Loading...
03/08/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD March 8, 1990 Members present: Kemper W. Merriam, Chairman John W. Homer, Vice-Chairman Thomas J. Graham Alex Plisko Emma C. Whitney (arrived 1:02 p.m.) Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager 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. I. Public Hearings ITEM - (continued from 2/22/90) Orville C. and Florence C. Bickel, Jr. for variances of 1) 19 ft to permit handrail 6 ft and second floor addition 21 ft from Clearwater Harbor, 2) 14.18 ft to permit handrail 10.82 ft and second floor addition 13.82 ft from a street right-of-way (Somerset St.), 3) 90 ft to permit construction on a 60 ft wide corner lot, and 4) 8400 sq ft to permit construction on a 6600 sq ft lot, at 693 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Replat #5, Blk 76, Lot 1, zoned RM-20 (multi-family residential). V 90-26 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to expand one of the four second story apartment units and add a deck directly above the existing first floor. The renovation will not increase the density. The structure has been grandfathered in under the present zoning. Staff recommends denial of the setback variances and approval of the variances allowing construction. Orville Bickel stated he wishes to construct a handrail along a 3-foot roof overhang. The second floor addition will allow for a kitchen and dining room for his apartment on the first floor. The other three second-story apartments will remain rental units. Discussion ensued concerning the placement of the handrail and staff recommends the railing be in alignment with the existing footprint of the building. There was discussion regarding whether or not a hardship exists and whether the granting of the variances would extend a nonconformity and whether there were viable alternatives to the proposed design. Variance #1 Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant a variance of 19 ft to permit a handrail 6 ft from Clearwater Harbor 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; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the existing conditions; 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. Merriam and Plisko voted "Aye;" Messrs. Graham and Homer voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to deny a variance of 4 feet to permit second floor addition 21 feet from Clearwater Harbor 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 and because no unnecessary hardship was shown. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. Variance #2 Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant a variance of 14.18 feet to permit handrail 10.82 feet from the street right-of-way (Somerset Street) 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; and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the existing conditions, 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. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant a variance of 11.18 feet to permit second floor addition 13.82 feet from street right-of-way (Somerset Street) 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 shape of the property involved would 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;. 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. Variances #3 and #4 Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant variances #3 and #4 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 were not caused by the applicant; the particular shape of the property involved would create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the size of the property and its location on Clearwater Beach and Bay Esplanade; 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 #1 - Lighthouse Towers Condominium Association, Inc. for variances 1) of 18 inches in height to permit a 48 inch high fence in front yard setback area, 2) of 23 ft to permit fence seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, 3) to allow fence in setback area adjoining waterfront, and 4) to permit fence in clear space, at 1290 Gulf Blvd., Lighthouse Towers, A Condominium, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential) and OS/R (open space/recreational. V 90-30 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the request is to construct a 48-inch tall vinyl-covered chain link fence adjacent to a public beach access easement. Staff recommends denial of the height variance and approval of the setback variances. Jean Davis, representing the applicant, stated trespassers have caused abuse and destruction of the property. She felt a 30-inch high fence would not deter trespassers from using the private facilities as a fence of this height could easily be stepped over. Concern was expressed in setting a precedent of allowing fences along public beach access easements and it was felt the same result could be accomplished with landscaping and some fencing. Ms. Davis indicated the fencing would not obstruct the view of the Gulf from any direction. Discussion ensued in regard to the height of the fence and it was indicated fence height in the "clear space" is limited to 30 inches. Based on the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to deny variance #1 as requested since the applicant has not demonstrated that she 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 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. Motion carried. Request denied. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant variances #2, #3 as requested and variance #4 to permit a 48-inch high fence in the "clear space" 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 were not caused by the applicant; the particular physical surroundings and conditions of the property involved would create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied; and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by being located adjacent to a public beach access easement; subject to the conditions 1) that the fence extend no further than 23 feet west of the Coastal Construction Control Line to the seawall; 2) that the fence be constructed of vinyl covered chain link; 3) that all necessary permits be obtained from state agencies regulating construction beyond the Coastal Construction Control Line; and 4) that a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #2 - William F. and Jean P. Davis for a variance of 3.5 ft to permit pool enclosure 3.5 ft from a side property line, at 1812 Oak Forest Dr West, Forest Wood Estates, Lot 25, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 90-31 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the property is developed with a single family residence including a swimming pool. The applicant indicated the variance request is to be reduced to two feet due to a utility easement that cannot be vacated. The amended proposal is to allow the construction of a pool enclosure 5 feet from the side property line. Trees in the area present a maintenance problem. Staff recommends approval of a 2-foot variance. Michael Myrick, representing the applicant, stated the existing pool water line is at the required setback and he indicated a preference of a 36-inch wide deck around the pool. One letter in support was submitted for the record. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant a variance of 2 feet to allow a screen enclosure 5 feet from the south property 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 is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant; the particular conditions of the property involved would 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 location of the pool on the south side of the property and the available area to build the screen enclosure; 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. Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk, left the meeting and was replaced by Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk, at 2:15 p.m. ITEM #3 - Thomas and Nicolleta Severino for variances 1) of 10.8 ft to permit parking spaces to encroach into clear space, 2) of 83.7 ft to allow construction on a 66.3 ft wide lot, 3) to permit 1.5 ft average landscape strip width between street right-of-way and parking lot, and 4) of 2 ft to allow a 1 ft landscaped strip along west side of parking lot and a 2 to 3 ft landscaped strip along east side of parking lot, at 606 Bayway Blvd., Bayside Sub #5, Blk A. Lot 7, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-32 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the variances are to remodel a six unit motel into a fast food restaurant with living quarters on the second floor. The applicant's proposal will eliminate hazardous parking conditions. Staff recommends approval of the variances with conditions. Discussion ensued regarding staff's reasons for recommending approval. Chris Andros, representing the applicant, stated there are 8 parking spaces encroaching 9 feet into the right-of-way. He submitted a drawing showing the parking design and indicated the spaces were reduced to a width of 8 feet 6 inches. He stated the pool will be eliminated and access to the second floor will be at the rear of the property. The Assistant City Attorney left at 2:30 p.m. Discussion ensued regarding the parking spaces not being adequate in width and concern about paving the entire front of the property. It was indicated that lot size and configuration justify some variances but the property is being over-utilized. It was suggested the parking could be redesigned using parking spaces reduced in size. The applicant requested a continuation. Mr. Plisko moved to continue the item to the meeting of April 12, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Minutes Mr. Merriam requested the minutes of February 22, 1990, be amended to delete on page 3 the sentence reading: "Mr. Merriam noted his vote in opposition is due to the conditions imposed on the approval." Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of February 22, 1990, as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. III. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman Mr. Graham nominated John Homer for Chairman. As there were no other nominations, Mr. Homer was appointed Chairman. Mr. Homer nominated Jim Graham for Vice-Chairman. As there were no other nominations, Mr. Graham was appointed Vice-Chairman. IV. Board Comments The Planning Manager reported to the Board that different code requirements determine which cases come to this board and which are heard by the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Building/Flood Control. McDonald's will be modifying their parking signage. Frenchy's on the beach has been cited for their nonconforming parking area. He reported the hearing officer upheld the Board's decision with regard to Perkins signage. Mr. Homer expressed appreciation for the report concerning self-imposed hardship prepared by Miles Lance, some time ago. There was some discussion regarding problems created when staff recommends approval of an item, the Board denies it, and the decision is appealed to the Hearing Officer. This causes problems for the Legal Department who must defend the Board's decision against staff recommendations. The Planning Official reported that ACLFs must obtain local zoning approval before HRS approval. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.