Loading...
06/28/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD June 28, 1990 Members present: John W. Homer, Chairman Thomas J. Graham, Vice-Chairman Kemper Merriam Emma C. Whitney Member absent: Alex Plisko 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 1:02 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 6/14/90) Jack E. and Erin L. Russell III for a variance of 3 ft to permit screen room addition 7 ft from a rear property line at 2197 Springrain Circle, Springlake of Clearwater, Lot 37, zoned RPD 7.6 (residential planned development). V 90-87 The Planning Manager stated this item was continued due to the City Commission's policy concerning enclosures in RPD developments. Staff accepted this application prior to learning of this policy and is requesting another continuance until after the item goes before the Commission on July 19, 1990. Mr. Graham moved to continue this item to the meeting of July 26, 1990. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #1 - Douglas L. and Joyce W. Alderman for a variance of 22 ft to permit screen room addition 3 ft from a street right-of-way at 958 Narcissus Ave, Carlouel Sub, Blk 257, part of Lots 1 & 2, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-94 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the lot is irregular due to the fact there are only three sides, two of which are adjacent to street rights-of-way. The applicant will remove the concrete patio area by Lantana Avenue and landscape around the addition. Doug Alderman stated a hardship is created by the nonconforming lot. He indicated other properties would not be adversely affected due to the proximity of the lot. The removal of the concrete patio will increase the open space and bring the living area closer to the house. In response to a question, he stated the enclosure will be screened including the roof with the lower 2-3 foot being of aluminum material. In response to a question, the Planning Manager indicated he was not aware of any intent by the City to remove the barricade along Carlouel Addition in the future and opening up the street. One letter in support was submitted for the record. 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 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 lot shape and location on Clearwater Beach adjacent to the barricaded street between Carlouel and the remainder of the beach, subject to the conditions that the existing impermeable concrete patio area must be replaced with permeable landscaping as indicated on the applicant's drawing prior to obtaining the requisite certificate of use/occupancy for the proposed screen room, that the screen room be as stated by the applicant which is a fully screened wall and roof with the exception of the lower two feet which is an aluminum finish material 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 #2 - James L. and Matta Panoutsos for a variance of 4 ft to permit roof supports 21 ft from a street right-of-way at 205 S Cirus Ave, Skycrest Sub Unit 9, Blk E, Lot 10 and west 1/2 of vacated alley, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-95 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the roof will be constructed over an existing slab in the front of the house. Jim Panoutsos stated the roof would shield the house from the sun and the rain. In response to questions, it was indicated the roof of the porch would extend 9 feet out from the house and would be open. One petition in support with 8 signatures was submitted for the record. Discussion ensued concerning the design of the roof and whether or not this is a minimum variance. 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 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 lot size and the location of the house, subject to the conditions that the porch area not be enclosed by screening or any other materials 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 - Herbert E. and Patricia T. Atkinson, Jr. for a variance of 14 ft to permit second floor garage addition 1 ft from a rear property line at 429 Magnolia Drive, Harbor Oaks, Lot 72 and part of Lots 70 & 74, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 90-96 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the addition will be utilized for guest living quarters with no windows on the south side to ensure the neighbor's privacy. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the house has only two bedrooms which is consistent with other area residences. He indicated that guest/servant living quarters over the garage are quite common in this area. He said this is a unique property located within a historic district. Two letters in support were submitted for the record. 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, it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the location of the existing garage on the property adjacent to the rear property line and located within a historical district in the City and it is in keeping with the requirements and values of that district, subject to the conditions that the new construction shall be in character with the existing notable architectural style of the existing house, no kitchen facilities shall be installed in the proposed second floor addition (this shall include and be limited to the installation of sink facilities in the bathroom areas only), the living quarters shall be used exclusively for the primary resident's family, household employees and guests of the resident and not be rented out to the general public, no windows shall be placed on the south wall of this addition 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 #4 - Investors Breakers-on-the-Bay, Ltd. for variances of 1) one property identification sign to permit two such signs, 2) 32 sq ft property identification signage to permit a total of 56 sq ft of such signage and 3) 42 inches in height to permit a 72 inch high wall in a setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is addressed at 2909 Gulf to Bay Blvd, William Brown's Sub of Bayview, Lot 14 and part of Lots 5, 6, 13 & 15, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-97 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the property is developed with an apartment complex which is currently undergoing renovation. Two new property identification signs are being proposed each to be mounted on a decorative wall. Sandy Weaver, representing the applicant, stated the unpermitted informational signs on Thornton Road have been removed and permits have been obtained for the "Beach Club" signs. The proposed signs will provide visibility for the traffic on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. She said the sign design and proposed landscaping would be attractive. In response to a question, it was indicated the applicant would be willing to reduce the total signage to 48 square feet. The Board recessed from 2:05 p.m. to 2:10 p.m. One citizen questioned the size of the decorative wall and it was indicated the wall would be in two 10-foot lengths. He then indicated his support of the request. One letter in objection was submitted for the record. Responding to the letter in opposition, Martin Van Horn, D.A. Reed Construction, indicated he did not feel the sign would impede pedestrian traffic. Discussion ensued regarding the signs being less obtrusive if reduced in size. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham moved to grant variances #1 and #3 as requested and a variance of 24 square feet property identification signage to permit a total of 48 square feet of such signage 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, strict application of the Code would result in an unnecessary hardship on the applicant, the variances are the minimum necessary, the request is not based upon a desire for a greater financial return from the property, the granting of the variances would not be detrimental to nearby properties or the community in general and will not violate the spirit and intent of the Land Development Code, subject to the conditions that the wall be constructed in accordance with the drawings attached to the application and the designated planter areas be maintained with landscaping, the traffic engineer review and approve the location of the walls to ensure traffic safety, all existing nonconforming signage shall be removed within one (1) month of this date and that a sign permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #5 - Gerald D. and Donna M. Westlund for a variance of 15 ft to permit boat lift 5 ft from a side property line at 85 Windward Island, Island Estates Unit 4, Lot 32, zoned RS-8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-98 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the boat lift is to be placed on an existing nonconforming dock. Jerry Westland stated he wishes to place the lift on the north side of the dock because the water is considerably deeper. He felt the views of the neighbors would not be affected. Al Schmoyer, representing the applicant, stated the placement of the boat lift on the north side of the dock was the best choice due to the water depth and dock configuration. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not there were other options available that would not impact the view for adjacent property owners or require a variance. Concern was expressed in regard to setting a precedent if the variance was granted and it was felt no unnecessary hardship was shown. Mr. Schmoyer said there is insufficient water on the south side and the situation existed when the present owner bought the house. He indicated the existing davits could not be used with the applicant's boat. Discussion ensued in regard to lengthening the dock to reach deeper water. 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, since there is 50 feet on the south side of the dock available for this purpose, it is more than a minimum variance, it could 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. II. Minutes Mr. Merriam moved to approve the minutes of June 14, 1990, as corrected in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. III. Board Comments Discussion ensued regarding the Planning Department's comment sheets reflecting recommendations of approval and denial, adding language in the code to address permanent structures such as gazebos, boat houses, etc. in regard to dock lengths, recomputing maximum dock lengths and measuring heights of structures in flood zones. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.