Loading...
11/09/1989 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD November 9, 1989 Members present: Kemper W. Merriam, Chairman John W. Homer, Vice-Chairman Otto P. Gans Thomas J. Graham Emma C. Whitney (arrived 1:04 p.m.) Also present: John Richter, Planning Official Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant 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 #1 - Steve and Kathleen Annas for variances of 1) 20.67 ft to permit storage addition 4.33 ft from a street right-of-way, 2) 5.4% open space for lot to allow 29.6%, and 3) 6.2% front yard open space to allow 33.8%, at 766 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay, Blk 4, Lot 4, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-180 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the Board denied setback and open space variances on this property on September 14, 1989. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Hank St. Jean, representing the applicant, stated the plans have been revised by eliminating the northwest patio, and substituting a parking pad for the original proposed carport. Space is needed to park a second car because parking is not allowed on the street. The proposed foyer addition on the southeast corner of the structure will be built flush with the existing front wall. In response to a question, it was indicated the parking pad will not be covered. Concern was expressed regarding the stone wall in front of the southern addition and Mr. St. Jean stated they would be willing to remove it. One letter in support was submitted for the record. Discussion ensued in regard to the location of the addition and whether or not the addition would be used for something other than storage. It was indicated the proposed addition seems to be in the most desirable location due to the placement of the house; however, there is space available within the buildable area of the lot for construction of the addition with no setback variance. Concern was expressed in regard to extending a non-conformity and whether or not this was a minimum variance. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant a variance of 11.67 feet to permit an addition on the south side of the residence 13.33 feet from a street right-of-way where 25 feet is required, 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 was not caused by the applicant; the particular physical surroundings of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship of being located on the Gulf front on the north end of Clearwater Beach where there are other nonconforming properties; subject to the conditions that the proposed addition be used only for storage, that the stone wall be removed or re-aligned with the eastern front of the addition, 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. Whitney, Messrs. Gans, Graham, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant a variance of 3% open space to permit 32% open space where 35% is required 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 was not caused by the applicant; the particular surroundings and shape of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the current size of the house and its location on the north end of Clearwater Beach; subject to the conditions that the proposed parking pad not be covered with a roof structure or enclosed, that it remain open, and 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 #3 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, it is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property, it will be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or the neighborhood, 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 - Mac and Naomi Williams for a variance of 1.4 ft to permit room addition 8.6 ft from a rear property line at 1300 Ridge Ave, Highland Pines 1st Addition, Blk 8, Lot 6, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-181 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating previous setback variances were approved on September 14 and 28; however, the relocation of the proposed addition, as agreed upon by the applicant in an effort to reduce the size of the variances requested, necessitated this request. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Michael Myrick, of NuRoom representing the applicant, stated there was some confusion as to the need for a variance for a rear setback or a side setback. He said they would be squaring off the house and indicated the neighbors do not object. 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 was not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings of the property involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship of the location of the bedrooms and bathrooms in the existing house, 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 #3 - John and Dorothy Wice for a variance of 10.5 ft in length to permit dock 40.5 ft long at 167 Bayside Dr, Bayside #4, Lot 14, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 89-182 The Planning Official explained the application in detail. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Andrew Rackstein, representing the applicant, stated the variance is being requested to add to the length of the dock. The property is located at the widest part of the estuary, where the water flows slowly and there is considerable shoaling. The applicant would like to moor his boat north to south indicating it is safer to get off at the widest point; however, the shoaling of the water makes this impossible. He indicated the navigable part of the waterway would not be obstructed and the neighbors to the east and west do not object. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 that is common in this area and was not caused by the applicant, and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the shoaling of the water, 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 - Farmers State Bank of Greenfield for a variance of 8% lot open space to permit 37% lot open space at 420 Palm Island NE, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 6B, Lot 84, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 89-183 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the lack of open space is due to the large pool deck. He said the size of the house would be in proportion with the size of the lot and the neighborhood with the proposed addition. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Bob Schwartz, representing the applicant, stated they want to expand the present home and add a utility room and storage area. He indicated the additions will align with the existing home and be aesthetically pleasing. One citizen requested clarification of the requested variance and it was indicated the additions would not intrude any further into the setbacks than other existing structures in the neighborhood. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 was not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved, combined with the large pool deck, create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, 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 #5 - Star Enterprise (Texaco) for variances of 1) 3.6 interior landscaping for parking lot to allow provision of 2.4%, and 2) 25% front yard open space to allow 25%, at 1501 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Druid Hills, Lots 1, 2, 4 & 18, zoned CG (general commercial). V 89-184 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property was formerly a Texaco gas station. He said the property is now cleared and will be redeveloped with a gas station, car wash, and convenience store. Staff recommends denial of the variances. Joe Hadlow, representing the applicant, stated problems were encountered in designing the landscaping plan. He pointed out that since the original application was filed there have been problems with D.O.T.'s alleged rights-of-way and the fact that some of the property had been condemned and could not be used. Records do not support this claim and documentation to grant an easement to the City for maintenance is in the process of being executed in which case the front yard open space variance will not be needed. The applicant requested that variance request #2 be withdrawn. Discussion ensued regarding relocating the parking area in order to increase interior landscaping and it was indicated this would inconvenience the customer. Discussion also ensued in regard to the number of parking spaces and it was indicated there are two extra spaces. Mark Paules, engineer, indicated a landscape buffer around the perimeter was being provided; however, the Planning Official said this could not be counted as the landscaping has to be interior to the paved area. Mr. Paules stated a hardship exists in providing adequate interior landscaping due to State, SWFWMD, and City regulations. Discussion ensued in regard to areas where green space could be added. Concern was expressed regarding traffic flow problems at the intersection of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue and the need to provide as much open space as possible. Mr. Graham moved to continue the item to the meeting of November 21, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Board recessed from 2:50 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. ITEM #6 - David and Candace Martens for a variance of 42 inches in height to permit fence/wall 72 inches high in setback adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is addressed, at 425 Lotus Path, Corrected Map of Harbor Oaks, Lot 108, and part of Lots 106 & 110, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 89-185 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the vacant lot is to be developed with a single family home. Staff recommends denial of the variance. It is felt there are other alternatives to buffer the property from the commercial use to the east. David Martens stated the fencing will be aesthetically attractive and will enclose a play area for his children, as well as block the view and buffer the noise from Ft. Harrison Avenue and other non-residential properties. Landscaping will be provided in front of the fence. He indicated the neighbors do not object. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not a hardship exists and it was noted other homes in the area have hedges rather than fencing. Mr. Graham 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, 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 #7 - Forrest and Renee Garrison (Checkers Drive-In Restaurant) for variances of 1) 30 ft to permit building 145 ft from centerline of U.S. Highway 19 South, 2) 15 ft to permit structure 5 ft from a side (south) property line, 3) 30% front yard open space to allow 20%, and 4) to allow sign to extend above canopy, at 1474 U.S. Highway 19 S, Section 19-29-16, M&B's 41.09 & 41.10, zoned CH (highway commercial). V 89-186 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are for a fast food restaurant. Staff recommends denial of the variances. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the site is difficult to develop due to the physical surroundings of being located on U.S. 19. Other businesses in the area have similar alignments and setbacks as are being requested for this site. There is adequate green space behind the building. The motel owner next door to this property spoke in opposition indicating that the noise created by a business of this nature and its hours of operation would have an adverse effect on his business. A citizen expressed concern for the motel owner and questioned whether or not this type operation would devalue the property. In rebuttal, Mr. Cline indicated the noise would not be greater than is already present on U.S. 19 and that developing the site would upgrade the area. Discussion ensued in regard to flipping the building and it was indicated this would not be feasible from a traffic standpoint. Discussion also ensued concerning whether or not a hardship exists and it was indicated the building would draw customers even if it were set back. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variance #4 as requested to allow a sign to extend above the canopy 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 particular physical surroundings and the shape of the building combined with the Code involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied, subject to the condition that a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant variance #1 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 a building permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney and Mr. Homer voted "Aye;" Messrs. Gans, Graham, and Merriam voted "Nay." Motion failed. Mr. Gans moved to deny variance #1 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, 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 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 upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Gans, Graham, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mrs. Whitney and Mr. Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request denied. Mr. Graham moved to reconsider the motion denying Variance #1. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Gans, Graham, and Homer voted "Aye;" Mr. Merriam voted "Nay." The motion carried. Request granted. Mr. Graham moved to continue Variances #1, #2, and #3 to the meeting of November 21, 1989. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. MINUTES Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of October 12 and October 26, 1989, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Board requested the Planning Official investigate the wall at Chateaux de Ville. The Planning Official reported that staff is inspecting the deck at the Penguin Palace and checking on remodeling permits for the Bulldog property next to Julie's on the beach. Discussion ensued in regard to the outdoor seating at Julie's Restaurant and the need to enforce the code uniformly. The Planning Official stated he would report to the Board at the next meeting regarding Julie's and other possible code violators. The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.