Loading...
09/22/1988 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD September 22, 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 - (continued from 8/31/88) Anthony Alexiou for variances of 1) 63 ft to permit construction of deck seaward of Coastal Construction Control Line, and 2) 13 parking spaces to provide zero additional parking for restaurant expansion, at 7 Rockaway St., Miller's Replat, Lots 2 & 3, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial) and OS/R (open space/recreation). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are for an existing deck and a proposed addition to the deck. George Greer, attorney representing the tenants, stated the ownership problem has been resolved in a meeting with the City Manager and the City Attorney. Previous tenants had built the present deck without permits. The present tenants want to add to the deck. The City sent a letter stating they have no objection to the deck addition providing State approval is obtained. As to the parking requirements, Mr. Greer felt the amount of parking required by the Code is not needed because most of the people come off the beach and there is a City-owned parking lot available across the street. Hilda Heitler, representing the applicant, stated State permits have been obtained for both the existing deck and the proposed deck addition. She presented letters to the Board to this effect. Discussion ensued as to the necessity of the deck addition, the actual number of parking spaces needed, and whether there is a hardship. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mrs. Dobbs moved to grant the variances 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 they arise from a condition which is unique to the property, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within two (2) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Mr. Homer voted "Aye;" Messrs. Gans, Merriam, and Plisko voted "Nay." Motion failed. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #1 to permit the existing deck to remain seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which was not caused by the applicant, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within thirty (30) days from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant a variance of four (4) parking spaces because the applicant has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship, 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 B - (continued from 8/31/88) John Schultz for a variance of 5 parking spaces to permit 775 sq ft outdoor seating area with zero additional parking, at 409 Mandalay, Barbour Morrow Sub, Blk A, Lot 15 & part of Lot 35, zoned CB (beach commercial). This item was withdrawn by the applicant. ITEM #1 - Thomas Dempster for variances of 1) 2 ft in height to permit 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street R.O.W. where property is not addressed, 2) 2 ft to permit fence over 30 inches in height one ft from a street R.O.W., and 3) variance to permit zero landscaping as required by Code, at 2947 Deer Run South, at 2947 Deer Run South, Northwood Estates Tract F, Blk I, Lot 8, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the rear of the lot is along Enterprise Road and the applicant wishes to place a higher fence than allowed along this secondary frontage. Thomas Dempster stated he wants the fence for privacy, security, and to reduce the traffic noise from Enterprise Road. All the other homes on the block have 6 ft high fences along Enterprise Road. His fence has been up for a few months and is partially landscaped. He feels the fence does not detract from the neighborhood. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has 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 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 thirty (30) days from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #2 - Betty Perrino for a variance of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street R.O.W. where property is not addressed, at 2887 Deer Run S, Northwood Estates Tract F, Blk B, Lot 17, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated the applicant wishes to put the fence on the secondary street frontage. Betty Perrino stated she would like the fence for privacy and security reasons. The fence will be landscaped according to Code requirements. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property, and the particular physical surroundings, 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 thirty (30) days from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #3 - Jeffrey Buddingh for variances 1) of 11.3 ft to permit room addition 13.7 ft from a street R.O.W. and 2) of 11 ft 8 inches to permit construction on lot 58 ft 4 inches wide, at 611 Prospect Ave S, Magnolia Park, Blk 23, part of Lots 31 & 32, zoned RM-8 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Jacqueline Buddingh stated they wish to extend an existing addition on the back of the house. The addition will be used as a family room. Without the variances, the room would only be 8 feet wide. One letter in support with 11 signatures was submitted for the record. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer 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, the lots in this subdivision are substandard which makes them unique, and the addition would only be 8 ft wide without the granting of these variances, 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 #4 - Hugh Grant Realty & Builders, Inc. for a variance of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street R.O.W. where property is not addressed, at 2310 & 2314 Stag Run Blvd, Coachman Ridge Tract A-II, Lots 176 & 175, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Hugh Grant stated the higher fence is needed along Old Coachman Road for privacy and noise reduction in the backyards of these two lots. Many lots along Old Coachman have fences and the lots will sell better with fencing. The fences will be wood and will be landscaped. Discussion ensued regarding the variance being for financial reasons and no hardship being shown. 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, it arises from a condition which is the same for most of the houses on Old Coachman Road that need noise and light protection, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs voted "Aye;" Messrs. Gans, Plisko, Homer, and Merriam voted "Nay." Motion failed. Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012 (d) of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Plisko, Merriam, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #5 - Hugh Grant Realty & Builders, Inc. for a variance of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining street R.O.W. where property is not addressed, at 1474 El Tair Trail, Coachman Ridge Tract A-I, Lot 86, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Hugh Grant stated the fence is needed for privacy and to cut down road noise. Most properties in the area have fences. This will be a wooden fence. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, it arises from a condition which is unique to the property, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that the fence be limited as illustrated to 44 feet on Northeast Coachman and appropriate landscaping be provided and that a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #6 - UPARC Foundation for variances of 1) 3 ft to permit building 10 ft from a side property line, 2) 19 parking spaces to allow 14 parking spaces in lieu of 33 parking spaces required, and 3) 150 sq ft of habitable floor area to permit an average of 400 sq ft per multifamily unit, at 1321 Highland Ave N, Sec 11-29-15, M&B 21-11, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential). Mr. Plisko stated he had a conflict of interest with regard to this case. The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Richard Churchill, representing the owner, stated this is an unusual parcel due to the slope of the land, a stream and waterfall running through the property, and many large trees. The building will be placed on the far side of the creek to minimize the impact on the creek. HUD requires the building be a certain distance from the railroad tracks. The government also limits the size of the units in the building. Because of all the site constraints, they are limited in their building and parking layout. They are providing as much parking as possible without removing additional trees. Thomas Buckley, director of resident services for UPARC, stated they have received a grant from HUD for this project. The residents are all mentally retarded and there will be on-site staff. None of the residents drive and there will only be one van and one station wagon for transportation. The size of the units is limited by HUD. In response to a question concerning possible change of use of the land, he stated UPARC has a 50 year commitment to the project and there is an 8 year waiting list for this type of facility. 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 variance will run with the land so long as the property is used for housing for mentally handicapped individuals and 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. Gans, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried. Request granted. The Board recessed from 3:00 p.m. to 3:12 p.m. ITEM #7 - Pelican Restaurant, Inc. (Henriquez) for a variance of 1 business identification sign to permit 3 such signs, at 484 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Park, Lot 65 & part of Lot 64, zoned CB (beach commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail and stated a previous variance was granted in 1987 for one sign. The total signage of the three signs will not exceed the total permitted square footage. Kathleen Dillon, representing the applicant, stated the existing signs have no visibility on Mandalay Ave. People can not find her business because there is no identification on the front of the building. Discussion ensued regarding sign clutter, signs already there from the last variance, and the fact that the street address is visible. Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Merriam moved to deny the variance as requested because there is no condition which is unique to the property, and no unnecessary hardship was shown, and it violates the general spirit and intent of this development code, as expressed in Sections 133.003 and 133.004. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Merriam, Homer, and Gans voted "Aye;" Mr. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM #8 - Sunset Coast Construction, Inc. for variances of 1) 3.5 ft to permit 6 ft high screen fence about dumpster in setback adjoining street R.O.W. where property is addressed and 2) of 3.5 ft to permit a 6 ft high wall in setback adjoining a street R.O.W. where property is addressed, at 714 Highland Ave N, Sec 11-29-15, M&B 32.01A and part of M&B 41.01, zoned RM-8 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating this is the former Boy Scout Hut property. The applicant wishes to build a multi-family development. The variances are for a privacy wall and wall around the dumpster. He noted that the view of the golf course might be obstructed to some extent. Kim Delashaw, of Suncoast Construction, stated they are working with SWFMD concerning this property. The masonry wall will be on three sides of the development, will be aesthetically pleasing, and will hide the dumpster. Discussion ensued regarding other possible locations for the dumpster. Mr. Delashaw stated the wall could not be moved back any further because it would interfere with Unit 10 of the development. There will be trees in front of the wall. Two citizens spoke in opposition stating the wall would look too commercial and block the view of the golf course. They felt a lower fence would be nicer looking and block off less of the view. One letter of objection was read into the record. In response to the objections, Mr. Delashaw stated their site plan has been approved and the view would not be blocked as much as suggested because of the topography of the land. Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variances, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances as requested because 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 #9 - George Puopolo for a variance of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining a street R.O.W. to which property is not addressed, at 1006 Apache Trail, Navajo Park Revised, Blk H, Lots 9 & 10, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. This is a corner lot and the applicant wishes to place a fence on Myrtle Ave. which is the secondary frontage. George Puopolo stated he needs the fence for privacy and safety reasons. There is a lot of traffic, noise, and crime in the area. The fence would make the property more livable and also provide a place for his dog to run. 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 it arises from a condition which is unique to the property in that a lot of the outdoor living area is on the Myrtle Ave. side of the property, subject to the condition that the fence goes no closer to Apache Trail than shown on the drawing and that a building 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. Plisko, Merriam, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #10 - National Operating L.P. for a variance of 2 ft to permit a 48 ft setback from east property line, at 2612-2668 U.S. 19 N, Sec 30-28-16, M&B 31-04, zoned CC (commercial center). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Chuck Jordan, architect representing the owner, stated a construction error was made when the building was erected and it was constructed 1-1/2 feet into the setback. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #11 - Joan Boni for a variance of 3 parking spaces to permit zero additional parking spaces, allowing conversion of 2 motel units to fast food sales use, at 19 and 19A Rockaway St, Miller's Replat, Lot 4 & part of Lot 9, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property has no parking, but there is public parking available nearby. Lawrence Boni stated he has run the motel/restaurant for 18 years. The existing restaurant is carry-out and he wishes to convert two units of the motel to provide seating for the restaurant. The restaurant was open from 1976 to 1978, and then closed for approximately 10 years. He reopened in July, 1988, and wants to expand to better serve the public. He has maintained all licenses since the beginning of the operation. Discussion ensued regarding the fact that a business loses its right to grandfather in parking once its use is discontinued. One citizen spoke in support stating the motel has had problems because of the noise from neighboring operations. She felt this operation is a good use for the property. There is public parking available and a lot of customers come from the beach. Discussion ensued regarding whether the parking spaces are grandfathered in for restaurant use. Because the applicant has failed to demonstrate a necessity for the variance, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested because no unnecessary hardship was shown, it is not a minimum variance, and it violates the general spirit and intent of this development code. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mr. Gans voted "Aye;" Mrs. Dobbs and Messrs. Merriam, Plisko, and Homer voted "Nay." Motion failed. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mrs. Dobbs 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, it arises from a condition which is unique to the area and the property and was not caused by the applicant, it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that the variance is in effect through May, 1990, at which time he will need to come back and that a building 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. Plisko, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #12 - Marion Brammall for a variance of 11 parking spaces to allow conversion of 4 multifamily units to 2500 sq ft office with 4 non-conforming spaces provided, at 304 Mars Ave S, Skycrest Unit B, Blk A, Lot 2, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). This item was withdrawn by the applicant. ITEM #13 - Florida Federal Savings & Loan Association for a variance of 20 ft to permit house 5 ft from rear property line, at 1734 Casey Jones Court, Coachman Ridge Tract A-III, Lot 248, zoned RS-2 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating this property has an unusual configuration. George Greer, attorney representing the applicant, stated this property was platted while it was in the County. The property has a unique shape and if they had to meet all setback requirements, only half the property could be used. The applicant has tried to purchase some land from the owner to the north but was refused. The house is the smallest in the area and they have tried to keep the variances as minimal as possible. The neighbors do not object to their plans. One letter and one petition with seven signatures in support of the application were submitted for the record. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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, it arises 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 six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #14 - Richard Brutus for variances of 1) 1 business identification sign to permit 2 such signs and 2) 31.38 sq ft to permit 46.38 sq ft of business identification signage, at 125 S Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23-04, zoned CG (general commercial). This item is continued to October 13, 1988. The Planning Official reported to the Board that the sign at 610 Island Way is no longer there. MINUTES Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of August 25, 1988, and August 31, 1988, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Merriam moved to approve the amendments to the motions. (see attached.) The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.