Loading...
03/10/1989 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD March 9, 1989 Members present: Otto Gans, Acting Chairman Kemper Merriam John Homer Thomas J Graham Member absent: Michele Krentzman (excused) 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 - (request for time extension) - 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 applicant sent a letter requesting an extension of the time in which to obtain a permit. Robert Roberts, representing the applicant, stated they need the time extension because they are waiting for final HRS approval and licensing. Mr. Homer moved to grant a time extension of three (3) months. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #1 - John Shaw for a variance of 21.33 ft to permit second floor deck 3.67 ft from Clearwater Harbor, at 673 Bay Esplanade, Five Palms Motel Condo, Unit 210, zoned CR-24 (resort commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is developed with a motel/condo. The proposed second floor deck will align with a deck on the first floor. In response to a question, the Planning Official stated the existing deck is nonconforming if it is more than one foot above grade level. Don McMullen, manager representing the applicant, stated the proposed second floor deck will be smaller than the deck downstairs. In response to a question, he stated the supports for the proposed deck extend one foot beyond the first floor deck. The lower deck is nonconforming because it is approximately two feet above grade. John Shaw purchased the upstairs unit with the understanding that he could have a deck. The joists were put up, but the work was stopped when problems arose. Alan Ladd, contractor, stated he voluntarily stopped work when he discovered there was a misunderstanding by the owner as to what was allowed by the Code. The president of the condominium association, spoke in support of the application stating the deck was approved by the board of directors of the condominium association. He submitted drawings and copies of the minutes approving the deck. One letter in opposition was submitted for the record noting that the president was the former owner of the subject condominium unit and that the entire association had not voted on the deck project. In rebuttal, Mr. McMullen stated the association approved the project and the deck is aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Merriam 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 there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, it is not a minimum variance, and it would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Section 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. ITEM #2 - Chateaux De Ville Homeowners Association, Inc for variances of 1) 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high wall in setback adjoining street right-of-way to which property is not addressed, 2) 42 inches in height to permit a 6 ft high wall in setback adjoining street right-of-way to which property is addressed, 3) 3 ft to permit wall zero ft from a street right-of-way, 4) zero landscaping on right-of-way side of wall, and 5) zero access gates to secondary right-of-way on double frontage lots, at Nursery Rd and Chateaux De Ville Court, Chateaux De Ville, Lots 1 - 62, zoned RM-16 (multiple family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. In February, 1985, variances for the wall were denied by the board. An appeal was filed and the hearing officer upheld the Board's decision. The wall was then reduced to its present height. William Biehl, representing the applicant, stated there is an existing 30 inch high wall. They wish to have the higher wall for noise, security, and privacy reasons. The association maintains the area outside the wall but there is no landscaping because of a ditch. If the variances are approved, they plan to increase the height of the existing block wall. In response to questions, the Planning Official stated a low wall does not need to be setback and, therefore, is not required to be landscaped. Three citizens spoke in support citing concerns regarding noise, security and privacy and noting they were told by the builder that a wall would be built. Discussion ensued regarding wall design, the traffic safety problem and landscaping maintenance. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant variances #1 and #2 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 are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship of security, dirt, and noise, subject to the condition that both variances must comply with the City Traffic Engineer as to sight visibility for ingress and egress off Nursery Rd, and that a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Homer, and Graham voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. Mr. Homer moved to deny variances #3 and #4 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 there is no condition which is unique to the property, no unnecessary hardship was shown, and the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to grant variance #5 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, subject to the condition that landscaping be provided and be maintained by the association on a permanent basis, and that a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #3 - Wayne Davis for a variance of 20 ft to permit house 5 ft from a street right-of-way, at 970 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 61, Lot 8, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to demolish the house on the subject property and rebuild. Steve Seibert, attorney representing the owner and prospective purchaser, stated the property abuts a pedestrian right-of-way which requires a 25 foot setback. The proposed house will be set back farther than the existing house. The board has allowed similar variances along Eldorado Ave. Wayne Phillips, propsective purchaser, stated they will keep the naturally growing beach shrubbery. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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 unique to the property and other properties on the beach and was not caused by the applicant, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within nine (9) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #4 - Emily Collie for variances of 1) 10 ft to permit construction on a 40 ft wide lot, 2) 1400 sq ft to permit construction on a 3600 sq ft lot, 3) 7% building coverage to permit 49% building coverage, and 4) 4.67 ft to permit construction of house 5.33 ft from rear property line, at 1149 Tangerine St, Greenwood Park #2, Blk D, Lot 10, zoned RM-12 (multiple family residential) per RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to build a single family house. The lot was platted in 1924 and is very small. Samuel Collie, representing the owner, stated the previous house burnt down. They tried to purchase additional land adjacent to their lot, but could not do so. They wish to build a two bedroom 1-1/2 bath house. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the house could be downsized to lessen the encroachment into the rear setback. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant variances #1, #2, and #3 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, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship of the lot size and width, 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. Mr. Graham moved to deny variance #4 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 on the rear setback, and it is not a minimum variance. The motion was duly seconded. Because of concern regarding encroachment into the rear setback, the applicant was asked if he could provide plans for the proposed house. The applicant stated he had plans but did not bring them to the meeting. It was the consensus of the Board that they would like to see the plans before voting on Variance #4. The second to the motion was withdrawn and the motion was withdrawn. Mr. Graham moved to continue Variance #4 until the meeting of March 23, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Variance #4 continued. ITEM #5 - City of Clearwater for variances of 1) 4.3 ft to permit roof 10.7 ft from a street right-of-way, and 2) 12 ft to permit roof zero ft from side property line, at 700 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub #5, Blk A, Lot 24, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are for a roof overhang on the east side of the Police Beach Substation. Lt. Frank Polombo, representing the owner, stated previous variances were granted for a vehicle storage shed. Because their operation is 24-hours a day, the increased noise volume in the concrete garage area, headlights, radios, and other activities create a hardship for their neighbors, especially the Bel Crest Motel. The concrete wall does not eliminate all the noise. They are asking for an aluminum roof overhang connecting the first story of the building to the concrete wall. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam 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, they arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, and they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship that has been placed upon the neighbors due to the necessary activity at the Police Substation, 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. The Board recessed from 2:42 p.m. to 2:55 p.m. ITEM #6 - William Zisa for a variance of 1.27 ft to permit house 3.73 ft from side property line, at 325 Windward Island, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 4, Lot 52, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Bill Zisa stated plans for the house were drawn up using an old survey. They received City approval, construction was started, and later they discovered that the southwest corner of the house encroached into the side setback. One letter in support 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 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 not caused by the applicant, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship of using an incorrect survey at the time of construction. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #7 - Oxford/Concord Investment #1 (Home Depot) for variances of 1) 0.39% lot open space to allow 24.61% open space, and 2) 4 ft in height to permit an 8 ft high fence in setback area adjoining street right-of-way to which property is not addressed, at 2351 U.S. 19 N, Cypress Point Shopping Center, Lot 1, zoned CC (commercial center). The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are for an outdoor storage area enclosed by a fence. He noted these variances were approved by the Board in January, 1988. Nathan Hightower, attorney representing the applicant and Home Depot, stated the variances are for an outdoor merchandise storage area. Their conditional use approval expired and is scheduled to be heard next Tuesday. Their previous conditional use request was approved with a condition that there be 8 foot high landscaping. No merchandise will be stacked higher than the fence. The cedar fence will be torn down and replaced with an 8 foot chain link fence with slats which, they feel, will cut down the noise and hide the unsightliness of the area. They have discussed this project with the neighbors who have no objection. One letter in support was submitted for the record, which stated they had no objection if a decorative masonry wall were erected instead of a fence. They noted problems with unsightly fencing, weeds, lack of landscaping maintenance, and noise from trucks and loudspeakers. Nathan Hightower stated all the problems mentioned in the letter would be addressed but they cannot agree to erect a masonry wall. Discussion ensued addressing the concerns of the type of wall or fence to be built, noise reduction, maintenance, and approval by neighbors. Mr. Hightower felt the fencing they propose is a compromise for all those concerned. Randy Avery, from Home Depot, stated they could not build a masonry wall because of costs and utilities in the area. One letter of support was submitted for the record. Discussion continued concerning the conditions of the area in the past, and the fact that one neighbor is not aware of the type of fencing being proposed. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam 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, they are the minimum necessary to overcome an unnecessary hardship placed on the neighbors due to the use of the area being fenced, subject to the conditions of approval placed on the conditional use application, removal and replacement of the existing cedar fencing, and that a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #8 - George Topic for a variance of 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjoining street right-of-way to which property is not addressed, at 2387 Podocarpus Way, Shady Oak Farms, Blk B, Lot 5, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). The Planning Official explained the application in detail. A similar variance was granted in December, 1988, to the property to the north. Robert Lang, representing the owner, stated they wish to have the fence for privacy and noise reduction. The old fence will be removed and the new fence tied in with the neighbors. The new fence will be 5 feet back from the sidewalk, have a access gate and be landscaped. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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, subject to the condition that the fence be placed five (5) feet from the property line and be landscaped according to Code, and that a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #9 - Ordinance #4783-89 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 134.006, Code of Ordinances, to clarify the definition of sign surface area comprised of lettereing placed on a wall or in a window; providing an effective date. The Planning Official explained the ordinance in detail. He stated the necessity for the ordinance is to clarify the definition of sign area. He suggested amending the ordinance by adding the word "single" in two places in the ordinance: "Surface area. The single smallest rectangular, ..." and "the surface area shall be the single smallest rectangular, trapezoidal," The Planning Official recommended approval of the ordinance with these amendments. Discussion ensued regarding window signs and whether there should be a definition for a "window." Mr. Merriam moved to recommend approval of Ordinance #4783-89 as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS ITEM - Harmond Haynes for a variance of 820 ft to permit establishment of an Adult Congregate Living Facility 380 ft from an existing facility, at 1314 N Highland Ave, Highland Terrace Manor, Blk G, Lot 1, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Board acknowledged receipt of a petition that was not presented at the February 9, 1989, public hearing due to an administrative error. Board members reviewed the petition and determined it would not affect the decision that was made. It was the consensus of the Board that no further action is needed. The Planning Official reported on several items to the Board. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board found the Gulf to Bay pawn shop in violation of the directional and window sign regulations. The inspectors are checking on Gulf Marine for violations. The variance for the sign at Sunset 19 Shopping Center was granted with the condition that the sign conform to the Code by 1992. The Key West Antiques sign on the side of the building has been permitted because signage on a wall can be double the size of pole signage. Discussion ensued concerning construction that has been allowed at grade level on the beach by the Building Department. There was a question regarding whether it was in the Board's jurisdiction to inquire about this matter. It was the consensus of the Board that this was not in their jurisdiction, but a member could inquire as a citizen. There was some discussion concerning the Chelsea Woods wall and how it compares with the Florida Convalescent Centre's request. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN Mr. Homer nominated Mr. Merriam for Chairman. As there were no other nominations, the nominations were closed. Mr. Merriam was unanimously elected Chairman. Mr. Homer nominated Mr. Graham for Vice-Chairman. Mr. Graham declined the nomination. Mr. Graham nominated Mr. Homer for Vice-Chairman. As there were no other nominations, the nominations were closed. Mr. Homer unanimously was elected Vice-Chairman. The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.