Loading...
09/08/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD September 8, 1988 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman Mary Lou Dobbs Kemper Merriam John Homer Also present: John Richter, Planning Official Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 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 A - Cesar Abreu for a variance of 10 ft to permit construction on 100 ft deep double frontage lot, at 2061 Druid Circle S, East Druid Park, Lot 1, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. A variance was granted two weeks ago but an additional variance is needed. Eloisa Abreu stated they need another variance to construct a screen enclosure around their pool on a double frontage lot. One letter in opposition was submitted for the record. 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, the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM B - (continued from 8/25/88) John Gallant for a variance to permit fence in setback area adjoining waterfront, at 643 Harbor Island, Island Estates Units 6-D, 7-A & 7-C, Unit 7-C, Lot 12, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated it was continued from the previous meeting due to a tie vote. John Gallant stated he wishes to keep the fence, which has already been erected, to replace a fence that had termite damage. He presented a letter from a neighbor stating no objection. The letter from the neighbor was read into the record. Discussion ensued as to whether or not there is a hardship. It was pointed out this is the only wooden fence on that strip of waterfront and chain link fences are better for this type of area. 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, subject to the condition the variance apply only to fencing on the south side and the fence on the north is not approved and that a building permit be obtained within thirty (30) days from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Gans, Merriam, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM C - (continued from 8/25/88) Americana Gulf Motels, Ltd for a variance of one (1) parking space to provide zero additional parking spaces to allow one unit of a duplex to become a 750 sq ft office, at 411 S Gulfview Blvd, Lloyd-White Skinner Sub, Lots 72-74 & part of Lot 75, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated this is a request to convert one unit of a duplex into an office. The item was continued from the meeting of August 25, 1988, because the Board wanted more information regarding parking. The property has a density registration of 54 units, 52 units being part of the motel, 1 duplex unit, and 1 office. The use requires 57 spaces and 53 exist. Two spaces are available in the driveway. He pointed out that more than half the spaces are nonconforming. A letter from the Traffic Engineer opposing approval of the variances was read into the record. Steven Watts, attorney representing the lessee and the owner, stated there are two separate parcels with the motel being on one parcel and the duplex on the other. They are under the same ownership but through two different deeds. They are not opposed to paving two grass areas to provide additional parking, but do not feel they are asking for a large variance. Discussion ensued regarding parking being provided in front of the building. It was pointed out this would not be possible as 50% of the front yard must be open space. Cathy McKinnon, lessee, stated they have placed desks in the building. Their hours will be from 9 to 5 and they feel the majority of their business will be walk-in traffic. Two citizens spoke in support stating this type of business would have less impact on parking than other potential uses. It was pointed out a portion of the lease includes property a short distance away which can provide additional parking. One citizen spoke in opposition stating the owner has a commercial use on the property and there is no hardship as parking could be provided in the rear. One letter in opposition was submitted for the record. Mr. Watts stated he felt they were asking for the minimal variance and pointed out many properties on the beach have been granted variances for parking. The Planning Official stated when there is a change of use, the Planning Department feels all the parking should be brought up to Code. The number of spaces needed is determined by the uses, one duplex unit requiring two spaces and 750 square feet of office space requiring 3.4 spaces for a total of 5.4. It was assumed there were 4 existing spaces, thereby requiring a variance of one space. There was considerable discussion regarding parking for the duplex and the motel and whether the parking should be considered separately for each parcel or considered as a whole. 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 based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property, it adversely affects the public health, safety, order, convenience, or general welfare of the community, and it violates the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Merriam, and Plisko voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs and Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM D - (continued from 8/25/88) Countryside Colonial Center Partnership for variances 1) of 56 sq ft of property identification signage to permit 80 sq ft and 2) of 15 ft to permit a 21 ft high pole sign, at 2759 State Road 580, Acker's Sub, Blk 2, Lots 6 & 7, zoned OL (limited office). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the variances have been reduced from those advertised. Todd Pressman, representing the owner, stated the variances were reduced in order to request the minimum. The functional ability of sign sizes permitted by the City creates a hardship in this situation. A number of trees block the view of portions of the front of the building. S.R. 580 will be widened to six lanes and there are turn lanes in front of the building. They feel aesthetics are important and the majority of people will be looking for individual business listings. Dick Geiger, owner, stated the zoning was PS which allowed 60 square feet of signage. By the time the buildings were constructed, the amount of signage had been reduced to 24 square feet. He pointed out a neighbor to the west of the property put up a 100 square foot sign approximately four months ago but this property is in the County. Two months ago, tenants came to him and requested they be allowed to place a large sign on the building. He was opposed to this for aesthetic reasons. The property could have been zoned General Business, but the Planning Director suggested it be zoned Limited Office. In response to a question as to why the sign sizes were reduced, he stated he did not feel he could ask for a sign larger than 60 square feet when that was what would have been allowed at the time he began construction. Discussion ensued that part of the hardship is due to the fact that the property is flanked by property in the County where larger signs are permitted. The Planning Official stated the Code allows both property identification signs and business identification signs. It is the purpose of the property identification sign to identify the building rather than each individual business within it. Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variances, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances as requested because they are not minimum variances, and they violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Section 134.003 and 134.004. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM E - (continued from 8/25/88) Countryside Colonial Center Partnership for variances 1) of 76 sq ft of property identification signage to permit a 100 sq ft pole sign and 2) of 15 ft 9 inches to permit a 21 ft 9 inch high pole sign, at 2753 State Road 580, Acker's Sub, Blk 2, Lots 2-5 & 19-22, zoned OL (limited office). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated the reasons and explanations for this case are the same as those for the previous case. Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variances, Mr. Merriam moved to deny the variances as requested because there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, they are not minimum variances, and they violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM F - (continued from 8/25/88) Countryside Village Ltd for variance of 102 sq ft to permit 150 sq ft of business identification signage, at 2547 Countryside Blvd, Countryside Village Square, Lots 5, 7, & 8, zoned CC (commercial center). Mr. Plisko stated he had a conflict of interest with regard to this case and would not be voting. The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Earl Maize, general manager of Countryside Square representing the owner, stated they are requesting two 75 foot square signs for Famous Footware. The shopping center is approximately 250 to 300 feet east of U.S. 19 and Famous Footware wishes to have signs that will be visible from U.S. 19. The center wishes to encourage parking in this area, also. In terms considered by shopping center management, Famous Footware is considered a major tenant even though it will occupy only 5600 square feet. The City Code states 8000 square feet is the minimum square footage to be considered a major tenant. The lettering will be in conformance with the signs generally used in the center and the tenant has agreed to conform on the U.S. 19 side of the building to the size allowed by the Code in October, 1992. The center has spent a considerable amount of money to improve its overall appearance and feels it is important to acquire Famous Footware as a tenant. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that the two signs for Famous Footware be brought into conformance by September 8, 1992, and pointing out this deadline has nothing to do with the amortization of billboards and that a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Gans, Merriam, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried. Request granted. The meeting recessed from 3:35 p.m. to 3:47 p.m. ITEM #1 - Diane Hearing for a variance of 595 ft to permit establishment of Adult Congregate Living Facility 605 ft from an existing facility, at 509 N Prescott Ave, Country Club Addition, Blk 14, Lots 10 & 11, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the variances are needed because there is insufficient separation between the subject facility and a foster group facility on the other side of the railroad tracks. Jane Roberts, representing the owner, stated they have met all of the State's requirements. The other home is less than 1200 feet away. It is a foster home which cares for one person and is on the other side of the railroad tracks. Six people appeared in opposition, their spokesperson stating it is a family neighborhood. They object to five or six people living in one house and they are concerned about increased traffic. Another citizen spoke in opposition stating the owner does not live there and the building in the rear has been converted to an apartment. He also expressed concern about traffic. Two letters in opposition were submitted for the record. Ms. Roberts stated there would be one employee at the site at all times and the atmosphere will be like five or six brothers and sisters living in the house. It was explained to those in opposition that there is not that much traffic associated with an Adult Congregate Living Facility and the Board is considering the separation distance between this facility and the home on the other side of the railroad tracks. It was the consensus of the Board that there would be no impact from the other facility because of the dead-end streets. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mrs. Dobbs moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code and the variance as to the distance to another facility will not have any impact on the neighborhood, subject to the condition that a permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #2 - Alan Tralins for a variance of 24 ft to construct a house one ft from a street R.O.W., at 1010 Eldorado Dr, Mandalay Sub, Blk 69, Lots 8 & 9, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the request involves the setback from Eldorado Ave. On the westerly side of Eldorado the majority of structures are built in close proximity to the right-of-way. Alan Tralins stated he would like to put up a fence to keep people out until a home is built on the property. Without variances, there is only a 20 foot corridor within which to build. The existing home was moved, leaving the property vacant, and he has had complaints from neighbors that his property is being used for undesirable activities. He wishes to construct a fence temporarily until he constructs a home with setbacks similar to other houses on the street. One citizen spoke in opposition stating that, since the existing home was moved, there have been strange people on the property and needles and empty cans, etc. have been found in the area. Speaking on behalf of himself and several neighbors, he requested the Board allow the applicant to build a fence to deter the activities but not to grant this large a variance to construct a home. Discussion ensued by the Board that the applicant does not have a specific plan for the home he plans to build and the request was advertised for a variance to construct a home, not a fence. The Board explained that they could not grant a variance without having a specific design to consider. Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mrs. Dobbs moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has failed to provide a house plan that would show the necessity for the variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #3 - Lake Starcrest Village Apts for a variance of 17 parking spaces to permit conversion of carports to storage buildings, at 200 Starcrest Dr, Sec 13-29-15, M&B's 11.11 & 11.12, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the applicant has converted 17 parking spaces into storage units. Jerry Lafreniere, representing the applicant, stated, as the complex became older, it was a hardship to maintain the property because there was no place to store the necessary equipment. They are currently storing replacement refrigerators, carpeting, etc. in empty apartments and, if the apartments are rented, they must then move them. The property is surrounded by commercial uses and a lake. It is an adult complex and 45-50 residents do not own cars. The problem was discovered when the Fire Department did an inspection and found one of the enclosed carports to be too close to the apartment building. He stated there are 469 spaces remaining and there are 324 units. They feel they have sufficient parking left to accommodate the residents. There was some discussion that many cars are parked on the road, but it was expressed that possibly this is more for convenience than lack of parking. Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Homer moved to deny the variance as requested because the hardship was caused by the owner, there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, and it is not a minimum variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #4 - Carlouel Yacht Corporation for variances of 1) 28.3 ft to allow construction of building 6.7 ft from a street R.O.W., and 2) 7.8% front yard open space to permit 47.2%, at 1091 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 70, Lots 12 & 13, part of Lot 11 AND Mandalay Replat, Blk 171, Lots 6-11, part of Lots 4 & 5, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). Mr. Plisko and Mr. Homer stated they had conflicts of interest with regard to this item and would not vote. The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Harry Cline, attorney representing the owner, stated that over the years, the property has been developed in such a way as to maximize the waterfront area. The variances are required to allow construction of a bar/grill/dining room over the present bar. If approved by the membership, several cabanas will be destroyed to provide more parking. It is a unique piece of property. He asked that if the variances are granted, they be given one year in which to obtain the building permit rather than the usual six months. They will supply more parking than is required for the addition but still will not meet Code. It will be necessary that the present building be removed, but the new construction will occupy the same footprint as now exists. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant and the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within one (1) year from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Merriam and Gans voted "Aye;" Messrs. Plisko and Homer abstained. Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #5 - Thanh Phuoc Nguyen for a variance of two parking spaces to allow expansion of R.O.W. and relocation of sign, at 3004 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Bay View City Sub, Blk 8, Lots 8-10, zoned CG (general commercial). As there was no representative present, Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of October 13, 1988. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Dave Healey again appeared before the Board to discuss the evaluation of the City's permitting process, development review procedures, and information dissemination practices. There was some discussion regarding the questionnaires that were handed out at the previous meeting and their pertinence with regard to the Board. It was pointed out that staff goes out of their way to guide people applying for variances. Some board members felt signs were becoming a large part of their caseload, but the Planning Official stated his department has done a survey and found that signs comprise approximately 20% of the caseload. There was discussion that the Board's duties take up too much time for a volunteer board, both with regard to preparation for the meeting and the meetings themselves. It was suggested that signs could be given to another board or the board composition be changed to seven members, five to sit at one time with two alternates. This would solve some of the problems regarding conflicts of interest and vacation schedules. The Board emphasized that they were strongly opposed to a full seven member board but would be in favor of alternates. There was also discussion regarding the variance application and the difficulty in understanding it, even for a person familiar with the process. Mr. Healey reported it will be important to clarify the process in citing someone in violation of the Code. They will look more carefully at requests that must be heard by both the Development Code Adjustment Board and the Planning and Zoning Board. One possibility is to authorize both Boards a range of discretion for variances related to conditional uses that will allow the Planning and Zoning Board to hear them or to request they go to the Development Code Adjustment Board. Discussion regarding the Hearing Officer indicated the Board felt this process worked well. It was again pointed out that the inspections area is inadequately staffed and the Board felt the conditions they place on variances should be followed up on to be sure they are met. There was a consensus by the Board that they did not like having variances reduced prior to the meeting and would rather reduce them at the time of the hearing. The Planning Official was asked to check into the number of parking spaces available for the bank on Mandalay and to see if permits were obtained to convert the house at the 400 Motel into a duplex. The Board briefly discussed changing some of the wording in the motions. One Board member submitted proposed changes and it was the consensus of the Board to review these and discuss them at another meeting. The Board discussed the meeting schedule for the months of November and December. It was decided there would be meetings on November 10th and 22th and December 8th and 20th. The Planning Official reported the Flagship did obtain a permit to make changes on their sign. The meeting adjourned 6:47 p.m.