Loading...
02/28/1991 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD February 28, 1991 Members present: Thomas J. Graham, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman John W. Homer Alex Plisko Emma C. Whitney Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:03 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. Extensions A. (1st request for time extension) John D. and Rita T. McEnaney for variances 1) to permit 30 in. high fence in setback area adjacent to waterfront, 2) of 41.45 ft to permit 69.65 ft dock length, 3) of 12.6 ft to allow dock extension 6 ft from an extended side property line and 4) of 9.31 ft to permit dock width of 29.05 ft at 225 Hamden Dr., Bayside Sub Replat, Lot 53 and land to bulkhead, zoned RS-8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 90-119 The Planning Manager stated the applicant is having difficulty in meeting the permit deadline as he has been unable to obtain the adjacent property owner's signature which is required for County dock approval. John McEnaney, applicant, stated there were discrepancies that needed to be resolved between neighboring dock owners. Mr. Gans moved to grant an extension of time to September 13, 1991, in which to obtain a building permit. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. (continued from 9/27/90, 10/11/90 and 1/10/91) Stanislaw and Kazimiera Budzinski (Britt's Restaurant) for a variance of 23 parking spaces to allow 2560 sq ft restaurant with 2-COP State alcoholic beverage license at 201 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd White Skinner Sub, Lots 48-52 and Lot 98, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-123 The Planning Manager stated this item had been continued pending results from an administrative appeal. On February 6, 1991, the hearing officer reversed the denial of a conditional use by the Planning & Zoning Board. The last continuance for a variance was for a 60-day period which will expire on March 11th, 3 days prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Development Code Adjustment Board. Due to advertising requirements, staff was unable to schedule this request until the meeting of March 14, 1991. Attorney George Greer, representing the applicant, requested an extension of the continuance of this item. Ms. Whitney moved to grant an extension of the continuance of this item to the meeting of March 14, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM A - (continued from 02/14/91) The Crescent Beach Club at Sand Key Condominium Association, Inc. for variances 1) to permit fence in setback area adjoining waterfront, 2) of 22.96 ft to permit fence seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, 3) of 103.7 ft to permit encroachment of fence into clear space areas and 4) to allow a fence to be constructed within a structural setback area from a street right-of-way to which property is addressed at 1340 Gulf Blvd., Crescent Beach Club Condos I and II, zoned RM-28 (multiple-family residential) and OS/R (open space/recreation). V 91-10 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail indicating the applicant wishes to erect a fence along the western property boundary that will cross the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), a fence along the northern property boundary and a fence along the front of the property. Attorney Bennett Rabin, representing the applicant, indicated the fence along the front of the property and roadway in front of building #2 would connect two existing cement decorative wall fences along the parking area and would be placed behind substantial landscaping. He said this fence would serve as a deterrent to the "casual" trespasser. In response to questions, it was indicated the applicant is aware that a 30-inch high fence is allowed along the front of the property and that the 103.7-foot variance to permit encroachment of a fence into the clear space area being requested refers to the fence along the CCCL. Discussion ensued in regard to the type of construction of the fences. Mr. Rabin presented a brochure showing the Victorian style fence that is being proposed along the Gulf side. He said the fence along the front and north side of the property would be vinyl chain link fencing. Discussion ensued in regard to insurance carriers requiring pool owners to secure their pools with 3 to 4-foot high fences. It was indicated the height requirement differs with different carriers. The Planning Manager indicated the fence would be 3-foot high on the deck area which is raised approximately 1-foot in height but 4-foot high from ground level on the opposite side. The fence is proposed to run the full length of the property. One letter in opposition to the request was submitted for the records. Mr. Rabin pointed out that the green chain link fence is to run only along the front of Crescent Beach Club II. In response to the letter received in opposition, the Planning Manager indicated the fence proposed for the western boundary would be located on the Crescent Beach Club property with a small portion of it crossing the CCCL. He said there were no sea oats in the area where the fence is to be erected. Concern was expressed in granting variances for fences to secure an entire property rather than just for insurance requirements. Mr. Rabin requested continuance of the application in order to revise the request. Mr. Plisko moved to continue this item to the meeting of March 28, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The applicant was requested to submit another drawing, more to scale. ITEM B - (continued from 02/14/91) Betty Lou Miller for a variance of 12.5 ft to permit screen enclosure 2.5 ft from a rear property line at 3118 Eagles Landing Cir. W., Eagles Landing Condo, Phase III, Unit 34, zoned RM-8 (multiple-family residential). V 91-13 The Planning Official stated this item had been continued to allow staff to research building permits and variance records for similar enclosures within the development. Staff has found that many screened room enclosures have been permitted within the development; however, there are no records of any variances granted for this development. The units have been designed and built at various angles in a staggered irregular manner with portions of some units having greater rear setbacks than others. John Miller, son of and representing the applicant, indicated the property was purchased with the understanding that a screen enclosure could be erected. He said the variance has been reduced to 11 feet. The proposed screen enclosure would connect between two existing walls. Due to the angle of the building one wall protrudes into the setback. He said the enclosure would provide safety as the condominium unit is located on the fourth hole of the Countryside Golf Course. He said the unit was selected because it is large enough to house a caregiver for the occupant who has health problems. Photographs of the surrounding area and the proposed location of the enclosure were presented. Mr. Miller said a massive amount of rain water runs off the roof of the unit and it was recommended that the roof enclosure overhang extend beyond the existing sidewalls. He said the enclosure would be consistent with others in the area and would not affect north and south views or interfere with play on the course. He submitted a letter from the condominium association giving their approval. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant a variance of 11 feet to allow a screen enclosure 6 feet from a rear property line and a roof overhang 4 feet from a rear 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, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings, shape and conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the location of the building in relationship to the property line, subject to the condition that the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six months from the date of this hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. 1. Evangelia Dushas for variances 1) of 25.5 ft to permit stairs 4.5 ft, columns 4.79 ft, bedroom addition 17.5 ft and open air pavilion 20 ft from street, 2) to allow walls in waterfront setback areas: 48 inch high wall along west end of Lot 1 and a 72 inch high wall along the south property line at the east end of Lot 1A, 3) of 42 inches to permit 36 inch and 72 inch high walls in setback area adjacent to street and 4) 21% front yard open space to permit 39% front yard open space at 1100 Mandalay Point Rd., Mandalay Point Sub, Lots 1 and 1A, zoned RS-4 (single-family residential) and OS/R (open space/recreation). V 91-14 Chairman Graham declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case at which time Vice-Chairman Gans took over chairing the meeting. The Planning Official stated the property is unusual in that it is accessible from an undedicated access road known as Mandalay Point. The applicant is permitted by agreement to utilize the road for sole access to this property. Robert Resch, architect, representing the applicant, presented a site plan, a current survey, a photoboard of area residences and a site aerial. He said the site is very complex and is a lead-in to a private road. He said the applicant wants to improve the property and bring it up to the character of the other area residences. He said the original placement of the residence on the site, the location of the road bisecting the site and being located on a private road at the end of a public road presents a hardship for the applicant. A permit was applied for in September; however, discrepancies were discovered on the plans regarding the retaining walls. He felt this residence to be less infringing on the roadway than other area residences. Based on the site conditions, he feels the garage and master bedroom are located in the most feasible area. An existing balcony projects from the existing residence. Mr. Resch said they want to limit the depth of the garage and organize the existing structure in the existing line of the building. He said the property is located on the beach front and the wall would provide a visual barrier as well as protect the patio area from sand intrusion. He said they would like to replace the existing chain link fence with a masonry fence in the textures and colors of the existing residence. The property is located adjacent to the Carlouel Yacht Club kitchen and the applicant wishes to protect his property from the activities of a commercial establishment and trash collection area. In response to a question, it was indicated no variances would be required for the construction of a pool or deck. Discussion ensued in regard to the location of the CCCL in relation to the platted property line. It was indicated the pool would be setback 10 feet from the property line. Concern was expressed in erecting a 4-foot wall on the seaward side of the property. Mr. Resch indicated what is being proposed will not substantially increase the nonconformity that presently exists. He said they are trying to work with the existing structure and within the heights of the existing fences. Staff was requested to investigate an oversize dock on the site to see if the necessary permits have been obtained. In response to a question, it was indicated fences are required to be setback 20 feet within a waterfront setback area. Discussion ensued in regard to the 4-foot wall on the west side and it was indicated the property is set back a great distance from the water. 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, more specifically, because the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the applicant, the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the property being bisected by the access road and the abutment to the Carlouel Yacht Club, subject to the conditions that the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six months from this date and a unity of title shall be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Plisko and Gans voted "aye" with Mr. Graham abstaining. Motion carried. Request granted. IV. Board Comments - none. V. Staff Comments The Planning Official introduced Ted Clarke, Planner II, who will be primarily responsible for coordination of site plans and subdivision plat reviews. She read a resolution that is to be presented to Dr. Kemper Merriam in recognition of his six years of service on the Development Code Adjustment Board. VI. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m.