Loading...
09/09/1993 (2) t.. . .'r - ." DCAB DEVELOPMENT CODE AD.JUSTMENT BOARD DATE Oq(o't /0/-.3 c27- //g5- , ',',:~ ' : ,:', " , :. ' , '/',' ,', ", '.,", " . ,:,.., ", , '. '.' ," , :. " ", ," .'; ..,. '.' ..' "......, j , " "'-., _. ACTION AGENDA DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Thursday, september 9, 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. Time Extensions 1. Scott M Trefz (Gulf Bay Animal Hospital) continued from 8/26/93 for variances of (1) 6.25 ft to permit a building addition 3.75 ft from side property line where a 10 ft setback is required; (2) 7 ft to permit a building separation of 13 ft where 20 ft is required; and (3) 6 parking spaces to allow 22 spaces (including 7 temporary off site spaces) where 28 spaces are required at 125 S Belcher Rd, See 18-29-16, M&B 23.04, zoned CG (General commercial). V 93-02 Granted a six-month time extension to February 25, 1994. II. Public Hearings ITEM A - (Continued from 7/22/93) Eugene R smith III for a variance of 13.24 ft 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 Clearwa- ter, Unit 2, Lot 10 and part of Lot 11, zoned RM 20 (Multiple-Family Residential) V 93-45 Denied. ITEM B - (Continued from 7/22/93) 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, Blk 59, Lot 5, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) V 93-46 Granted as requested subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the sketch submitted today~ the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submi tted 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 lvithin six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. ITEM C - (Continued from 8/26/93) Georgia A. Miller for Variances (1) of 5 ft to allow a wooden fence 0 ft from property line where 5 ft is required; (2) of 5 ft to allow 0 landscaping where 5 ft is required; (3) to the requirement for a gate at intersection of Carlton street/east of Greenwood Avenue, Fairmont Sub, Blk G, Lot 9, zoned RM 12 (Multiple Family Residential). V 93-60 Continued to the meeting of september 23, 1993. DCAB Action 09/09/93 1 , ": ., I ~:, ,." I : ,.'~ . , " ;. I" ' ',,' .' , . . , , ',:.' . , I' ~". . , ,.. " ,..', . .. , ( " "...... .' ' f , 'WII....'.: 't"".,.......J/ 1. John 0 & Rita T McEnaney for a variance to allow a 4 ft high chain link fence within the structural setback area where no fence is allowed at 225 Harnden Dr, Bayside Sub, Lot 53 and land to the bulkhead, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coast) V 93-62 Granted as requested subject to the following condi tions: 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. Devia tion from any of the above documents submi tted 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. Jacqueline S Latimer for variances of (1) 10 ft to allow an inground pool 15 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 10 ft to allow an addition 15 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1050 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 68, Lot 13, zoned RS a (Single Family Residential) V 93-64 continued to the meeting of September 23, 1993. 3. Rayford & Betsy K Hixon Jr for variances of (1) 5 ft to allow a structure 39.5 ft in height where 34.5 ft is allowed; (2) 9 ft to allow a structure 16 ft from west property line; and (3) 20 ft to allow a structure 5 ft from south property line where 25 ft is required at 821 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay sub, Blk 39, Lot 1 and riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) V 93-65 Granted variances #1 and #3 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 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 one (1) year from the date of this public hearing. Continued variance #2 to the meeting of October 141 1993. III. Board and Staff Discussion IV. Novemb~r Meeting Schedule Canceled the meetings of November 11 and 25, and December 23, 1993. Scheduled one meeting for Wednesday, November 17, 1993. v. Adjournment Adjourned at 2:51 p.m. DCAB Action 09/09/93 2 ~. ' ;....."~'1 f DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD September 9, 1993 Members present: Alex Pliska, Chairman Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman John B. Johnson Joyce E. Martin Members absent: Otto Gans (excused) Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Lou Hilton, Planner II Ted Clarke, Planner It 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 9utlined 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 Florlda 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. Scott M Trefz (Gulf Bay Animal Hospitall continued from 8/26/93 for variances of (1) 6.25 ft to permit a building addition 3.75 ft from side property line where a 10ft setback is required; (2) 7 ft to permit a building separation of 13 ft where 20 ft is required; and (3) 6 parking spaces to allow 22 spaces (including 7 temporary off site spaces) where 28 spaces are required at 125 S Belcher Rd, See 18-29-16, M&B 23.04, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 93- 02 This item was continued on order for staff to provide clarification regarding whether or not these variances are necessary due to variances having been granted for this property on another, more recent, application (V 93.40; 7/8/93). A copy of the current site plan was provided, illustrating the necessity for these variances. It was noted a metal building, which was thought to have been removed. is still present on the site. Ms. Martin moved to grant a six-month time extension to February 25. 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ~.,1 DCAB Minutes 09/09/93 ,~ " ,. ~ ~ .. f ~~.f II. Public Hearings ITEM A - {Continued from 7/22/931 Eugene R Smith III for a variance of 13.24 ft 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 Planner Lou Hilton explained one variance to lot width was granted on July 22, 1993; however, the second variance request, stated above, was continued to allow the applicant time to reconsider the building design for the proposed townhouse units. He said the applicant has provided the required clear space to the north and the side setbacks seem to be incidental to the lot width in this zone. David Ramsey, engineer representing the applicant, restated his belief this is the best way to develop the property due to the City codes involved. The City Commission and the Design Review Committee have approved the application. One letter of objection was submitted for the record. The landlord of the adjacent Dearborn Towers expressed concern the proximity of the proposed building to their pool would violate the privacy of the pool users. Concern was also expressed the seawall on the subject property is in need of repair. Discussion ensued regarding the distance between the two buildings. Mr. Ramsey stated this property is too small to develop under the RM-20 zoning without variances. It was noted fewer units could be built and remain within the required setbacks. However, Mr. Ramsey said ten units are needed to make the project economically feasible and this was thought to ,be reasonable by the City Commission. Concerns were expressed the proposal seeks to maximize the property, does not enhance the City and is overcrowding. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown, other than financial; the hardship was. caused by the owner or applicant; the variance is certainly not tile minimum; the granting of the variance would detract from the appearance of the community and substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM 8 " (Continued from 7/22/93) Brian 0 Murphy tor a variance of 8 ft to allow a structure 17ft from street right-at-way where 25 ft is required at 959 Mandalay Ave, Mandalay Sub. BJk 59. Lot 5, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) V 93-46 DCAB Minutes 2 09/09/93 ,.-" Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to elevate l' the front porch of his single family home to the height of the front entrance to provide a better and safer access to the house. The proposal would encroach eight feet into the Mandalay Avenue setback. Brian Murphy, owner and applicant, submitted for the record amended drawings of the proposal, saying he has scaled it down by lowering a part of the platform. The proposal is necessary because the door opens toward the outside and it is awkward and dangerous having to step backwards down the steps ta open the door. In response to questions. Mr. Murphy stated the porch addition will not be enclosed and will extend further than the existing concrete walls framing the front steps. That is the reason for the variance. He said his house is small, and opening the front door to the inside would decrease his living space. Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. While concern was expressed with increasing a non-conformity, it was felt the proposal will be safer and will architecturally improve the front of the home by giving it a more finished look. ! \.h-t...-~'. Based upon the sketcb submitted today and 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 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 and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the way the door opens and the need to bring the porch up to the level of the existing porch subject to the following conditions: 11 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 21 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. ",,".-" DCAB Minutes 3 09/09/93 ITEM C - (Continued from 8126/931 Georgia A. Miller far variances (1) of 5 ft to allow a wooden fence 0 ft from property line where 5 ft is required; (2) of 5 ft to allow 0 landscaping where 5 ft is required; (3) to the requirement for a gate at intersection of Carlton Street/eastot Greenwood Avenue. Fairmont Sub, Blk G. Lot 9. zoned RM 1 2 (Multiple Family Residential). V 93-60 Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the applicant understood she was to be present. It was indicated there had been discussion with the applicant which could have caused her to believe she did not need to attend the public hearing. Staff was directed to ensure the applicant appears for the next public hearing or to refund her application fee. Assistant City Attorney Lance stressed the importance of discouraging outside discussion with applicants. Ms. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 23/ 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. /-. ... I f 1 , "'-'~' k , ~..;.. 1. John D & Rita T McEnaney for a variance to allow a 4 ft high chain link fence within the structural setback area where no fence is allowed at 225 Harnden Dr. Bayside Sub, Lot 53 and land to the bulkhead, zoned RS B (Single Family Residential) and ALlC (Aquatic Lands/Coast) V 93.62 Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant's single family home is located directly across the street from the hotel district, where a lot of pedestrians believe they are allowed to use his dock. In 1990, a variance was granted to permit a 30-inch-tall fence, which did not deter trespassers. The current request is for a four-foot-tall replacement fence, which has already been built. Ron Miller, owner and applicant, stated the City Building Official approved plans to build the four-foot fence within the setback area from the seawall and a permit was issued. This was verified by staff; however, it was indicated the permit was issued in error. In response to questions, Mr. Miller stated kids easily jump over the small fence and he is concerned he will be held responsible if someone gets hurt using his dock. One neighbor, neither in support nor opposition, asked for clarification why this fence is allowed. The situation was explained. Discussion ensued with it being felt, in view of tourists not knowing what is open to the public, the request is reasonable and does not negatively impact anyone. 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 because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by being in a tourist area, 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 far 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Jacqueline S Latimer for variances of (1) 10ft to allow an inground pool 15 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 10ft to allow an addition 15 ft from street right-Of-way where 25 ft is required at 1050 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 68, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residen- tial) V 93-64 Pursuant to a request from staff, Ms. Whitney moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 23, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. DCAB Minutes 4 09109/93 ~ 1, ,.~",~.,;, . ,. .. ., . It" ... .. " , : I . :,' [ , ,.. - ~ ' ,'.. " . . ' ' ,'".. , I , ' .~ ....... r \ 3. Rayford & Betsy I( Hixon Jr for variances of (1) 5 ft to allow a structure 39.5 ft in height where 34.5 ft is allowed; (2) 9 ft to allow a structure 16 ft from west property line; and (3) 20 ft to allow a structure 5 ft from south property line where 25 It is required at 821 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 39, Lot 1 and riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) V 93-65 Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to demolish an existing single-family house and construct a new single-family structure, elevated to meet flood requirements. On November, 1991, variances to the Verbena Street and Bay Esplanade right-of-way setbacks were granted for the expansion of the existing structure. In response to a question, he indicated accurate elevation drawings have not been submitted. , I ) .....". Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated variances have been granted to rebuild within the existing footprint; however, the No Name Storm caused flood damage to the property, and created a need to modify the design. He detailed the proposal, stating it is essentially the same as what was previously submitted, except is now elevated. In response to questions, Mr. Cline stated the applicants have not proceeded with the previous three variances, which are still in effect. The additional variances being requested were recommended by staff. Patty Stough, architect representing the applicant, responded to questions regarding the building design and site constraints and discussion ensued. Denise McCabe, representing the adjacent property owner to the south. spoke in support of the application, stating this is a welcome change to the area and will not block her client/s water view. Discussion ensued with regard to the proposal. It was felt the application is worthwhile, will improve the neighborhood and is necessary due to being adjacent to an unimproved right~of- way. However, concerns were expressed with the height and encroachment into the front setback. It was felt the proposal overbuilds the property. Betsy Hixon, the owner/applicant, explained repeated storm damage has led to the decision to elevate and construction has proceeded on schedule. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant variances #1 and #3 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 variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the size of the lot and its location beside an unimproved right-at-way 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 with regard to the site or any physicnl 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 one (1} year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. \ ......... DCAB Minutes 5 09/09/93 ("-"\ f, I "'i:>l" , ~ .. --- Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant variance #2 as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Soction 45.24 of the Land Devolopment Code, more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size 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 one (1) year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney voted "aye"; Messrs. Pliska and Johnson voted "nay". Due to a tie vote, variance #2 is automatically continued to the next meeting. (However, discussion ensued regarding whether or not the previous variances are still in effect due to the building design change and a longer continuance was felt to be necessary.) Mr. Johnson moved to continue variance #2 to the meeting of October 14, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ill. Board and Staff Discussion '\ It was requested the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation be agendaed for future meetings. Discussion ensued regarding the need for standards relating to discussion with property ownerslapplicants prior to a public hearing. IV. November Meeting Schedule Consensus of the Board was to cancel the meetings of November 11, 1993, November 25, 1993 and December 23, 1993. The Board scheduled one meeting for Wednesday, November 17,1993. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 2:51 p.m. tLC?#1 Chairman DCAB Minutes 6 09/09193