month extension to July 10, 1992. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request Qranted.
B. (1st request for extension) Valentino Koumoulidis for
variances of (1) 83 ft to permit a 67 ft wide lot; (2) 1 parking
space; (3) 24.85% front yard open space to allow 25.15%j (4) 3.5 ft
to permit 1.5 ft of perimeter landscape bufferingj and (5) 12.8 ft
to permit 0 ft of clear space at 606 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub No 5,
Blk A, Lot 7, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 91-25
A letter from the applicant requesting a six-month extension was read into the
record. The application was originally heard at the June 27, 1991 meeting. The
applicant is requesting a six-month extension to allow sufficient time to
complete the working drawings required to obtain the necessary permits.
Mr. Homer moved to grant a six-month extension to June 27,1992. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request Qranted.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 11/14/91) Westchester Lakes Development
Corp (Westchester Lake Townhomes) for variance of 42 in to permit a
72 in high wall in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to
which property is addressed at 2644 through 2658 Sabal Spring Dr,
Westchester Lake Townhomes, zoned RPD 10 (residential planned
development). V 91-75,
This application was continued as the Board expressed concern regarding a six-
foot-high solid block wall. The applicant was to come back with an alternative;
however, staff has not received a revised proposal. Planning Manager Shuford
explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct an
overheight concrete block wall to deter trespassing, loitering and unauthorized
parking on the subject property.
Richard Donahue, representing the applicant, stated after meeting with City
staff, the applicant decided to withdraw the request for a wall. He said instead
of a wall, a visual barrier will be created by berming and planting shrubs, and
the applicant is now requesting to have 48-inch high pilasters and gate.
In response to questions, Mr. Donahue indicated he is employed by the developer
and feels the 30 inch height allowed by code is too low for to deter trespassers.
The proposed vegetation will extend the same distance as the originally proposed
wall. There will be a vehicular gate only.
DCAB
2
12/18/91
~" .:~.,. ".II.";,~, 0,., ,j' ,I..".". " ..... .',', ::, ..,......... ",,~ '. '" '}.'., ',:' ;.' '. :~ , ,~", ,,:'"'' ','''. l",
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant
a variance of 18 inches to allow 48 inch high pilasters and gate to be located
as indicated on the site plan for vehicular traffic 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 variance
arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the
applicant; the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical
conditions of the property involved would result in a hardship upon the applicant
if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied and the variance is the
minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the location of the site
subject to the conditions: 1) Traffic Engineering shall review the location of
the gate before a building permit is issued and 2) the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request Qranted.
1. Joseph C and Jayne M Jurgelonis for variances of (1) 11 ft to
permit construction on a 59 ft wide corner lot; and (2) 15 ft to
permit bedroom addition 10 ft from a street right-of-way at 55
Verbena St, Mandalay Sub, Blk 29, Lot 6, zoned RS 8 (single family
residential). V 91-80
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to construct a bedroom addition to an existing family residence
on a substandard corner lot that abuts two streets.
Joe Jurgelonis, the applicant, indicated his family has outgrown the house and
he wishes to add a small bedroom to match the construction of the,house. He said
the proposed site is the only feasible location for the addition due to the shape
of the lot and for aesthetics.
Discussion ensued regarding building the addition to the rear of the house. It
was indicated this would be difficult and more expensive due to three deck levels
and also inconvenient as there would be no rear exit and the back yard is the
only open area on the lot for recreation.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Pliska 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 applicant: the particular shape of
the property involved creates an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a
strict interpretation of the code were to be applied and the variances are the
minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size and
configuration subject to the conditions: 1) the bedroom addition shall be
constructed as indicated on the submitted site plan and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was du ly seconded and carried unanimous ly. ReQuest aranted.
....&.)1
DeAB
3
12/18/91
.$ ,
r . "\
,,~, c' .
2. William Kebort (Island Breeze Cafe & Grill) for variances of (1)
600 sq ft to permit a 400 sq ft alcoholic beverage service
establ ishmentj and (2) 34 interior seats to permit 16 seats in
alcoholic beverage serving establishment at 740 S Gulfview Blvd,
Bayside Shores, Blk C, Lots 1 thru 10, zoned CB (beach commercial).
V 91-81
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the
applicant is currently operating a restaurant and would like to serve beer and
wine with meals. Mr. Shuford indicated the location of the establishment in a
shopp i ng center pree 1 udes any expans i on of the f ae il it i es and ne i ther City Po 1 ice
nor staff has raised any objections to the application as the 9:00 p.m. closing
time establ ished by the Planning Zoning Board does not promote use of the
facility as a bar or nightclub.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the closing time would be a deterrent
to the operation of the facility as a bar. It was indicated the 9:00 p.m.
closing time was specified on the application and was not a problem for the
current owner.
There was discussion regarding parking being determined by the percentage of
reta il use.
Brian Shanahanj owner and applicant, stated he personally operates the business
which opens at 8:00 a.m. and he has no desire to remain open later than the 9:00
p.m. closing time.
Concern was expressed regarding the effect of the time 1 imitation on any
subsequent owner. It was indicated a change in business ownership requires a new
conditional use permit.
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 applicant; the variances are the
minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the store size subject to
the conditions: 1) sales of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to sales for
on-premise consumption; 2) the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited
after 9:00 p.m. all days of the week; 3) the variance granted shall remain in
effect only as long as Robert Shanahan is the operator of this establishment and
4) all permits and licenses shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date
of this public hearing.
3. Treva L Crimens for variances of (1) 20 ft to permit
construction on a 50 ft wide corner lot; and (2) 15 ft to permit
construction of veranda 10 ft from a street right-of-way at 1746
Sunset Dr, North Shore Park, Blk 12 , Lot I, zoned RS 8 (single
family residential). V 91-82
DCAB
4
12/18/91
, '
........+.'
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to construct a roof over an existing open patio at a single-
family residence. He indicated the variances are the result of pre-existing
conditions as the lot was platted in 1913 and is nonconforming with regard to
corner lots less than 70 feet in width.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, indicated the proposed addition will
improve the quality and safety of what already exists and will only exceed the
footprint by a few feet in the rear. He submitted photographs of the subject
property.
Discussion ensued regarding the roof extension and the necessity of a sea wall
due to the effects of ~Ieather and wave action on the veranda. It was felt this
is not an unusual hardship as everyone who resides on the beach is affected in
a similar manner.
Lorne Kanaki, representing the applicant, referring to a drawing, explained what
is existing and the four- to six-foot extension being proposed.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko 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 applicant; the particular physical
surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property involved creates
an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the code
were to be applied and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the
hardship of the lot size and the location next to the dedicated right-of-way
subject to the conditions: 1) the proposed veranda be constructed as indicated
on the plans and not be enclosed in the future and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request Qranted.
4. Roy E and Patricia Corrall for a variance of 2.5 ft to permit
air conditioner platform 2.5 ft from a side property line at 228
Bayside Dr. Bayside Sub No 4 Unit A, Blk 1, Lot G, zoned RS 8
(single family residential). V 91-83
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to elevate air conditioning units on four-foot-tall platforms
in a side setback area. He indicated air conditioning equipment not enclosed
within a building and not obstructing through access is exempt from the side
setback requirement except when elevated more than 12 inches off the ground due
to flood zone requirements. The platform creates the need for a variance.
Dan Drayton, contractor representing the applicant, submitted photographs of
other platforms and letters in support and indicated three adjoining property
owners do not object to the application.
DCAB
5
12/18/91
Discussion ensued regarding a proposed Code amendment to accommodate elevated air
conditioning units in setbacks with it being indicated the amendment has not yet
been received by the City Commission. Concern was expressed regarding the
appearance of the platform.
Three letters from the three adjoining property owners were presented in support
of the application.
Ray Corrall, owner and applicant, indicated adjacent property owners favor the
proposed location for the air conditioning platform.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant
the variance 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 variance arises from a condition which is
unique to the property, the additional requirement of the flood plain having to
be met for the air conditioner and was not caused by the applicant, subject to
the condition that the requisite certificate of occupancy be obtained within six
(6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Request Qranted.
5. Douglas L and Joyce W Alderman for variances of (1) 32.08 ft to
permit lot depth of 47.92 ft: (2) 5 ft to permit addition 20 ft from
a street (Narcissus Ave) right-ofwwaYi (3) 18 ft to permit addition
7 ft from a street (Lantana Ave) right-of-way; (4) 42 in to permit
a 72 in high fence in setback adjoining street to which property is
addressed; and (5) 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area
adjacent to street to wh i ch property is not addres sed at 958
Narcissus Ave, Carlouel Sub, Blk 257, part of Lots 1 and 2 and part
of vacated street on west. zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
V 91-84
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to convert an existing carport into a bedroom with a bath and
construct a high privacy fence on a triangular-shaped, substandard corner lot.
He indicated variances were granted in June, 1990 to allow a screen room addition
which has been completed an the opposite side of the building.
Concern was expressed regarding the height of the fence with it being indicated
privacy could be provided with landscaping.
Doug Alderman, owner and applicant. stated there is no financial return involved,
no other properties are affected. the appearance of the proposed addition will
be attractive and enhance the area tying into what is already existing and the
fence wi 11 be 1andscaped. He feels the var; ances are necessary to permit
reasonable use of his land.
Mr. Alderman presented photographs and drawings of the subject property from
several angles.
DCAB
6
12/18/91
d' ,
I' .\
'"
Concern was expressed the existing fence on the south side may be in violation.
Mr. Alderman stated he believes the fence was properly permitted as it was
constructed by a licensed, reputable contractor in 1987. A suggestion was made
to continue the current request to the next meeting in order for staff to
research and inform the applicant if an additional variance is necessary.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to take action on the first three
requests and to continue the last two requests dealing with the fence until staff
could research to see if the existing fence was permitted.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. P1isko moved to grant
variances #1, #2 and #3 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 applicant; the particular
physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property
involved creates an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict
interpretation of the Code were to be applied and the variances are the minimum
necessary to overcome the hardship created by the shape of the lot and the
frontage involved with the two streets subject to the conditions: 1) the bedroom
and bath additions shall be constructed as indicated on the site plan submitted
and 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from
the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Request Qranted.
Based upon the information furnished by the appl icant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant
variances #4 and #5 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 applicant; the particular
physical surroundings, shape of the lot involved create an unnecessary hardship
upon the applicant if the strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied
and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of the
double frontage, the lot size and the fence is basically an extension of the
bedroom/bath arrangement, not being used as a privacy lot fence but to add an
extension to the bedroom subject to the conditions: 1) the fence shall be
installed as submitted on the site plan and 2) the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
There was no second.
Discussion ensued regarding the necessity of a visual barrier for privacy and
whether or not a masonry fence would provide visual continuity and be more
acceptable than the proposed wooden fence. Mr. Alderman said he would discuss
this possibility with his decorator and requested a continuance to the first
meeting in January.
Mr. Plisko moved to continue variances #4 and #5 to the meeting of January 9,
1992 when there may also be an additional variance request relating to the fence
on the south side. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Request continued to January 9. 1992.
It was pointed out, if the existing fence is not permitted, an additional
variance will be needed and will be heard along with the continued requests.
DCAB
7
12/18/91
t" "
'\.........
6. John E Jr and Patricia Slaughter for a variance of 3 ft to
permit carport 4 ft from a side property line at 711 Bay Ave, Harbor
Oaks Sub, Lot 21 and part of Lot 19, zoned RS 6 (single family
residential). V 91-85
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to construct a carport for an existing single family residence
on a corner lot in a historic district. He stated the proposed carport footprint
appears to be in character with the existing side setback and will not detract
from the surrounding houses and outbuildings in the district.
Robert Aude, arch i teet represent i ng the app 1 i cant, i nd i cated the subject property
is being renovated and he expects to apply for the requisite building permits
within a few days if this variance is granted. He stated he is reluctant to
refer to the proposed structure as a "carportU as he feels the term "pergola" is
more descriptive of the design of the proposed custom-built, architecturally
compatible structure.
In response to questions, Mr. Aude indicated the design is for an area, open on
all four sides, to afford a walkway as well as drive-through access, allow light
to enter the garage and provide an attractive entry sequence into the house. He
stated no variances had previously been requested for the subject property.
Mr. Aude presented a sketch illustrating the proposed construction and noted a
letter of support from an adjacent property owner was attached to the application
for variance.
John Slaughter, owner and applicant, stated he discussed the proposed
construction with neighbors who indicated no objection to the application.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant
the variance 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 variance arises from a condition which is
unique to the property and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the
hardship of the lot size subject to the conditions: 1) the appl icant shall
provide the Planning and Development Department staff with information concerning
the proposed carport elevation design. This design shall contribute
architecturally to the historic integrity of th~ existing residence. 2) the
carport sha 11 be an open carport and not be enc losed and 3) the requ is i te
building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this
public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request
Qranted.
.
III. Board and Staff Discussion
Concerns were expressed by the Board regarding back-out perpendicular parking at
the Avis office on Myrtle Avenue and Cleveland Street and a chain-link fence on
the southwest side of Skycrest Church.
Discussion ensued regarding houses of historical significance and whether or not
an ordinance has been passed dealing with historical houses throughout the area.
It was indicated a historical district is provided for in the Code.
DCAB
12/18/91
8
01 ' ,..,. " 1/,: ~ I '+ +' " "~J : ' : :." " ' l.. r' " ~ .
\
t................,
,p',
~~J1)
L--,
There was discussion regarding the cost of variance fees with it being indicated
direct gUidelines were given that the variance process be self-supporting. A
memo outlining the Board's concern that variance fees for residential
applications are too high was submitted for consideration. It was the consensus
of the Board to forward the memo, along with a comparison of variance fees, to
the City Commission.
IV. Approval of Minutes of November 14, 1991
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of November 14, 1991, in accordance with
copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Approved as submitteq.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:33 p.m.
ATTEST:
"~
,I
DCAB
9
12/18/91