Loading...
02/08/1990DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD February 8, 1990 Members present: Kemper W. Merriam, Chairman John W. Homer, Vice-Chairman Otto Gans Thomas J. Graham Emma C. Whitney (arrived at 1:07 p.m.) Also present: Sandy Glatthorn, 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 Chambers 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. II. Public Hearings ITEM #1 - E & R Properties, Inc. (Tio Pepe Restaurant) for variances of 1) 4 parking spaces, 2) 6 ft to permit an aisle width of 12 ft with 60 degree parking angle, and 3) 5 ft to permit zero landscaping width between parking and a residential zone, at 2930 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Section 17-29-16, M&B 14.04 & 14.05, zoned CG (general commercial) and CR-24 (resort commercial). V 90-15 The application was withdrawn by the applicant. ITEM #2 - Landmark Reserve Partnership for variances 1) of 48 inches in height to permit a 78 inch high wall in setback adjacent to proposed "address" street (proposed Lots 1 and 14/ Oakmont Drive), 2) of 30 inches in height to permit a 78 inch high wall in setback adjacent to "no-address" streets (proposed Lots 1, 8 - 14/ Landmark Drive and Curlew Road), and 3) to permit zero access gates (proposed Lots 1, 8 - 14), at 3461 Landmark Drive, Florida Convalescent Center, Lot A, zoned RM-8 (multiple family residential). V 90-16 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances were previously approved on March 23, 1989; however, a permit was not obtained in the time required. The applicant feels the wall is needed to provide privacy, security, and screening from the road. The applicant has agreed not to request a permit for the wall until the final plat has been recorded. Staff recommends approval of the variances with conditions. Jerry Gottlieb, representing the applicant, stated this request is a reinstatement of the previously granted variances. He indicated there was a misunderstanding in regard to obtaining the permit and recording the final plat. He said the final plat should be recorded within two weeks. The project is underway and the road is almost prepared for installation and it is anticipated the wall construction would begin immediately following the issuance of the permit and recording of the plat. Mrs. Whitney arrived at 1:07 p.m. Mr. Gottlieb indicated, as part of the project, the area had been downzoned and he feels it will be an enhancement to the area. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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; they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of the property on the corner of Curlew Road and Landmark Drive and for safety and security reasons; subject to the conditions that 1) final approval and recording of the plat be made prior to the issuance of a the permit; 2) that Public Works control the final reasonable location of the wall subject to easements as recorded on the final plat; 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 #3 - Peter T. Scinlari for a variance of 2 ft in height to permit a 6 ft high wall setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed, at 1688 Lee Road, Coachman Ridge Tract A-III, Lot 257, zoned RS-2 (single family residential). V 90-17 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the subject property fronts on three streets. The proposed wall will be constructed in the setback area and designed to match the wall directly to the north. Similar 6 foot walls have been erected in this area. Staff recommends approval of the variance with conditions. Eric Ager, representing the applicant, stated the applicant wishes to erect a wall using similar brick to that on the northerly wall of their neighbor's house across the street. He indicated the proposed wall will provide privacy, safety, and security for an invalid child. He indicated the wall would be professionally designed. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not the wall's design, color, and materials should be identical to the wall to the north. Concern was expressed that two different walls would detract from the appearance and character of the subdivision entrance and would affect the balance of the entire subdivision. One letter in support was submitted for the record. Discussion ensued in regard to the type of materials to be used and the color of the exterior and interior walls. 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 is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant; a strict interpretation of the Code would result in an unnecessary hardship on the applicant; it is the minimum necessary and is not based on a desire for a greater financial return from the property; and it would not be detrimental, but would enhance the nearby properties and would not violate the spirit and intent of the development code; subject to the wall being dropped from 6 feet in height to 4 feet in height at the same distance from Wetherington Road centerline as the existing wall on the property immediately to the north (2300 Wetherington Road); 2) the wall be built incorporating the same type of design, exterior materials, and exterior color as the wall at 2300 Wetherington Road; and that the 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. Mr. Merriam noted his vote in opposition is due to the conditions imposed on the approval. ITEM #4 - Steven and Patsy Boswell for a variance of 9 ft to permit stairs 16 ft from a street right-of-way, at 3041 St. Croix Drive, Salls Lake Park Third Addition, Blk K, Lot 1, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-18 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is a pie-shaped lot with a steep slope from front to back. Staff recommends approval of the variance with conditions. Don Grinson, representing the applicant, stated the property is unique because of its location at the end of a cul-de-sac, the location of a City-owned park to the east, the SPCA directly to the south, and one abutting property owner to the right. The property slopes approximately 13 feet from the north to the southeast. It was indicated it was noted on the building permit the stairs would be provided according to grade. For aesthetic reasons and due to the grade, it was indicated the proposed design of the stairway was the best for this situation. He indicated the neighbors do not object. He indicated, at the time of the final survey, it was determined there was an encroachment. It was indicated the stairs did meet code at the time of the final inspection. 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 shape and topographical conditions 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, which is the drop in elevation from the front to the rear of the property; subject to the condition that revised stair plans be submitted and final approval of the stairs by the Building Department be obtained. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #5 - Dan's Island 1660 Condominium Association, Inc. for variances of 1) 66.6 ft to permit stairs seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and 2) 66.6 ft to permit stairs zero ft from mean high tide, at 1600 Gulf Blvd, Dan's Island of Sand Key, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential). V 90-19 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the stairs will extend from the seawall to the water providing access to the beach for the residents. Approval by the Department of Natural Resources is also required to allow a structure seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). Both the condominiums to the north and south have similar steps. Staff recommends approval of the variances with conditions. A question was raised as to whether or not approval has been received for the seawall seaward of the CCCL. Glen Roush, representing the applicant, stated the property is unique in that it is difficult to get to the water due to the 6 foot high seawall and the large rocks. He indicated the applicant is proposing to construct the steps from the south building of Dan's Island and eventually would like to construct another set of steps from the north building. There is no convenient access to the beach with the nearest access being over 500 feet away. Three letters in support were submitted for the record. In response to a question, it was indicated, at high tide the water is approximately knee deep at the end of the stairs. It was indicated the property is private and would only be used by the condominium owners. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer 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; it arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, the unique condition being that the beach has washed away from Dan's Island and there is no convenient access to the Gulf; 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, Messrs. Graham, Homer, and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. III. Minutes Mr. Gans requested the minutes of January 25, 1990 be amended to reflect his absence as being excused. Mr. Graham moved to approve the minutes of January 25, 1990, as amended, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. IV. Board Comments The Chairman inquired as to why some variance requests regarding the Coastal Construction Control Line go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeal of Building/Flood Control and others to this Board. The Planning Manager stated he will research the request and report back to the Board. Scott Shuford, the new Planning Manager, was introduced to the Board. Discussion ensued in regard to possible revisions to the Land Development Code with alcoholic beverage establishments being a major area of interest. The Planning and Development Director indicated he would like to streamline the processing of requests; i.e. site plans, alcoholic beverage, etc. He indicated by May 1, 1990, the Land Development Code needs to be brought into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Reference was made to a previous operational survey and it was indicated those recommendations were in hand. There was discussion concerning Gionis Plaza's parking requirements. Discussion ensued in regard to the interpretation of the code regarding parking requirements for establishments within a shopping center. V. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:12 p.m.