Loading...
07/26/1990 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD July 26, 1990 Members present: Thomas J. Graham, Vice-Chairman Kemper Merriam Alex Plisko Emma C. Whitney Absent: John Homer, Chairman (excused) 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 A - (continued from 6/14/90) American Diversified Capital Corporation for a variance of 22 ft in height to allow homes up to 47 ft in height at 1611 Gulf Blvd., Sec 30-29-15, M&Bs 11.01, 12.01 & 12.03, zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential) per RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-89 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating staff is recommending going through the Residential Planned Development (RPD) process rather than the variance process due to the wide deviation between the request and the code requirements. He indicated the subject property would support five 80-foot buildings for a total of 336 units. If developed as single family, the Code provides for development under RS-8 which has a 25 foot height limitation. In response to a question, the Planning Manager indicated the actual height measurement is calculated 4 feet down from the peak of a pitched roof, which would result in a variance request of 18 feet in height to allow a house 43 feet high. George Greer, attorney representing Martin Enterprises, Inc., the new owner, distributed an aerial photo showing the proposed subdivision is surrounded by high multi-family structures. The developer is proposing 36 single family lots, thus foregoing 300 additional housing units in this zoning. He indicated a hardship exists in being in a flood zone area which requires an increase of 4 feet in height. He felt the request was reasonable and would not set a precedent due to the unique features of the property being on the water and surrounded by high rise structures. In response to a question, he indicated the lots would be approximately 90 feet x 120 feet with a floor area of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 square feet. A representative of Harborage II spoke and submitted a letter in support of the application indicating an agreement had been reached with the developer on all issues of concern. Two letters of opposition were submitted for the record. In response to a question, it was indicated individual builders would be engaged. Concern was expressed regarding approving a "blanket" variance as it was felt other variances, particularly variances for side setbacks, would be needed due to the lot size and the type of homes proposed to be built. Discussion ensued regarding the Board's policy of having a site plan supporting the variance request and to viewing each request individually. Also, it was felt there were alternatives to developing this site. Mr. Greer indicated the project has already been delayed approximately 6 weeks and going for a rezoning would cause an additional delay. He said the developer could stipulate a 7-1/2 foot setback as part of the deed restrictions. Discussion ensued in regard to whether or not this was a minimum request. A copy of a plat showing the lot layout was distributed to the Board. Concern was expressed regarding odd shaped lots presenting a problem in regard to setbacks. Discussion ensued in regard to the RPD process being the correct process to follow calling for less stringent limitations. Mr. Greer indicated his client would be willing to accept a 9 foot side setback. Concern was expressed that the builder who builds a lower house would be penalized by imposing a 9 foot side setback restriction. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant a variance of 18 feet in height to allow homes up to 43 feet in height from grade 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 the particular physical surroundings, being the 80 foot high condominiums, in relationship to the development, subject to the condition that the side setbacks shall be 9 feet on all parcels within the development. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Motion carried. Request granted. In response to a question, it was indicated the 18 foot variance includes the height bonus. ITEM B - (continued from 6/14/90 and 6/28/90) 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 reported the applicant has withdrawn this item due to Commission policy CC-31, adopted January, 1990, directing staff to not accept any application for variances to residential planned development setbacks for enclosures. ITEM C - (continued from 7/12/90) Virginia M. Wynne for a variance of 18 in. to permit a 48 in. high fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is addressed at 830 Bruce Ave., Mandalay Sub, Blk 17, Lots 3-4 and 9-11, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-103 The Planning Manager stated the applicant is requesting to enclose a recently installed inground swimming pool/spa. James Van Kleeck, representing the applicant, stated the request has been modified to a variance of 6 inches in height to permit a 36 inch high fence. The fence will be only on the north side (Bruce Avenue) of the property. In response to questions, he stated a 36 inch high fence will meet insurance company requirements and will be located as indicated in the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant a variance of 6 inches to permit a 36 inch high fence 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, subject to the condition that a fence permit be obtained within six (6) months from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM #1 - Ternick, Inc. (Nick Didomenico) for variances of 1) 40 ft to permit construction on a 110 ft wide lot, 2) 5 ft to permit addition 7 ft from a side property line, and 3) 2 ft to permit addition 18 ft from a street right-of-way at 64 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Unit #5, Blk 79, Lots 2 and 3, zoned CR-24 (resort commercial). V 90-104 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail, stating the variances are for an addition to an existing 2 story hotel. A corner of the addition will encroach into the Bay Esplanade setback. The addition will follow the existing building lines. Hank St. Jean, architect representing the applicant, stated the original structure was built in the 1950's. The addition is to allow for the enlargement of the upstairs manager's living quarters, laundry room and a motel office. He indicated no additional motel units will be added. In response to questions, Mr. St. Jean indicated he felt the existing foundation could support the proposed addition and the shed on Bay Esplanade will be removed. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko 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 the unnecessary hardship, subject to the conditions that no more than 12 motel units and one (1) manager's living quarters shall be permitted in terms of overall site density 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 - Alan J. Wollman for a variance of 16.5 ft to permit room addition 8.5 ft from Bohemia Cir. right-of-way and 5 ft from Bruce Ave. right-of-way at 754 Bruce Ave., Mandalay Sub, Blk 14, Lot 5, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-105 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating this is a single family residence and there will be no change in use. The existing residence encroaches into 3 setbacks. Alan Wollman stated the lot is irregularly shaped. The addition will be used as a master bedroom suite and additional living quarters and will be 20 feet from Bruce Avenue. One citizen stated she had no objection to the application; however, she said she had been discriminated against when she requested a variance two years ago. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Merriam moved to grant a variance of 16.5 feet to permit addition 8.5 feet from Bohemia Circle right-of-way and a variance of 5 feet to permit addition 20 feet from Bruce Avenue right-of-way 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 due to its triangular shape and they are the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship created by the property's shape, 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 and Merriam voted "Aye;" Mr. Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. Request granted. ITEM #3 - Ralph H. and Melissa J. Morrow for a variance of 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in a setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed at 1977 Byram Dr., Sunset Highlands Unit #1, Lot 5, zoned RS-8 (single family residential). V 90-106 The Planning Official explained the application in detail, stating the fence is to enclose an existing swimming pool. An existing fence was replaced with the current fence without the correct permit. The corner lot has an unusual configuration. Ralph Morrow submitted photographs of the property. He indicated his wife obtained the permit and he did not realize the permit obtained was for a 4 foot high fence. He indicated children trespass on his property and throw objects into the pool. Discussion ensued regarding the height of the fence and it was felt a 4 foot high fence would be sufficient. There was discussion regarding landscape requirements and it was indicated at least 30 inch high shrubs are required if height is not specifically addressed in the code. 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. In response to a question, it was indicated if a 4 foot fence is erected, it could be placed in the location of the existing fence. ITEM #4 - Michael C. or Eugenia F. McQuigg for a variance of 3.5 ft to permit stairs and handrail 21.5 ft from a street right-of-way at 310 Lotus Path, Harbor Oaks Sub, part of Lot 135 and part of Lot 137, zoned RS-6 (single family residential). V 90-107 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the house is being substantially renovated to include the proposed new entry and front porch addition. The home was built in 1948 and is located in a historical area of the City. Michael McQuigg stated due to medical reasons going up and down stairs is difficult and the proposed porch design including the steps and rails would provide safety and convenience for him. One letter with five signatures in support was submitted by the applicant for the record. One citizen spoke in support of the application. One citizen spoke in opposition. He felt the stairs could be redesigned to be within code and he said the applicant has started work on the project before receiving approval. Mr. McQuigg stated the work was discontinued when he was informed of the violation. It was felt the stairs and handrail would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and that this is a minimal request. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko 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 the house has been existing since 1948 and for reasons of remodeling requires putting in the stairs and the railing into the front setback and it is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship, subject to the condition that a building permit be obtained within sixty (60) days from this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. II. Minutes Mrs. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of June 28, 1990, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Plisko moved to approve the minutes of July 12, 1990, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. III. Board Comments The Planning Manager asked how the Board felt about going through a different process to handle blanket variances. It was felt these requests could go before the City Commission with this possibly being incorporated into the Land Development Code. The Planning Manager reported on the County's dock ordinance indicating they have more strigent requirements; however, if approval is received from adjoining dock owners, the dock width and length requirements can be administratively approved. Discussion ensued in regard to staff's comment sheets, and in response to a question, it was indicated staff is considering sending them to each applicant. The Planning Manager said a draft of the LDC amendments will be going to the City Commission on August 2nd for receipt and referral. He said he will be sending the Board a copy and would like to receive their input. In response to a question, it was indicated a draft of these amendments will be also sent to the Chamber. A question was raised regarding whether or not there is any restriction for shrubs that extend into the right-of-way obstructing views as it was felt this issue needs to be addressed. Staff was requested to investigate a semi-trailer on Oak Avenue south of Turner for a possible code violation. Mrs. Whitney will not be in attendance at the August 9th and August 23rd meetings. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:17 p.m.