07/28/1994 (2)
:~>: .
~~ '/' ~.'
l~~:~.:.
:,~:F" ",
;~ ,:;~.. \: .
~~t:: ~', '.
4~'fi,'. >.
r~j.} .
'.~;;.r->:. ~";":: . ':
f,""" - ,
~~if:~~'~:~~;': ::, ';.::
~"l}:.!..:". .'
:c-~..1' .. ....
II,I11/;:
"fiJ:"'";"o,, '. ;., . .
'~l~i;:};/'..'"
!:.n~~~\:~c<~,:'" I ~; :
~t\~:'l,'""" .
';r,~' t';~.~~~!~ ~<I::..;J 't..'
O\'\-'f.~~t;:;.~ i,; ::.'-.;.;.
~A,"~"'"", "
, ~p~"':.~:'!!~ ":11".,. :[""
~:;'~\\r", "I f' ,.. . "
~~:r::::",,:-~ '.:',: ,... . " ,
j~r);\-':I" y ",. > t .' .' ..'
'1"" " . .,...
" ~~;:~:i;,;:.' .
~r, '~..l", ....
. .' ",1, ,
"
~J',tl'l "" ., '.' .
re:~;h~r/'~:,.:..~'<!: ,;, :-."'.' .
y1"....~;~~.L{ ~." :~'-:' ","
H!i!~" ',1 't .t. ~\~ ,~,' ,
X~. \.;.;':;'~f.\.' ...'.~. \ '.
" l' ""-I . . '. " . ,
i!l'1t'f"!-;"~':' '.' '.':.
~~~1~:,~.;>;..>;:' .
~UJ.:f."".. .." . ,
~~Wir>
~~;:\!~#;~~)';.;:.:;!?>~\:.;,:"':~, "2 ':~.' ,C~:'~ .. :'-' ,
'~'Y"J'!'~"""".:"::';'I'~ '"."......,.,\ ~'-","-' :' """ ,. .>...:.....i:t.1_..f. :'J' " ..'.
.oeor.:lL-a;iI"J.(~'"'tf _' h .",.'.t, '-'(;',', ~:t' ...' ", . "'J~' ...., ~~.: '" ,. ,ff.~~~' I~ ....~.J-.~
!:-~ 1~"iJlr(~?t!.~i};;~ ~:~~.~;,:,':,~lk:,~' i~;'~';";"(~: ~!:~ :; +~"-':- '. " tifT",. ;..;- V~ [" ~ ::+ ~t! V, \......~. ~ ~.~ ",,~:. "t. ';, ~, ~..:" ';L':~<~\ ~."
j{;/ :/: . _:. i'.::"
" .
.', <
...' ',- ~:.
;; ;
~;,}"'\, .
......., '.
...;,..~""~.......'L/...4.'I\..f.:~':.
'.\.
. .
. ' .
,'''.,. ~
:~~.
.('~ J .'
. +-, ~ ..
, ,. . ~ \ '
t ".fj
DeAB
Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
Date
);/"4' .,~ /f'lll
Iv/! ?
'.
.~. .
." :
"'~-~~;~~1~j~i$7_~~
".+"
'.'~ { I
..
.;
. ::,~';;.
1-' / ,r
....
'~. ~ J. ":
"""0 I,} ~ '.
'wI.
":"~ '\,
!i"~i ... .
.~~.;... "
~~~':> .
{'~~t~ "
:~':""';~
1'':''\ '.1
~;>, .' , .
.I..' ..'
;;:, ,,,~:,.
,rh.c.
~'~:~::":. "
f.>':. .
~~. ~.
<<ta0t~~~::";;~~~:~~,~~~i:.;,.~r~i!fr.,:' J' i:L~'<~{'~~~~"~:::i:~'\~'/~:~~::: ~t~;: ~I~'~~ :::~'.~~..:,~,~:. ~j' :',: ..~::~.~<. >~';:;~i .~:~ .'.~ ~':.:~;::~'.' ::'I~::I:. J:;"',;~~'~.5~.}t"
. " .., . ." '.. . ..., ,l:,.~"..S:.1l",r~<<~Y~~~~""'fu'M-""4j"~~""\"'j.'~'';'';'"\-":1""'.- '!'t'~~1;..>"'k!'-;}'~';i:ir'
~':~".:\,t:.:;/~.: ~:,"y : .... :.' ,.... . . , . . . .. ,... "'!I~".~>"Nl\)(~\~~~~1f.;.?'~':t~~;:l*~~J1~~;~~~~*t:.i~~f.t~f,~ .
;~~t~fj~i~k,i~;~d~:";'~~';:;':':"<i'>:":'e.~.: '.:~;.:,:, ':,', . '" ':,:, ,::"; : . .'. .' -: ""~'7';"~"'~;';~:"l/:" .,~~,.;,,'j\;~~.:( t;
,,:'~" (: ~ .
'::;."
o
.... .
,~. .
: .~:. ~ .
.~. - ..
.1 "
"
, .
t .
';'0"
'. .1
',. .... .
/ "
.r.:~~ .
'-:~:,".. -'..
1(:'" " .
J...~ .
"'~ c~
~1. ~ .
\-1:: ~
i{<'
, .
iA(,:.'
n(~...
".~. . " .
!"I" .
,... .
. .~~ ,
~: 'T:: '.: .
'. ~.... r
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUS~NT BOARD
Thursday, July 28, 1994 - 1:00 p.m. - Commission Meeting Room,
City Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida
To consider req1:lests for variances of the Land Development Code:
I.
Public Hearings
1. ClearWater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for variances of (1) 8 it to permit
a setback of 17 ft from a street right-of-way (Jurgens 8t) where 2S ft is required; (2) 15 ft to
permit a setback of 10 it from a street right-of-way (Metto St) where 25 it is required; (3) 32
ft to permit a minimum lot depth of 78 it whe~e 110 ft is required for a double frontage lot to
allow a new detached single family dwelling at 913 Jurgens St, Palm Park Replat, Blk B, Lots
3 and 4, zoned RM 8 (Multi-Family Residential). V 94--40
Action:
Continued to August 11, 1994.
, . 2. George W. and Jeanette A.M. Godfrey for variances of (1) IDA percent to permit
. a minimum open space for the lot of 49.6 percent where 60 percent is required; (2) 23 percent
. to permit a minimum open space for the front yard of 52 percent where 75 percent is required;
, . '. (3) 4 ft to permit a structural setback of 31 it from a street right-of-way (Camden Rd) where 35
ft is required; (4) 2 it to permit a wall height of 8 ft where a maximum height of 6 ft is
permitted in a structural setback area from a street right-of-way (Second St E) where the
property is not .addressed from; (5) 12 it to permit a minimum lot width of 88 ft where 100 ft
. is required; (6) 9 it to permit a structural setback of 26 it from a street right-of-way (Second St
E) where 35 ft is required to allow a new detached single family dwelling at 2783 Camden Rd,
Chelsea West Sub, Lot 13, zonedRS 2 (Single Family Residential). V 94--41
. .
Action:
Denied
. . 3. Steven R. and Carolanne Krakower/Red Ribbon Homestead for a variance of 7
parking spaces to permit zero additional parking spaces required for a change of use to a Level
. .,n group care facility where 7 parking spaces are required at 1109-1131 Pinellas St, Georgas
'. Sub, Lots 2, 3, 13, 14 and 15, zoned RM,12 (Multi-Family Residential). V 94-42
Action:
Continued to August 11, 1994.
. .,.. .' ," . . I . ." . ". .: . . .', I' +....".. r '-, ," '. ..' '.. _." ... '.. .
:', .': , . . ...1 . . ;:'" .' , I...." , ..... . . . . ' . , '.. . J, .' , .' '" .' '.' . . .' . ' '. -rl-. . I . ,. :' ." '. ~ . . '. '.. '.
!"I'!.fl' :! j ~ .' I
~+~'~;~ ~ -:' .
:",0
t .
i'
'';..
....
:!~~ .
;f~
.
!;I.... >
'. .
\\.i
1,.
f',: '
.1:\\ ,
r;"
~" .
~~~".' .
~,.J "
~i':' . .
'l-C:" .
{"'" .
j~:;;.' .
~ ....~ :
~;:~.;.- ' .
~l;'f :.~. . >.
~~"~ '~,' .
P' .
" .
" .
-: .:' ~ <
':;y~ ~ .:
: :_.... t , c
.: ~ .'
\i~' :~."
':.<.' . . ~-,
~.:: .: . . "
. .
'J ;;~ .
'!.~/,:c .;.:" .
"J.., .
~:;;:'i'<' .'
1:1;~~:.': .~~
.4 j'~' ~ '':,' ..' c
(;;/~. It' I .
~c;cLi . .
tit.,. ,
~i~;~X:,:: ;:::
'J.,." .. .
~%-~V:(~:'.: .
'/1.<1<r:. """.,
~~~t;~t~:::::.. ':' .'
~\'I'IO>':"'"
~~%tf\' ~,,: . "
i~.......,' .
~~!\:.';~' ':, '.,.
~&;~';!'" " '.
~:j~";c' "'C.C., . .
~<!I:'"";,, ,
;J~~;~; :,~'.)::: ",,: .
~":; ... '
~t{'~.. ..'
t.i:J,.... .
r.~:>:'" .'.,:;" L'.
i'it~i}" ~ . .' .
:P ...
~~}I~~:" :.'.~ .~:":C; ~ "
'';:'\: .'.; .'
(" ~:. .:. "
. ~~'\:']-::'" ~." .
\.-: .
1~.. ~. .: ..
4. Christopher G. and Caroline K. Roetzer f6r variances of (1) 3.5 ft to permit a fence
height of 6 ft where 2.5 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback area from a street
right-of-way (Sunset Point Rd) where the property is addressed from; and (2) 2 ft to pennit a
fence height of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback from a street
right-of-way where the property is not addressed from at 3001 Sunset Point Rd, Sec 4-29-16.
M&B 23.03, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 9~43
Action:
Denied
5. Cynthia Afendoulis for a variance of 3.5 ft to pernlit a structural setback of 21.5 ft
where 25 ft is required from a street right-of-way (Kipling Plaza) to allow expansion of existing
front entrance at 66 Kipling Plaza, Mandalay Sub, Blk 45, Lots 1-3 ,and part of Lot 4, zoned
RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-44
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 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(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing.
,TI. ,Approval of Minutes - None.
'Board and Staff Discussion
'.. m.
IV.
,Adjournment
. The meeting was adjourned at 3:44 p.m.
actdc07b.94
07/28/94
2
Of. rl.
'd~::' . . ....- ... ',' ~'*'f~\.\t~....w~~it~~~i::'ki."r~';!IM ~~!)4i~f.k~~~:'~ '~i.<\.~~;':~rt.t-''''':'~l~~'~'::'/i~~i.,:~,.;~~/:~t~~:.;;\~~~'~i~~~:(:;}~~.'
'f" , , . . . . . , ,G>(~'l\'.,.:~'tI~fti;' '. ,1!fu:;',' <';"""'i'" ..~ ,....y::'l 11 it' ;.\'~~A
;krir;~I<;: '..:, /':>:'. i ""'.::' "', , "" '. " ..".... :'.. ' .. . ...'i,,~.!~~~ :;"f"" ~" 'i}1$'j'i-.'N:."X^' '
~~Wjt~1~fj~tg~j~;,~Ei,~;:/,i:;~<L'i.~':~';~:l;;~;"c):~.':;,: ".'.::~ <;..:>,.'.)::, ',:.;::..:::I<~; "'~ : ,). .'. '.:, "... . . . ,. . " ,~" " .' .:'~:: :. . ''. .' -.', '.
. .'. . . '. '.. . ~ . .' . . + I '. ,.' . , . . . " . ,.. : . . , .: . . . . ~.' '.
!;~,;~ ~~,' .,.;.,-. .
\T.~
;.
. '!
~ , '.,
.~
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 28, 1994
Members present:
, .
Alex Pliska, Chair
Otto Gans
Joyce E. Martin
John B. Johnson
1.- .~
. ;
Absent:
-':./
< .
~I' p.
.'
,.'
Emma C. Whitney, Vice~Chair (excused)
;./ ' .
~ . T
"
~L . ,
'.. . Also present:
- "
t.......
tKi::': . ~ohn Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department
~r:i,,~~:i~S~~~. ~:~~~~~e~1l0mey (Mr. unce departed at 2:35 p.m.)
~~;S::.:'.:., . The' meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City
t1.:,.., : Hall. ,.~. Jo~on lead ~e Pledge of Allegiance and invocation. Mr. Plisko outlined
~;~"'O...:. procedures and,advised anyone adversely affected.by any decision of the Development Code
tA';;:.. ....' '. Adj'ustmentBoard may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. He
tt\. ,.~. .: ' noted Florida law requires any, applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of
~~:\,:. ,:.,.:' . the proceedings to support the appeal.
. .'- .
, ~",' .
I', '.~ .' '"
. ". In: order "topmvide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily
discussed' in -that order.
f,'.:,.... ,
:::::!.~ CC L
!Jo~~.. .
~I.:...... ~. c .
/';~~..;~:' .... 'L"
~i~.~.;\:.: '. ..' . 1. Clearwater' Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for variances of (1) 8 ft
~Yrf.~:,~:,.~;~ j ~: ,
W':': . '. . to permit" a setback of 17 ft from a street right~of-way (Jurgens St) where 25 ft
,~)\~,...:: . is required; (2) '15 ft. to permit a setback of 10 ft from a street right-of-way
~,:,ii.'.l.i..,:.~.~.\,.. .. ..' ~::~:t)~ ~~~ei;~~~~~~q~~e~; J~~~~ r:r~on~gr::~: :=~ma l~~~~:c~~~
.,.,. single'family dwelling at 913 Jurgens 8t, Palm Park Replat, Blk B, Lots 3 and
i1."';j.", .', '. " . . .' . 4, zonedRM 8 (Multi-Family Residential). V 94-40
i?\:';:':'~':, .'. ',.,:'
'(~r~~,',:~', "':'",.., '," 'A :letier.: from .Jeri:y . Spilatro, Assistant Executive Director/Loan Officer for Clearwater
i(< "'... . . . d ", ' .
~f;,~\:;:.:(" . . .' Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc., requested this variance request be put on hold due to the
{W~r.:', : ..... '~., \':. hoOleowner's' s~lection of a new contractor and floor plan. Staff recommended continuance until
!f!~":: .:' . <." . ~. the applidmt files another request.
:.' :~~,. .. " . ,. . . ., , ' .
~1'J . (~ ~., c. .....
f~tt:1':j'b .:.:.~ ~ .",
'~Y:IC',:. ':.' '~ind~07b.94
.~ ~'<
.:!~}tj .::::.:
:,:~~:~.<.. ,?,
'0/:' '
I\.i:;-..,~: <. L c'
~. : -.;'
. .
. .
1
07/28/94
:.~
~. .
l~~.-......n~ ~'j" . J''; . < ,", ~.~."':.' i: :;":..) .'.) . -' :,,~ !.. T' "f4 :. ',"." ..: ~" ., '.," " """ .',^ -I. .: .:~I ,'.: ,:'...., ~ '.~.: :.~ .~-~. -~. ;.....~-:.~~.,.I:w.<<;
. .' . '.. ';, ...... "'<>';'\<';~\A\>j$;~;*i*'V~\'d~t:J1t;{.ii~~M'"'<';>;.W1!~t~':~m";"'t';'),Ji;-:;p.~,:,;'.:,.;~,1)F;;'~"J~'~::>j;"'i:)il...~f'.;.i"'::';):i.:','~;l~~t~
'(. ,.. . , .' ',.. , . . . . .,. ...~H"..~.!.{,~....l(.iJ.. '" t '.'- '~'f..., . ''''''. ~",., ....... )"'~ . '" "'~"'Iq."
~~,.~r..~.':~'~;,f;"r ~ .\, " : :..' :' .~.>,.<...:-1-.". :.'.. ..,..~.. .. . T"~ ""\-~1.'1 11.. ,r;~.~~j.,...:t& .. .,1 .".' r:J....!~;~ ;",~"J\~.1:..\:~~~~~. ~~
~},'t4~~[}~*~;'~~t'::~~(;~~:..:(::.).<~.\/:",\~~~.>~.::(";'::;':':'" : .i./ .'. ,::..';:;:j;:' "!>>::>. .,: ".::"' ". ...... " ". '.~. ~...:': ;, \> ~~'::;""" ~' " " ,,~~". . :Jl[~Rt (~
,. . .' . .,...'.' '. . " L ., . . . ":'. . .. ..' '. . . .. . I " .'. . ~: " .. . .
r;
, .c
. .'
.~~'
,
. ~'.
o
~' '1
;>
"I "
" .
I ~. .
~"'
(~~~. .
~r~:'.
.,
"0
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item until August 11, 1994. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
2. George Wand Jeanette A M Godfrey for variances of (1) 10.4 percent to
permit a minimum open space for the lot of 49.6 percent where 60 percent is
required; (2) 23 percent to permit a minimum open space for the front yard of 52
percent where 7S percent is required: (3) 4 ft to permit a structural setback of 31
ft from a street right-of-way (Camden Rd) where 35 ft is required; (4) 2 ft to
permit a wall height of 8 ft where a maximum height of 6 ft is permitted in a
structural setback area from a street right-of-way (Second St E) where the
property is not addressed from; (S) 12 ft to permit a minimum lot width of 88 ft
where 100 ft is required; (6) 9 ft to permit a structural setback of 26 ft from a
street right-of-way (Second St E) where 3S ft is required to allow a new detached
single family dwelling at 2783 Camden Rd, Chelsea West Sub, Lot 13, zoned
RS 2 (Single Family Residential). V 94-41
Chairman Pliska declared a conflict of interest regarding this case. Mr. Gans assumed the chair
and explained a unanimous vote would be required for approval. The applicant did not object.
Senior Planner John Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants request
approval of variances to build a two story, single family residence. The subject property is a
double frontage lot with the rear property line running along 2nd Street E. The 88-foot wide
lot is substandard in size because properties in this zoning district require a minimum 100-foot
lot width. The applicants maintain they cannot meet the front yard development requirements
and open space conditions for this zoning district because of the lot's substandard width and
irregular shape.
The proposed building with StOO~ square feet of floor area is within the required setbacks on
20,008 square feet of land. Due to the lot's configuration, the front covered portico extends into
a small triangular area, four feet into the front setback.
A variance requested for wall height relates to a proposed, eight-foot high, stone waterfall within
the birdcage that the applicants intend to create as a backdrop for a lap swimming pool. An
existing six foot high masonry wall encloses the property on the west. Mr. Richter stated the
waterfall could be eliminated but noted, because of substantial backyard vegetatioDt it would be
difficult to see over the six foot rear wall.
The applicants note hardships experienced in the layout of the building due to the lot's
configuration. Locating the garage and paved driveway on the south of the property has usurped
space necessary for vehicle maneuverability and required the curvilinear design for the driveway.
Following the pattern of neighborhood developmentt the building will align with the rear of
existing structures.
Staff feels the stroctural setback variances from the street rights-of-way are minimal. The
variance to the minimum lot width requirement is not self imposed on this existing subdivision.
mindc07b.94
2
07/28/94
_~'fi~~i'~j;~~:la:kJ~J;~;;,io.);:;~.-.(,,~~.....t~..~-,_.. - - ... -.......~...:1~."d.,i: (;-...",~: '.),~,::. . ',:"', '. ,.::;,,;...',~. :':'.~."r. <,:;', ~:; ;'., ''';,~.</::)/.i';/~:;: :j;~~j:;:d(,.::.~){~>,~:~(,:.;~;:fA~~~
~ l . .. 'c
. f'..',' '.
I' .-.... ,.
~...~.~i.:'.L/'~~~~.: ,....,.
.,.
. ~':.".' '. " .. . " '. "... . . I . .~ ~ . . '. . . .', I ,
~ '. '. .' '," .. .' '. . . '. ~ t : . - .'. ~. -... .~~' '. " . " "t . .' '. '. 0 '.~ .....:: t "k .... '.' . ' .. '.' -; .' ..' ... .: " ': . ~. . . . ." ". ';.... :.....:
. . .
~
.0
.'.' :
~.'. . .'
-:", ':'
s .
". '~
s'-..
;.. .
.:.' .
~, ."
.<
L,TK:. ,
f~,t.:,:, .
f<,.
~j~ ~\: ~
;' ~J: '
~.' '.
r.';.
;".'!;"
., "!.
'c',:.
The front yard open space variance is associated with the narrow lot frontage. Apparent
hardship exists due to the unique situation caused by the narrow frontage and pie~shaped lot.
The proposed building setback will be consistent with existing area structures and will follow
the pattern of development in this neighborhood. The variances requested will enable the
applicants to make a reasonable use of their property. Mr. Richter stated the variances requested
meet the standard of approval based on special conditions, are not requested for financial gaint
and satisfy the spirit and intent of the code.
Mr. Richter stated each lot in the developmentt subdivided in 1987, has a minimum 20,000
square feet. almost 1/2 acre. He noted some of the 13 trapezoidal lots back up to a 100 foot
Florida Power easement. Variances issued in 1987 permitted the subdivision's enclosure by a
six foot wall and setbacks of the perimeters narrowed to 25 feet. Mr. Richter noted variance
#6 can be deleted because the proposed design meets rear setback requirements.
He explained the variance requested for the front yard is due to the curvilinear driveway. The
pool and deck triggers the need for a variance for required open space in the back yard. He
indicated boards traditionally have granted variances to width requirements. This one request
would have been approved by staff had it been the only variance requested. Mr. Richter stated
eliminating the curvilinear drive would require the construction of a sidewalk from the front
door to the single-wide driveway. Substantial jockeying would be required to accommodate cars
in the driveway.
Mr. Richter stated the few empty lots in the subdivision are trapezoidal in shape and will be
subject to similar developmental difficulties. He noted most neighborhood homes have pools.
Lot 3 meets the backyard open space requirements because it lacks a pool. In answer to a
question, Mr. Richter stated staff did not locate other variances approved for this subdivision. .
George W Godfrey, applicant, indicated he and his architect spent a considerable amount of time
designing a house to fit on the lot because of the subject property.s narrow frontage and its
double frontage setbacks. He expressed his desire to avoid dominating the entryway with a vast
expanse of garage~
Mr. .Godfrey explained variance #3 was required because a small comer of the portico,
consisting of a covered, columned entry way designed to grace the front of the house in a manner
similar to established neighborhood standards, would extend four feet into the front setback. He
noted the intrusion of the cuI de sac affected this need and the house would sit deeper on its lot
than neighboring properties. He considered the portico necessary to protect visitors from
inclement weather.
Mr. Godfrey stated his request for variance #2 was based on his family's need for a fro~t yard
turnaround and visitor parking. He noted the storm sewer's location in front of his property and
. the narrowness of his lot limited street parking availability. He expressed his desire to avoid
disturbing neighbors with his visitors parking automobiles in front of their houses.
mindc07b.94
3
07/28/94
.~~:.~.i-;1?;'i>~.';"~::"'~;/::',';'~~: ..,,,:..~I}:~.I.. ~'.'~t, ":~I.)pj,;'~-"---''''''''''''''''''''~~'''''''~''''~';r''~"i-~':' \'~>. .~' ' ~~~~ ." ,'. -~ .;... < t. '" . .' _ .~,. . .' .':'. l~~(~
~~v~~~;.... d:~f.J.~~~W"Ylij; ..t.~""~, J{J} 1.~)....".~-i~:t.I,.... .r...., .~. ~~LV I. '.~ ~t. '1.(..,-"" ..", '\' ~ ' >1' 'l~.'. ... .".,. . " ".' ,'n,' 21....
'.:~ 'l~~.f,.'{.!'!i'l'';'''" ,'.' ". . . .. ..-.,.. '.,....:..,..;.."..,..!.,.. ;.;::.,.i!.;~.:;.~:~:~,.:,:.(../.~.:,:;{..,:~!;y;:.."..,).\~:~:~;~:1
. '~.' '. :.' " . ' ". ~ .
.~}<. .:: .:. OJ: J '.
'. . , _ '. : . ~. .' ", .,. ~ . .. .. 4 .. '. '.' .. '. ". . . ~., . .
r)
,
.~ '.
>0
" ~ ~
,. ~,
"
. '., .
j' .."
..; ..' , ~ 1 .
~:!.:. '
~.... . .
(.~
,. .
, .
i;,"
(, .,
~., ..' ..
.." .
~.;'.' '.
. '.,
'.'
>, .-
~;.:_\:. '.
'~~ .:.
..1),1,' . .
J'(.:~.' "
~;~:': ". .
!-,':
f<@,
):
\"<' ;:> .
I. '.' '. .
..of
,.' .
Mr. Godfrey explained his request for variance #1 was based on the subject property's shape.
No variances would be necessary if the lot were rectangular. The building's design was juggled
to incorporate less than 25% of the lot's size. The long driveway, designed to be as narrow as
feasible, is responsible for most of this request. The remainder is for installation of a modest
size pool. He indicated most homes in the development have pools. He noted a 3% open space
variance was granted the property two doors away. In response to a question, Mr. Godfrey
stated the pool will be 36 feet by 14 feet. He has not decided to include a spa.
Mr. Godfrey referred to his request for variance #4 and submitted a picture for the record of
an eight foot high waterfall, tapering to six feet on the sides, similar to one he has planned for
inclusion at the edge of the pool within his birdcage. He stated neighbors would not be able to
see it and expressed surprise it might offend them. He indicated his grounds as well as greenery
within the pool area would be professionally landscaped. In response to a question, Mr. Richter
indicated the variance is required because the waterfall is regarded as a wall. The code treats
birdcages separately.
Charles Brown, 2132 Camden Way, stated his lot backs up to the subject property. He objected
to requests for variances #1 and #2 and expressed concerns about plans to cover most of the
front yard with driveway. He felt adequate street parking was available and expressed concerns
that water runoff would be affected if too much green space was covered with impenneable
materials. He objected to the location of the planned birdcage.
Daryl Saylor, 2131 Camden Way, said the requests for variances #1 and #2 did not meet the
standards for approval. He felt the structure would be injurious to neighbor properties and affect
the harmony of the code.
Rory Hiller, 2751 Camden Road, past president of the neighborhood association, felt the
building's large footprint does not conform with City code. He said he was able to locate his
garage in the front of his house on his trapezoidal lot. He indicated water rises to his fence
from the retention pond behind his property. He expressed concern the proposed home would
increase the runoff. He expressed concerns about building a large house for a family with no
children. He felt street parking was adequate. He opposed the waterfall because it c01lld be
seen over the back wall and would be loud enough to disturb neighbors.
Marvin Cutson, 2791 Camden Road, objected to the variances. He noted green space
requirements were followed when 22 other properties were developed and felt approval of these
variances would be an injustice to those who built according to established criteria.
Robert Beckwith, 2794 Camden Road, objected to four of the requested variances. He felt the
lot was too small for the large house proposed. He felt no unique hardships existed.
Robert Nussear, 2136 Camden Way, felt the house was too large and would negatively impact
the value of neighboring homes. He expressed concerns regarding setting a precedence for
future development. He felt limiting the green area would negatively impact water runoff.
mindc07b.94
4
07128/94
~ltti:l'1~~t;,t~~~i~1li~:~{~~':"{~~._.lJ'~~' J ',' ~,~ :.~~. ."i'..ll.r.:..,i:~iJtt~',~rArJvt.u...._-- ..
~~~.~~~,""~.(':Y'""" . .
>.;~~.<'<~ ~, ,,' '
~I. '." r : .
~ T . .
lt~<'f('::::'~~:(:":'::,:.,..,,, .
'--,-"\<;o.~",. ~'cj~,)i.~: \;';'~~' ',c.; ~i.' :,;: .:,(.;:' <:'~'l~<' ;:,:.:.;,;:\;.>~: ','fl.;;. ; ~'.;, :<; ~:: '>~\J.~;;;i?;:;;~:~>r~~i:i.:~:.,~,:~~ i;:j~
.' '. ~ I I . +',. l ~ I ~. . , ' ' . ': . '.:',' . ~ +. :. . . 'j. :. .' . .. .'." . . L. .,. . . ,
'-'
t)
, "
,:
,
.' '.
::":0
..
,
,',';
" "
~'.' .':
," ~ - '
~ t. '" .
i.' .
. '.
, .
(: '
~: .
~ .:;, ~ .
'c.' .
I'. .'
,
--,'. ,
','
:+"
~:..: ' , r '
~ ~ .' \ .
.~. r, ; ~",
--" ~~ .'.
,~.~ 1 ".
;~~~ ~ .
~.;" ~ ;'~ .
~\. ,. .'
. "';.~ , ~ ,
".:~ ~. ~
;.;<, .
~'':O'.
. ~.'
. . .
~,~:~.. .
, ..
.:1 .
Judy Mitchell, 2151 Camden Way, noted neighbors have closely adhered to development
restrictions. She spoke against variances #1 and #2 because of their negative effect on limiting
green area. She felt permitting this non conformance would alter the subdivision's appearance
and violate the general spirit of the neighborhood.
Mike Johnson, vice president of Republic Bank and representative for the original developer,
ReF Stevens, spoke in opposition to all six variances.
Theresa Peterson, 2779 Camden Way, expressed concern about the destruction of the
neighborhood's aesthetics if the green space requirements were limited. She opposed variances
#1 and #2. and stated her desire to guard this tree preserve.
Richard Heiden, attorney for the homeowner's association, noted deed restrictions limit home
constluction to a minimum 3,000 square feet in size. He felt this house would be twice as large
as other homes in the neighborhood. He said the circular drive in the front yard and drive along
the property line was not totally responsible for limiting green space. He felt the planned
structure was too large for the lot and needed to be reduced in size and designed within setback
limits to be in compliance. He expressed concern that 28 to 30 trees would be destroyed. Mr.
Heiden spoke in opposition to variance #4. He noted the falling water from the waterfall would
be loud, and the structure would be visible over the back wall.
Mr. Heiden submitted for the record pictures of every house in the subdivision. Sixteen letters
in opposition were submitted. All but one were from subdivision residents.
Mr. Godfrey stated engineering studies concluded the construction would have no affect on the
nearby retention pond. He indicated the house is designed with 3,400 square feet of living space
on the first floor, and 2,000 square feet on the second. He noted the house next door is larger.
He felt the number of people who live in a house should have no bearing on its size, but
indicated he and his wife have a college aged child plus married children and grandchildren who
visit.. He reported the waterfall could not be heard from 15 feet away. In answer to a question,
Mr. Richter indicated the pool deck and waterfall area will cover 2,300 square feet.
Concern was expressed that so many variances were needed to adapt a structure to the subject
property. Concern was expressed that too many variances were requested. It was felt that
standards of approval did not support the approval of variances #1 and #4 because these would
negatively affect the neighborhood's harmony. It was suggested the applicant may want too
much in his desire to build a beautiful home on a beautiful piece of property .
Concerns were expressed regarding the house's relationship to the green space and the proposed
destruction of trees. It was felt the planned house, being larger and more imposing than
neighboring ones, would be destructive of the view. It was recommended that changes be
considered to reduce the need for variances.
It was noted most of the opposition to this plan was to variances #1, #2, and #4. Concerns were
expressed that new standards of approval would be established if these requests were approved.
mindc07b.94
5
07/28/94
~1T~~.;ii:fJ'i~1,:.:I.~ ~"':'" . '')"'' \"1 ""'.:~;"".~ ." ,,'. :.->h,:...----
~v~~'};1,tl.:V'~IlJ/,;;,.{f)j"""".:...lI'j.r,..J)~
~ ~"j ,', .
....- ~......u.. ~':""r~.~:..-....t~... ~1.:';"... ~. ,~ :. , ".,.. ",+. ':. .'. . .. ~..:.' .'. ~ :...., :'~'~'1~~~"7"~
. .. ,....".2;., L.r.... ...;~.A" .....r......... ~~. . \., . ,1..,. -. . ~. t 'f.~" . . .', , " . . I!:l
. . - , .... ,,' , ,. ,.', ~.';!.v'<~ .J,::..: ,,"'~t;.l~~~::~.'~~;:;'.~-/;.~~;~.:;~ir~:::>WL~j:l~':'i
~~7/." ~. !.' ~ . .
s:: .....:~1~.. : " ~, ~
;:.:~:~.:~ t"~.;..':;'::. f. . '". L " '.
.,";. ;.
~.:;~;\: '.
~
, .
'"'
~. ~
,~..' ,
\.. .
. :1,
t,;j',., . :
:~~ ;.. :.
4....;. '
:~';'t- ::.: ...
','
'::'0
... .
,~>,
.."'-.. <
. .
.... .
:-. ; ,
-. .
'.
.,~.. .
'r.... _ "
. '.,
~.;~ ....J"
},.:,:'" "
~ ,';< ~ f
r;.).:..'
;~~~~ .;..'..... .
, ' .' ~ > '
..'.o' ,.
,. ", "
.'.-. .
.... r..
\"
.'
.' ,~.
- .'., .
:. '..
.1..'.. ,
. ....".0.
r" .
t~.~: \~.'. ,. ";'
., ;...
.j- .".'"
;j,>'~ ....' . .
lil'. ". .
~ ~:....:.: '.'
';.'.\
:...t'.',. -
~l-"'C .>. ' ,
.~'>.' ".
~1;:~.~ '
I~:{!<.:. .'
.1.1 .
~~.: ~ -.
:'/:0
t.~
'p:':, .
'~/;:~}';l'~ ; - .
':~ ... ".
It was noted that applicants cannot be deprived of reasonable use of their land or building.
Variance #5 was noted as a minor request for a small corner of the front portico. It was
suggested the request for the 6~foot waterfall, too, was minimal.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicants, Mr. Johnson moved to deny the
variances as requested because the applicants have not substantially met all of the standards for
approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because
the special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, and the granting of the
variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development
code and the granting of the code would violate the general spirit and intent of this development
code as expressed in Section 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The Board recessed from 2:35 until2~45 p.m.
3. Steven R. and Carolanne Krakower/Red Ribbon Homestead for a variance
of 7 parking spaces to permit zero additional parking spaces required for a change
of use to a Level II group care facility where 7 parking spaces are required at
1109-1131 Pinellas St, Georgas Sub, Lots 2, 3, 13, 14 and 15, zoned RM 12
(Multi-Family Residential). V 94-42
. A letter received from the applicant's representative, Thomas J. Graham, President of Graham
Design Associates, requested this request be continued until August 11, 1994.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item until August 11, 1994. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
4. Christopher G. and Caroline K. Roetzer for variances of (1) 3.5 ft to permit
a fence height of 6 ft where 2.5 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural
setback area from a street right-of-way (Sunset Point Rd) where the property is
addressed from; and (2) 2 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum
. height is permitted in a structural setback from a street right~of-way where the
property is not addressed from at 3001 Sunset Point Rd, Sec 4-29-16, M&B
23.03, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 94-43
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants request approval
of height variances to allow the construction of two fences in structural setback areas from the
street rights-of-way. The subject property is a single family residence.
One fence is proposed to be six feet high and constructed along Sunset Point Road where the
property is addressed. The applicants contend properties along both sides of Sunset Point Road
from their property eastward to McMullen Booth Road have fences with heights greater than
allowed by code. Mr. Richter indicated some fences along Sunset Point Road appear to be taller
than six feet.
mindc07b.94
6
07/28/94
".).J"' c.".~.,.>~..,.~...,..~.,r'~";,""{"Ji:.'(}.~~:i..-'.-r'L"J_."".QoUiIIr......-~~--.,.~-._---.-.~:~~,..... .,:' ., . . .~". .0.,.. . ~. -. . .,,.....).-
~'4)i'f~A-..:'(r;I,J\~_~~~~i.~...'lr,O\:;,\..,..,~ . . ...."'"'J...^'"".".I;..:~.i,1:~~VJ.~""::I!i::.:..il: ,... .~ "'~';"J:i: .;11;' ;~J";":""'\"/"""" . -, '.J.,.; .', .' >. ' '. . .; ',' ....;\~
~... \.' . fiI~~~~.~ . .'~~... ~ _ ~ . , '" . >1 "."....... .,.~" ~.,.,'r.J"Io,.~'~~~c~~"t;{/~'J;'t~;~~~tr""'t;.~\i~~.t:.;;/i~~!\~:,?<;....;,..:~}./"'.?..{,~b.'~~~
.... '.... jot \.' .;" I. .' ..' ,. . ~ if'. J.:/;r.j....'ihl~tj.~.. t'.~"'~ -, \' "t~. "'+':-v"
;~;.,.~'~~.~.~~0~.......~.;:;\... :::,;.. -..' .: :: '.:;_ \' .' ~.:'. .... . '. > .. .' ., .. . ' ., 'h, n-..-..t~, ,,~'..:t.. .:.. ..~.'~.
.. . . . ..... ..... u... . '.' .. . '.., . ,I . .... . . . '
': '.' . '. ~.. .:.~. '. '.. . .,.... .... .,' .,.,. . . .'.' .... . t..: ....:.:. ,..,,: .. . . . '. . 'f" . . . .' ;: ~'r' 1+.... '. , .'. . . ';": . . " :. . '.
n
The second, a six foot high non"opaque chain link fence, was erected along the property line
where the rear yard adjoins the Oak Forest Drive right-of-way. Mr. Richter stated the subject
property is larger than subdivision lots and the house is not part of the Oak Forest subdivision
where properties are oriented to residential streets. The height of fences in this location is
limited to four feet. The applicants request the fence for privacy, security, and to prevent
trespass from children crossing the backyard on their way home from school.
The County issued the permit for construction of the residence on December 8, 1993, and the
permit for construction of the fence on May 19, 1994. On March 17, 1994, the subject property
was annexed by the City. On June 7, 1994, the fence along Oak Forest Drive was erected. On
June .9, 1994, the City issued a notice of violation of permitting requirements.
",
Staff feels a six foot high fence is in keeping with the character of adjoining properties on the
both sides of Sunset Point Road eastward to McMullen Booth Road. Placement of buffer
landscape by the applicants along Sunset Point Road and Oak Forest Drive rights-of-way will
complement the visual appeal.
It was indicated the back fence height is legal on three sides and a variance is only necessary
where the property adjoins Oak Forest Drive. A question was raised regarding the advantage
of landscaping the fence inside the Oak Forest Drive property line.
:.
"
Christopher and Caroline Roetzer, applicants, indicated over time landscaping would provide
visual appeal and soften the look of the fence. Mr. Roetzer stated when they purchased the
subject property, it was zoned General Commercial by the County and had a potential for retail
development. He said they requested annexation into the City because of their need for sewer
service. When he received the permit to construct the six foot fence, neither he nor the County
had been advised that annexation had been approved. Had the permit been requested tWo
months earlier, the fence would be of legal height. He felt lowering it to four feet would be
ineffective in stopping a dog or person from hopping over it. In answer to a question, Mrs.
Roetzer estimated the cost of reducing the height of their rear fence at $980. For the recordt
Mr. Roetzer submitted a letter of support signed by neighbor, Richard Slater.
~: 0
, . .
"
Mr. Roetzer stated their desire for a fence along Sunset Point Road was based on their need for
privacy and security. He said they intended to erect a chain link fence in the setback, with
landscaping on the outside and angled inward approximately 12 feet by the driveway so vehicles
waiting for the gate to open would not block the sidewalk.
,: ~
f' >
:.'u :
'. (- '.
Robert King, 1846 Oak Forest Drive, stated he advised the contractor during installation that
the fence along Oak Forest Drive lacked City permits. He said the fence creates a barricade
. along a street where neighbors have their front yards and hanns the desirability of neighborhood
property. He questioned the need for a six foot fence height in an established neighborhood and
the applicant's need to fence that large an area.
" '.1",
;~.
".'
..; .
:..'. .
:..'
,>'. '
'.. ';.
~. .-
Irving and Gloria Carlsont 3012 Oak Forest Drivet said they lived there for 20 years and
objected to the fence they describe as ugly. Mr. Carlson noted the subdivision's singular
:0
, .
mindc07b.94
7
07/28/94
;~~~
t.,
.'
" .
':!mr~j!if:o.Y!,:';;:!f;.J~';;::," "";;,.. ,'. "';' . ....; .,.;.:,;,................----..
~~~~~~.~l~(V/.le~.\lf..--...~~ .
. d-~..~...;.:......'!'...u.....~....;,<.~..:;....~~~..,.t_.~.;....~.\~~ ..:,?'.~:'..:.~ :,: ~'\"'c.:<'~l"': "'.: "1:;;.': .....-.>..~.....:~,.- '."-: .;.:.;:~-~~/~~~-
~,.,,,,.t.("":.......,~,,,:..~..,.,.i,,r.~.,t,~...c.,c\....fJ,,,'l,"'t.:JIII",1 'T.. ,..... ,r\,.......t~.. 'f- .I..~:f~
~ . .... ~\<.,Io;: .i","~~".l~.ft\-\;"~:i.:~:;':"'.r\-";:~Ft':~;:t.:..~i..... :1.:;:';'01 {'t'
?-.: . ':'~c .
.,.J;";;':.'J -~.'. ,;.. .:.. r
l~:;<:4-"':.':~~~; 'c
'l,: ..
~
. ,
....
l. :
'"0
:J. ,J-
"", . <
":,'
"\'.' . .
') ,.
, ,
, .j'
~?:
" ~'
..
, c
. ..
~z ~~",
i,'
!::: .
"::~'.. :
~:~!~:: . :' :
;.+:,~::' .
,.'
., " "
"'0
,...:. J
I,: . .
1:f.
'1"
"
" '
r;:l,"
.; :'.
, .'
entrance off Sunset Point Road enhances security. Mrs. Carlson felt the fence's commercial
appearance detracts from the residential area. She questioned why a wide double door gate was
installed.
Camplin Straker, 1883 Oak Forest Drive, felt the fence resembled a prisoner of war stockade.
He said a real estate agent indicated the fence is detrimental to neighborhood house sales due
to potential customers' objections. He felt the fence negatively impacts the value of area homes.
A phone message from Carl Dixius, 1882 Oak Forest Drive, was read into the record. Mr.
Dixius, whose house backs into the subject property, has been ill and could not attend the
meeting. He opposed the fence due to aesthetics.
A petition, with 22 signatures of Oak Forest Subdivision residents, was submitted for the record.
The petition opposed the fence's height and expressed concerns regarding noise and possible
hann to children should dogs be bred on the subject property.
Concerns were expressed regarding the fence's height along Oak Forest Drive. It was noted the
subject house's elevation is five feet higher than the property next door. Mr. Roetzer stated he
needed that height for his dog. Concern was expressed regarding three dog runs behind the
home. Mrs. Roetzer indicated they have one dog on the property and that area was constnIcted
as the dog's living quarters. Mr. Roetzer stated he was not advised by the fence installer of any
complaints made to a company employee. Mrs. Roetzer indicated they installed a gate to
provide for future access.
Concern was expressed regarding the request for a six foot fence along the front property line.
Though traffic will move closer to the house and its volume will increase when the road
constrUction is completed, it was noted this house's 25 foot lawn is the largest on the street.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances
as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated they have met all of the standards
for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, because there are no
special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
. conditions applicable to the land or buildings, and such circumstances are not peculiar to the
land, do' generally apply to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; the strict
applic~tion of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use
of the land or building; and the variances, in part. are based upon the desire for economic gain
by the applicant or owner; and the granting of the variance would not be in hannony with the
general purpose and intent of the land development code and the comprehensive plan and would
be injurious to surrounding properties. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
5. Cynthia Afendoulis for a variance of 3.5 ft to permit a structural setback of
21.5 ft where 25 ft is required from a street right~ofNway (Kipling Plaza) to allow
expansion of existing front entrance at 66 Kipling Plaza, Mandalay Sub, Blk 45,
Lots 1-3 and part of Lot 4, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-44
mindc07b.94
8
07/28/94
~~~;W'"Mo~:~'~:'::'~:"'::>i/.;.:i-.:""".lo.J<>ol.--'-'" '.
. ~~d"""1W1t",j...t:~~~"';;~~."':U"Lll~~."':\lt'.'~;":~II':}.~.~/;~ ~::,t~t;':::t:~1~.~.;..!.i' ~~i;,.,.:~;:'~:lt~.:.:\I,:.~:....:.::~";~. :.." :~,' ~". -;' ../..,j~';j \f: l~.. /;:;~~l~'\:~~1i:~A .
. ,f.", ....~..~"~JilJ\l\(.:.:~'...f~~~~;_t\{~~!~1:J;\:'\l~-:~:..~~~1..1~
. ,,..~,., "';. L..' tc h
" '" '. ~.., '.
;....., < " ..
":; ?,: .~..~ .c'
~1/~':::;;:,:: ::..', "::.,: . '
. . ....:.. I,... ., . . . >. ". .,'..', ..," .j'. < ",' ,.' .
.:'~:~ :
r1
-",r'
~~: . ~
{..:
". '
;:;.;..
'( .:'
~r ' .
. ,
,:~: ~
~~~ t;s!l
~. ~\
l~, c . " '
" -
~> .
...... '.
+". .'~
>: <+ :c.:
.'. '
~. ,r ,
l". '
. .
~ ~1 ,"'. 'T ' ,.
~::~ .
/1., . '. -t
<,~~~;:',. ",
J ~ ... '.
L~.
? "T "
,.{,.
1 .~
., . c'. '
.." ". ~. , '
f~~~' ;..:.':: I
~.l -. :.:
~~.~:~<:. ' . ' '
<~~} :,,; .
.. . .. \~ .
~.:>.:.
~~\'
~~I:r < :"
.:..{ . .'
~(;'OQ .
1'-
" ,
,I~, .
~7. .
:~:{::: :::' '
!,(. .:
~.. .
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant is requesting a
street setback variance to construct an entrance canopy to project 3.5 feet from the south side
of the existing single family residence, thereby encroaching on the 25-foot front yard setback
established for Kipling Plaza.
The applicant wishes to modernize and improve the front entrance with the proposed canopy.
This vari~nce relates to the area's aesthetics. Variances are occasionally granted in retrospect
to facilitate improvements on previously developed sites. Staff feels granting the variance will
not violate the general spirit and intent of the Land Development Code and the variance
requested is minimal. Mr. Richter indicated staff felt special conditions exist and it would
improve the neighborhood.
Gus Afendoulis, representative for the applicant, stated the building's present configuration is
already beyond the setback. The applicant requests to stay within the present line and beautify
the house's facade. It was noted the canopy's rim will be flush with the edge of the existing flat
roof.
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 was 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 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(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II.
Approval of Minutes M None.
ill. Board & Staff Discussion
A'1992 memorandum was distributed to board members regarding "Ex Parte II Communications
in QuasiMJudicial Proceedings and the Sunshine Law's impact on communication between board
. members prior to meetings. Concern was expressed that members are unable to meet with new
. board members for orientation and discussion of procedural matters.
. "
. In response to a question, Mr. Richter indicated neighbors living within 200 feet of subject
properties receive written notice of variance requests. It was noted that anyone may express
support or objection to variance requests.
Concerns were expressed that the new standards for approval were more liberal and permitted
added flexibility to previous guidelines. It was felt previous requirements regarding hardship
mindc07b.94
9
07/28/94
~'''''''''~''''I'..,c........+ ....Jiil. ~~''t",,+.'.:::_c::~~t11):V~~~tv:>.tl:~.',..~ "r.~.tU)o";'"",,"",~---" -----.......:.-...~AA"-"$.,. .;' ..' r. .. .~ .' ,. .. '. 'r. . . , ~ ~ ,,' ~ "'k'~-~' ., :. ' ..,.~e.~...'
~ ~1.e-l-1.('... ~r:!..~"_V."'.",-~~~1^li"""""""'-...u ....-...... 'I\~....."~.:uf~1..:~....': 'Jl......f.+::'w..~~..:11..';.....~.::.::.;..')~..ji::..~..J:.~:...).:.~*~ "''':):1I11,..~.,;: l.'..,~\j.' . "f.,:..~,~.~t~....:, ~ . . '.'.,. ,.~. \ :.~.' r": .:~ '/f",~
, < '.,,-,.' .....u..~1>..1,1.....-';.~ ....i.tf"~ 'L~'" n~ _"1~~ .......:..?,...~.':'..... ..,.~,"C":;J"""j...,,~"I;.
. . . . - +'<T, ~..r."l-h=-..o';""h.',ht"., <....~.,}..JI,-l"~:r'~~..J:+.O:'i::.;'i~.: .....:-\<'I~..-{-,.Ip."
i:fA':\"::~-:'i'~~:":'::''':'' :.:,',,'.'<:'>. ,~,..' :', '" ..' .~' '!IC"~,~,~s~~":/:'"t:"'~""""/>:':;'i:
'.' ...... ',', \., <...... ,-.' . .' .. " ....,.'. .., '. .'
~~~r; 7.,'~ 0,
f.t, .". -
!:: -'.
'-:~
. ~:':}9
'I.
were casier to judge than assessing and/or defining special circumstances. Discomfort with the
new standards was expressed.
.,
"
I..
A formal request was made for Mr. Lance and Mr. Shuford to meet with the Board and explain
the new standards and ramifications of special circumstances. Concern was exprcssed regarding
special circumstances caused by developers' subdivision of tracts into too many lots.
1'1".
X':"
~~'.'
", ~ .
~:"':L.
:~r~' <:,
,J.:..
J.,.: .
~.~:.
. ~...L" .
It was felt that each variance requested needs to be examined individually. Concern was
expressed regarding homeowners requesting a large number of variances. It was noted that few
remaining lots in the City are of standard size.
. .
;.:. ,"
Concern was expressed regarding office staff commenting on variance requests.
J;~ . .
-::t .'
Concern was expressed that contractors are not required to shoulder some responsibility for
adhering'to code requirements.
(t:-..::
:~):~.I~~ ,:' ~
I ~"" .
~.
.. ,. An opinion will be requested of the Interim City Attorney regarding limitations placed on
~~/.~,. ." Development Code Adjustment Board members in cases involving conflict of interest.
:~~::,:".' ': . Mr. Gans'reported he may miss the August 11, 1994 meeting due to health concerns. It was
f.;''<''. ;.: . .requested that staff verify with Ms. Whitney regarding her planned attendance at that meeting.
t~Ci.:,' ~ ". .', . It. was requested that the policy regarding absences be reviewed. It was questioned if a
,";; c'" '-'!. ' . maximum number of absences was permitted.
fi;G.':" .':' . Mr. ~~hnson expressed his need for a new identification card.
J2i':;-,-,::,>:, ",' .', .' '.' "
:??<~.:::- '1V~~ . 'Adjournment -
:~:::: c '. '. '~ ., . , . '
.~~,:.::.:~c'~'." . , 0 > ,
::;~</.:. ,;.: .:. ..... The meeting was adjourned at 4:23 p.m.
, .
':,1,0">,<"'.:' '.', ". Attest.
't~;;t.:.};:.::,..'.:--:..'.".: '.< ," :. .'
'''"fi'' , '. . . ...., ,. , .
~ri~';:t;i:" .;. . '.. .'f. .,.' .,
,/'I.LII..... '., .'
rf~~~.h~: ",:-- '. Board Reportet!~:
I~;.'r,f:}:" ..., .
,.;10;....
fl\{:';'~.. ..... ." ;'.. '. . mindc07b.94
01, i ~ '
...'1.....'..
..t-.J..... .
:. t,";'T . , ..'
';:.:'," "'.,
Chairman
10
07/28/94
~r" . '~~7~ ."~' -:-;-'. . u........"'~A'~~~i,;}~~:~~I~~~~(M.\li.f~~~:i.?:fM,:;1;;;~j{~~j;;i.~~r~';r.:. 'J\;j'~'~''i-:..;~;~~~;.ii~'~ll~:~~~~~w;:~~Di~~~:ffi:~~~
',' ,~;.: ;'" :".", .... 1 . . ~ " .,'.' ,'. "."..' ., ' . ..' .' . . -.~ . }~-~Wf~~'t'lr,r'w!?!\l:i:;~" '.<<1J,J~ ::. 'i!;~.~~.:."., 1) ;;:.:wr,i<l9,1':~~
~:_".i,. c~..... :.~,., 1,,\... '<', I, . ' . ~ ,:. '-'.~ ."~ ...'. ....'i:!iftt.. l,"'.k-.,r"~-:r.' ,.
~~;:~1;;i1i~:~~S5H..<;i,!,;;"2:i: ":<:'" \~ ." ,-, · '. . . .' ..' . ','" .., . .
, . .: ' ' . ., ,',.'. ' . .,' ~ ' .:'"... " ,'.. , '.. .' . . .', .
",.
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
lAST NAME-FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME
pL lit /.:2yO A '- 'IE K.
MAILING ADDRESS
e~O ~ I DRLlIP ~p
CITY
c.. Le AR. V"IA-Tetz,..
DATI! ON WIfICH VOTE OCCURRED
,-"2 -9
NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIl., COMMISSION. AUTlIORITY. OR COMMITIEE
pe va /...tA MefJr CtP(7& APJ II t; rMstJr
THE BOARD. COUNCIl. COMMISSION. AUTlfORIT't' OR COMMITI EE ON
WHlCU I SER VE IS A UNIT OF:
I tJ l:: Ll/J S
)It.. CITY c COUNTY 0 OTHER lOCAl. AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
COUNTY
r Y Of: C t.:GAR.NA,1CrL
MY POSITION IS:
This form is for use by any person serving at e county. city. or other locallcvel or government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission. authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143. Florida Statutes.
HO MUST FILE FORM 8
o ELECTIVE )( API'OINTIVE
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason. please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
,.
i
. .)
....
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county. municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure
which inures to his special private gain. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure
which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained (including the parent
organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he is retained); to the special private gain of a relative; or to the special
private gain of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S.. and
officers of independent special tax districts clected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relativc" includes only the officer's father. mother, son. daughter. husband. wife, father-in-law, mother-in-
law, son-in-law. and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer. coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the
corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
r'
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose thc connict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting. who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
,
" .
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must 'abstain from voting in the situations described above. you otherwise may participate in these mattcrs. However,
you must disclose the nature or the connict before. making any attempt to innuence the decision. whethcr oral1y or in writing and
whether made by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATfEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
, THE VOTE WLL BE TAKEN:
, .'
You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to inOuence the decision) with the person responsible for
; recording the minutes of the meeting. who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
1 .. A copy of the fonn must be provided immediately to the other members of thc agency.
.;
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
i
I .' CE FORM 8B. 10.91
t:
~t~~~~II;\'~'I'Jllllr_'"
",,:r.' '
PAGI: I
v.,.qa,,;:.c.....-.A:.4";.i~,..:~~..~,~~~t.i;i.,I.'~i~~-- '
--' ....~.;..10.-.'...."'~,,;~; ." ;:~;'l~... ;>:. .;....,;. ;":';";;;,,,_:;~ '~;L:; : ;\~;:;.~:; ;.,.:~;"'~:;;1}J';:;:~l~~{:~i;;~;Jtf;'~~i
, , , ,.
" ~.: ~: F ' <
l ,,::~>:~ ,+. ",
.}X::::':.;~:,' ',' ',.
t~"::.~~i\.;:'':.~~;~i::, "...',.,
.~ .
. + . ..' .. . L " " , . , .. .. , " " ...: + " '. : . ~. . '. . .' , . , . ., l. " "
,," .,1
..... . ..;.. J,
\~{i".,7- 2.8 ...Qf
:;:-;;':1',', Date FIled'
.}; '.,:.,1\ >,
,:';;..~ .
?>}<'\ ': NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317 (J99I), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REO~"""""..;.;t' I
....> :-:. . ' DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLL~
". IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
,:.' .;'.. . SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5.000.
,
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECisION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
· You must disclose orally the nature of your connict in the measure before participating.
· You mus.t complele the f?rm and file it within I~ days af~cr the vole occurs with l~e person responsi?lc fo~ recording the minu~c"""'{
the meetmg. who must Incorporate the form an the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided Immediately to the ul\ ~
members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. . "
I,
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
.A LtE X"' P'-/~ to) 0 ,hereby disclose that on 7 - 28
, 19~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
b. inured to my special private gain;
, _ inured to the special gain of my business associate,
_ inured to the special gain of my relative,
_ inured to the special gain of
whom I am retained; or
~ inured to the special gain of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of n principal which has retained mc.
(b) 111C mcasure before my agency and thc nature of my conOictillg interest in the measure is as follows:
t by
, which
y:: ,A V'-1 T1I-e
, .
'., .
1;;?/2.opo~W
A Il.CI-I I -re: ~T F C> l<-
f< f5 ~ I {;)lstV 6S' r 0 rZ
~gtf;L4e '57C p~
77-i<
wI-! / c.../-I--
{;1-)t:-
c~.:
. ' ,
. JJ /IJ It; ,I() ~ C-e :S
1J/2.e
"
. I ~.,
'1 ~ , h,
Sign~ (jJ;x! J
,'" . CEFORMllB-lo.91
I'AGE
~~~w--.';,.;r - :. ~~.~".~'~ .. ~....~t _. ~ I' ...-
~~~"~~.;~'_.w..........,,,,,.;.....,,;..\\,,.:,..,..,,,, '.,' ."',_,,,___'" ...
~. - <' . ..-.w~"",A'~~W.J..j-I:W'!..+n..~ .
-~~;~--:--.
" ','1
, .. ~ '< .
'.' ., '" '.
.' ,.'
, . .
" .
~.: ':'/:..' ~E:.)_,:i ';..:~.:,'~.~';' ~'," :." "' f' ,
'. ' , '". ~
.' - . -/ ' ' . .~
"1.. >
.,