Loading...
07/14/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD July 14, 1988 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice Chairman Kemper Merriam John Homer Member absent: Mary Lou Dobbs (excused) Also present: Tom Chaplinsky, Building Official John Richter, Planning Official Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:03 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room in 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 (2) weeks. He noted that Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. *In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.* ITEM #1  Florida VOA Elderly Housing, Inc for a variance of 92 parking spaces to allow 46 parking spaces, at property located between Pierce and Franklin Streets, east of Waverly Way at Stevenson Creek, Hibiscus Gardens, Blk W, Lots 1, 1218, Blk Z, Lots 814, part of Lots 6 & 7 and vacated streets, zoned RM28 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official reviewed the application stating the variance is for parking at a multifamily housing project. The preliminary site plan has been reviewed by the City Commission and the variance requested is one of the conditions for final site plan approval. He pointed out the Board might want to place a condition on the variance, if granted, to ensure that there is sufficient parking if it is going to be used for housing other than for the elderly.! Diane McIver, representing the applicant, stated the housing project has two separate buildings with a total of 92 units. It is housing for the elderly funded by HUD. The property must be used for elderly housing for at least 40 years due to deed restrictions. They feel less parking will be necessary because of the low density and age of the tenants. There are only four employees, no food service will be available, and there are no additional units planned. More parking can be built but green space will be lost and some land area is already lost due to Stevenson's Creek.! Three citizens spoke in opposition expressing concern about parking problems at other similar housing projects, the large number of apartments for the property, and property values being lowered in the neighborhood.! Discussion ensued that there is no real hardship and more residents may have cars than anticipated.! Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans moved to *deny* the variance as requested because there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, it is not a minimum variance, it is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property, and it violates the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *denied*. ! ITEM #2  K.D. Sauder for variances of 1) 5.5 ft to permit a building 19.5 ft from a street rightofway, and 2) 11% open space to provide 39% front yard open space, at 924 McMullenBooth Rd, Sec 92916, M&B's 32.01 abd 32.02, zoned CG (general commercial). This item was withdrawn by the applicant.! ITEM #3  George Karas for variances of 1) 8.5 ft to permit deck 6.5 ft from rear property line, and 2) 8.5 ft to allow fence atop deck in setback adjoining waterfront, at 660 Snug Island, Island Estates Unit 7B, Lot 63, zoned RS6 (single family residential). The Building Official stated the railing is required by Code because of the height of the deck. ! The Planning Official reviewed the application stating larger variances on this property were denied by the Board on 4/28/88. The case was appealed to the Hearing Officer who upheld the Board's action although he did note there was some hardship due to lot size. ! George Karas stated the variance is for the semicircle portion of the deck. The rest of the deck is within the setback. The pool is needed for health reasons and the deck provides space for guests and aesthetics. ! Discussion ensued regarding the applicant's effort to meet the Code requirements, neighbors visibility, and the required railing causing the hardship.! Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variances, Mr. Gans moved to *deny* the variances as requested because there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, and they are not minimum variances. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Homer and Gans voted "Aye;" Messrs. Plisko and Merriam voted "Nay." Motion *failed* due to tie vote. ! Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to *grant* the variances as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that the setback variance apply only to the semicircle portion with a radius of 10 feet, and that a building permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Merriam and Plisko voted "Aye;" Messrs. Homer and Gans voted "Nay." Motion *failed*. Item *continued* to August 11, 1988 due to tie vote.! ITEM #4  Everybody's Tabernacle, Inc for variances of 1) 7 ft to permit 5 ft setback from side property lines, and 2) 5 ft to permit minimum building separation distance of 15 ft, at 1260 Engman St, Fairburn Addition, Block A, Lots 1 & 2, zoned CN (neighborhood commercial), AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal), and P/SP (public/semipublic). This item is continued to the meeting of August 11, 1988.! ITEM #5  N.L. Clearwater Associates, Ltd for a variance of 3 parking spaces to allow 142 parking spaces, at 2350 U.S. 19 N, Sec 312816, part of M&B 14.06, zoned CH (highway commercial). The Planning Official reviewed the application stating the Department of Transportation requires relocation of the sign due to the widening of U.S. 19. One parking space will be taken by the sign and the other two parking spaces do not exist.! William Smith, representing the applicant, stated because of the widening of U.S. 19, the sign must be moved onto the parking space. There is no place else to put the sign because existing wall signs will be blocked. There is no way to expand the parking. ! Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to *grant* the variance as requested because the applicant has clearly met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, movement of sign is required by Department of Transportion and is a condition not caused by the applicant, subject to the condition that the nonconforming sign conform to the Code in October, 1992 and that a sign permit be obtained within 6 months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request *granted*. MINUTES Mr. Gans moved to amend the minutes of June 30, 1988, page 128, to read "4 tables and 16 chairs" rather than "16 tables." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.! Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of June 9, 1988, as submitted, and June 30, 1988, as amended, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.! The Planning Official reported a permit was not obtained in time for the wall in the waterfront setback on Island Estates and the applicant will be reapplying. He also reported the business identification signs at Mazda on U.S. 19 are all right.! Discussion ensued about misrepresentation of the facts to the Board.! The Board requested the Planning Official investigate the Little real estate office that was granted variances to upgrade signs. It appears they plan to put in four more businesses. The Planning Official will also follow up on the 100 foot high tower. ! The Planning Official distributed to the Board, copies of a paper he wrote regarding unsightly signs.! Discussion ensued regarding enforcement of the Development Code. The Planning Official stated enforcement is primarily his responsibility with assistance from other departments.! The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.