03/12/1992 (2)
(
,{
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
, "
tJ3jL~p~
2'/_ cf'~
DATE
.,
.,
. '.:-~.' . :.", '. " < ~,. .l........ . .1,' .' .... '~'.' '. .'~ .'...~....'., ~..r.+ ~ .' .'~ .'.,1 l... ....
('-"
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
March 12, 1992
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Thomas J. Graham
Otto Gans
John W. Homer
(;
"l:"
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Mary K. (Sue) 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 Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone
adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may
appea 1 the dec i s i on to an Appea 1 Hear i ng Off i cer wi th in two week s. 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. Public Hearings
1. Fred Sadowski for variances of (1) 18.08 ft to permit dock
length of 42.75 fti (2) 7.23 ft to permit dock width of 24.5 fti and
(3) 9.2 ft to permit dock to be positioned 7.08 ft from a (extended)
side property line at 136 Devon Or, Bayside Sub, Lot 14 and land to
bulkhead, zoned RS 8 (single family residential and Al/C (aquatic
lands/coastal). V 92-14
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in det~il stating the
appl icant wishes to add a cradle 1 ift and expand an existing dock. He
recommended the dock expansion extend no further toward the east side property
line than what is existing.
Michael Evans, representing the applicant, felt there would be no objection by
the owner to align the proposed dock with the eastern edge of the existing dock,
stating that section is not critical to the dock.
In response to questions, Mr. Evans anticipates obtaining the signature of the
property owner to the east within the week and he said no tie poles will be
placed on the east side of the dock.
"
,
....~:.
DCAB
1
03/-12/92
Discussion ensued with regard to the County's requirement to obtain the
signatures of adjacent property owners on applications for permits and building
permits not being issued without the approval of both City and County agencies.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant. Mr. Homer moved to grant
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 are the minimum necessary to
overcome the hardship of low water and the inability to provide proper mooring
for the boat subject to the conditions: 1) the height of the proposed dock
expansion area shall remain the same height as the existing dock on the eastern
side; 2) the variance to the positioning requirement shall be reduced to 9.08
feet instead of 7.08 along the eastern side of the dock and the eastern side of
the deck addition shall not extend further in an easterly direction than the
existing dock; 3) no tie poles shall be allowed on the east side of the dock and
4) 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. Reauest aranted.
2. Charles and Ypapanti Alexiou/Anthony Alexiou (Rockaway Grill)
for variances of (1) 52.14 ft to permit canopy to extend seaward of
Coastal Construction Control Line (C.C.C.L.); and (2) 15 ft to
permit canopy zero ft from a street right-of-way at 7 Rockaway St,
Miller's Replat, Lot 2 & vacated Beach Dr on Wand Lot 3, zoned CR
28 (resort commercial). V 92-15
(~" Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to attach a canopy to the side of a restaurant to extend over
a portion of an existing deck. He said the proposed canopy will cover no more
than 99 inches, or approximately one-third, of the deck and recommended reducing
.~ variance #1 to 43.3 ft.
'--
DCAB
2
03/12/92
Jim Dowling, attorney representing the applicant, stated in response to
questions, the proposed canopy will not cover the entire deck, nor extend the
entire width of the building. DNR approval has been received for a canopy only
along the width of the deck area. He said the building permit will be pulled
before the end of the week; therefore. a six-month time limit for obtaining the
requisite permit will not pose a problem.
Discussion ensued with regard to the history of variance applications relating
to the subject deck. It was indicated variances were granted to legitimize an
existing, illegal and non-conforming structure which was built by a previous
owner and has created a hardship on subsequent owners. Concern was expressed in
allowing any addition to something that started out as an illegal and non-
conforming structure.
In response to a question. it was indicated if the canopy is cantilevered from
the building it is allowed and can extend 40 percent or ten feet into the
setback, whichever is greater.
I.
, ,~.. '
Discussion ensued regarding the appl ication with it being felt the proposed
canopy is needed to provide shade, will make the outside of the building more
attractive, will cause no undue hardship upon adjacent property owners and no
attempt is being made to cover outside seating.
Mr. Graham moved to grant variance #1, a variance of 43.3 feet to permit the
canopy to extend seaward of the CCCL, and variance #2 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 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 of the sun on the western face of the
restaurant restricting the use of seats in areas within the restaurant, and a
solution to that hardship is to provide an overhang to help block the sun,
subject to the conditions: 1) no enclosure of the canopy or deck area shall be
permitted and 2) all requisite permits shall be obtained within six (6) months
from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the
vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Pliska and Graham voted "aye"j Mr.
Gans voted "nayl/. Motion carried. Request oranted.
3. Metat and Emine Idrizi for a variance of 3 ft to permit pool
enclosure 4 ft from rear property lines at 510 Island Way, Island
Estates Unit 6D, lot 68, zoned RS 6 (single family residential).
V 92-16
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to construct a screen enclosure around an existing swimming pool
and concrete deck, on an irregularly shaped lot.
Discussion ensued regarding the side and rear property 1 ines with it being
indicated due to the odd conformation of the lot, the subject property has three
rear property lines. For the record, it was stated the staff report is correct
regarding the location of the existing concrete deck.
Metat Idrizi, owner and applicant stated he purchased the subject property in
1978, built the pool and deck in 1981 and there was difficulty in placing the
pool in order not to interfere with the waterfront. He wishes to build the
screen enclosure to protect the pool from debris. Mr. Idrizi said the enclosure
will only screen the perimeter of the existing deck.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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 not caused by the applicant; the particular physical
, 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
and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the
shape of the property and the location of the existing pool and pool deck subject
DCAB
03/12/92
3
"'--",
to the conditions: 1) the swimming pool enclosure 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. The motion was duly
seconded and carded unanimously. ReQuest Qranted.
Assistant City Attorney Lance left the meeting at 1~45 p.m.
II. Board and Staff Discussion
Discussion ensued regarding the space leased by McDonald's on Clearwater Beach
to meet parking requirements, charging for parking at the Pelican parking lot and
restaurant expansion at Gionnis Plaza. It was indicated the code violation
reporting forms issued by the Planning and Development Department are intended
to replace the issue/response schedule formerly used to respond to code violation
complaints.
III. Approval of Minutes of February 27, 1992
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of February 27, 1992, in accordance with
copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion ~as duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Approved as submitted.
IV. Adjournment
"
i....,.",j The meeting was adjourned at 1:57 p.m.
Chairman
'''-./
DCAB
4
03/12/92
ATTEST:
. ;{f2~'~
C' y Clerk
.~,.~ '.~...
(,
't~::",.
-."
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, March 12, 1992 - 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:
I.
Public Hearings
1. Fred Sadowski for variances of
(1) 18.08 ft to permit dock length of
42.75 ftj (2) 7.23 ft to permit dock
width of 24.5 ftj and (3) 9.2 ft to
permit dock to be positioned 7.08 ft
from a (extended) side property line
at 136 Devon Dr, Bayside Sub, Lot 14
and land to bulkhead, zoned RS 8
(single family residential and AL/C
(aquatic lands/coastal). V 92-14
2. Charles and Ypapanti
A lex iou/Anthony A lex lOU (Rockaway
Grill) for variances of (1) 52.14 ft
to permit canopy to extend seaward of
Coastal Construction Control Line
(C.C.C.L.); and (2) 15 ft to permit
canopy zero ft from a street right-
of-way at 7 Rockaway St, Mi ller IS
Replat,Lot 2 & vacated Beach Dr on W
and Lot 3, zoned CR 28 (resort
commercial). V 92-15
3. Metat and Emine ldrizi for a
variance of 3 ft to permit pool
enclosure 4 ft from rear property
lines at 510 Island Way, Island
Estates Unit 6D, Lot 68, zoned RS 6
(single family residential). V 92-16
DCAB
r.
Public Hearings
1. Granted subject to the
following conditions: 1) the height
of the proposed dock expansion area
shall remain the same height as the
existing dock on the eastern side; 2)
the variance to the positioning
requirement shall be reduced to 9.08
feet instead of 7.08 along the
eastern side of the dock and the
eas tern side of the deck add i t i on
shall not extend further in an
easterly direction than the existing
dock; 3) no tie poles shall be
allowed on the east side of the dock
and 4) the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within six (6)
months from the date of this public
hearing.
2. Granted - #1 a variance of 43.3
feet to permit the canopy to extend
seaward of the CCCL and #2 as
requested, subject to the following
conditions: 1) no enclosure of the
canopy or deck area shall be
permitted and 2) all requisite
permits shall be obtained within six
(6) months from the date of this
public hearing.
3. Granted subject to the
following conditions: 1) the
swimming pool enclosure shall be
constructed as indicated on the site
plan and 2} the requisite bui1ding
permit shall be obtained within six
(6) months from the date of this
public hearing.
1
03/12/92
f
J
'~
',,',0
'. ,
'-....
,.
, ,
f .,
,.
'.
, "
"
, . ~ .
"
II. Board and Staff Discussion
II.
III. Approval of Minutes of
February 27, 1992
IV. Adjournment
III. Approved as submitted.
IV; 'Adjourned at 1:57 p.m.
OCAB
2
03/12/92,