Loading...
07/22/1993 (2) ~. I~'," . .~. f..:.. I.. '..... . .' ~.. .....,:,'. . ~.' ',,"',r. ."' .. . . . . .~: DCAB DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DATE () 7 /:2.~/9...? c27 ~ / /Oy! ,"" c) ~j ACTION AGENDA DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Thursday, July 22, 1993 - 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. Eugene R. smith III for variances (1) of 25.12 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 124.88 ft where 150 ft is required; (2) of 13.24 it to allow a structure 12.00 ft from side property line where 25.24 ft is required at 301-307 Island Way, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 2, Lot 10 and part of Lot 11, zoned RM 20 (Multiple-Family Residential) . V 93-45 Action: Granted variance #1 as requested. continued variance #2 to the meeting of September 9, 1993. 2. Brian D. Murphy for a variance of 8 ft to allow a structure 17 ft from street right-of-way where 25 it is required at 959 Mandalay Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 59, Lot 5, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-46 Action: Continued to the meeting of September 9, ~993. 3. Thomas & Pamela Gleason for a variance of 5 ft to allow a structure 15 ft from rear property line where 20 ft is required at 1481 Country Oaks Ln, Country Oaks sub, Lot 5, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residen- tial). V 93-47 Action: Granted as requested subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done wi th regard to the site Dr any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite bui.lding permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. DCAB Action 1 07/22/93 " .: . . " :. .'.... .' . . j I . _' I . I, . . " . I I I . ,.' I ..' .... ..' .' . .' ~ . f", c) v ,The following Land Development Code Amendment was also considered: Ordinance No. 5413-93 of the city of Clearwater, Florida relating to allowable signage for existing commercial and industrial planned developments; providing for signage consistent with the provisions of section 44.51(4) (i) of the city Code for existing commercial and industr ial planned developments i speci f ically waiving codification; providing an effective date. Action: concurred with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and recommended approval with the strong additional recommendation that property address numbers be included on all signs and that the addresses for property owners be enforced in the city of Clearwater. II. Approval of Minutes of July 8, 1993 Approved as submitted. I III. Board and Staff Discussion IV. Adjournment Adjourned at 2:4~ p.m. ., DCAB Action 07/22/93 2 . . . ,J ' .' I '" . " I I...... ; . '" I: . I . . . . , '. ~ ~,' . . ~I'" ,...... j... . . . . '. ". " I ; .. ~ ~., iI. -'. . .'. ",.r'i~ :" , ~ DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD July 22, 1993 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chairman otto Gans John B. Johnson Joyce E. Martin Members absent: Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman (excused) Also present: Ted Clarke, Planner II Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II '. The meeting was oalled 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 appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. He noted Florida law requires any applioant 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 t. .~ order although not necessarily discussed in that order. "''1.;_.:' I. Public Hearings 1. Eugene R. smith III for variances (1) of 25.12 it to allow a minimum lot width of 124.88 ft where 150 it is required; (2) of 13.24 ft to allow a structure 12.00 ft from side property line where 25.24 it is required at 301-307 Island Way, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 2, Lot 10 and part ot Lot 11, zoned RM 20 (Multiple-Family Residential). V 93-45 Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct ten new elevated townhouse dwelling units on a previously platted, non-conforming lot. He felt there is a hardship due to the narrow width of the lot. David Ramsey, representing the applicant, stated the variances are needed to provide room to build on the property and to meet the zoning code. In response to questions, Mr. Ramsey said a typical sized unit is 14 feet by 60 feet with two living floors above a parking area. \~) DCAB Minutes 1 07/22/93 (-', I '.~...~' " t-...~,. Concerns were expressed the proposal is excessive and maximizes the density for the property. Mr. Ramsey felt a smaller project would not be feasible. In response to a question, it was indicated the building height limit is 30 feet with a ten foot height bonus if more than 50 percent of parking is under the structure. In addition, it was stated there are other multiple-storied structures in the area. William Molaxos, adjacent property owner to the north, spoke in opposition to the application. He felt the request would increase density, decrease surrounding property values and change the appearance of the area. In response to a question, he indicated he intends to obtain a building permit for his condominium association to construct its own driveway. When it was noted variance #2 is only for the sout.h side of the subject property, Mr. Molaxos withdrew his objection. Discussion ensued regarding the site plan and the required setbacks. It was indicated variance #1 is needed to bring the previously platted lot width into conformance. However, concerns were expressed with variance #2 and alternatives to the parking and building plans were discussed. Mr. Johnson moved to deny variance #2. There was no second. Mr. Ramsey felt the variances are necessary to make the property developable in accordance with the city zoning regulations. However , it was indicated the proposal is not the minimum and financial hardship is not grounds for granting variances. In response to a question regarding how long the applicant has owned the property, Mr. Ramsey indicated his client only has an option to buy at present. Concerns were expressed'regarding encroaching into the required open space. Mr. Ramsey was asked if he desired to continue the request to explore other options. While he felt this to be the best project for the property, he requested a continuance of variance #2 to allow time for the developer to examine other building alternatives for the property. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #1 as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 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 owner or applicant subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded DCAB Minutes 2 07/22/93 ..-. . I ......~..., and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "aye"; Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried. Mr. Gans moved to September 9, 1993. unanimously. continue variance #2 to the meeting of The motion was duly seconded and carried 2. Brian D. Murphy for a variance of 8 ft to allow a structure 17 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 959 Mandalay Ave, Mandalay Sub, B1k 59, Lot 5, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-46 ~lanner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to extend an existing deck, creating an elevated porch at front entrance height to provide a better and safer access to the house. Discussion ensued regarding the grade level of the existing deck and whether or not it is legal. Brian Murphy, owner/applicant, stated the existing structure is within the setbacks. The proposal is to improve the front of the house. The existing white concrete steps leading to the entrance make it difficult to get into the house because the front door swings outward. He stated he will not enclose the deck and his variance will allow him to finish the home improvements already in progress. In response to questions, Mr. Murphy stated he purchased the home on April 15, 1993 and did obtain the necessary permits to begin the improvements. He is only asking to cover the two white steps with a porch the same height as the front door. " Discussion ensued regarding what is proposed and what previously existed. Concern was expressed the porch will extend farther out than others in the neighborhood. There was discussion regarding whether a hardship exists due to the awkward entryway and it was felt an empty, open porch will not impact the view and will improve the character of the house. Photographs of the site and artists drawings of the proposal were discussed. A question was raised regarding a petition in support of the proposal submitted with the application. It was noted most of the signers are not within 200 feet of the subject property. Mr. Murphy stated he obtained the signatures of those who would see his house while driving to and from work during the day. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically DCAB Minutes 3 07/22/93 I'~."." " ,,"',. I{t ....i,: ,.' I',"I..~."", ~.' ..:.:.....,.,.. " .,' ':~":', J. .' ':'. ", (' ~~ because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or applicant and it looks feasible from a safety standpoint to protect people from falling while entering the dwelling subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect 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 upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin and Mr. Plisko voted Itaye"; Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "nayll. Due to a tie vote, this item will be continued to the next meeting. Mr. Gans moved to September 9, 1993 as the next meeting. unanimously. J. Thomas & Pamela Gleason for a variance of 5 ft to allow a structure 15 ft from rear property line where 20 ft is required at 1481 country Oaks Ln, Country Oaks Sub, Lot 5, zoned RS 4 (single Family Residential). V 93-47 continue the request to the meeting of Ms. Whitney will also not be in attendance at The motion was duly seconded and carried ....' Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a new single family residence. He noted a correction regarding the surrounding property use, stating the property to the east is a church, not a single family resi- dence, and is not within the City limits. Frank Krafsig, builder representing the applicant, stated he has been doing construction work for Mrs. Gleason's family since 1955. He said a previous contractor designed a house which will not tit on the lot without a variance. Mr. Krafsig stated he was asked to corne to work on the project and indicated financing has already been arranged. He said the home will be similar to others in the area and will comply with the front and side setbacks. He proposes heavy landscaping across the rear of the property. In response to a question, Mr. Krafsig stated the pool will be enclosed without any encroachment into the setbacks. One letter was submitted in opposition to the application, expressing concern the applicant proposes a house too large for the lot and lot clearing was done without permits. Mr. Clarke stated staff review determined the applicant did obtain the necessary lot clearing permit. ~ l..1L. . - - DCAB Minutes 4 07/22/93 fr~ ......-.p \...,,/ Discussion ensued regarding the application with it being indicated five feet is minimal and there is nothing abutting the rear of the property except a ravine. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in section 45.24 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 owner or applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the appli- cant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 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. The following Land Development Code Amendment was also considered: Ordinance No. 5413-93 of the city of Clearwater, Florida relating to allowable signage for existing commercial and industrial planned developments; providing for signage consistent with the provisions of section 44.51(4) (i) of the city Code for existing commercial and industrial planned developments; specifically waiving codification; providing an effective date. Planner Ted Clarke stated this proposed ordinance went before the Planning and Zoning Board on July 14 and they recommended the total area of signs along US 19 be increased from 112 to 150 square feet. Denise McCabe, representing clearwater 19 Commerce Center, said the center property is set back a considerable distance from US 19 and can accommodate over 100 tenants who have no attached signage. She said the tenants rely on one freestanding sign along US 19, and she contrasted this with commercial shopping centers which are allowed to have attached signage on their storefronts. A question was raised regarding the location of the center. Ms. McCabe stated it is on the east side of US 19, north of Drew street near a Toyota dealership. Concern was expressed with the lack of address numbers on property identification signs, making it difficult to locate addresses in Clearwater. Consensus of the Board was to recommend requiring address numbers on signs and for this to be strictly enforced. DCAB Minutes 5 07/22/93 ~', . . . > . ",: . '.",.' .. .' ~ . . ~ I '. '. u."'. ' ... , . . ',' .. ,,' ~., . . . 'j' .:' '. . .J' ... t ,r.... Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment subject to the total area of signs along US 19 be increased to 150 square feet as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board and further recommended that property address numbers be included on all signs and that the addresses for property owners be enforced in the city of Clearwater. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Approval of Minutes of July 8, 1993 Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of July 8, 1993, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. III. Board and Staff Discussion Discussion ensued regarding the request to begin the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and an invocation. It was felt while this would lend an air of formality to the meeting, this procedure was not necessary to the proceedings and would extend the length of the meeting. staff was requested to research how many city Boards open with the Pledge and an invocation. Mr. Johnson moved, effective september 9, 1993, to adopt an opening procedure whereby the Pledge of Allegiance will be led by the Chairman, said by the entire assembly and a standard invocation be ('" given by alternating members. The motion was duly seconded and '-'" upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Pliska noted "nay". Motion carried. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 2:41 p.m. ./. c;At<-'~ C. /1l~----- 1/t..tL- Chairman f , \-,/ DCAB Minutes 6 07/22/93