Loading...
09/26/1991 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD September 26, 1991 Members present: Thomas J. Graham, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman John W. Homer Alex Plisko Absent: Emma C. Whitney, Excused Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of 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 weeks. He noted 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. Time Extensions 1. (1st request for extension) Delbert V. and Mary Lou Baustert for variances of (1) 88.26 ft to permit a lot width of 61.74 ft; (2) 7.36 ft to permit an east side setback of 4.99 ft; (3) 10.6 ft to permit a rear waterfront setback of 14.4 ft; (4) 7.37 ft to permit 4.98 ft clear space; and (5) 7.37 ft to permit a side setback of 4.98 ft at 134 Brightwater Dr, Bayside Sub No 2, Lot 49, zoned CR-29 (resort commercial). V 91-24 Mr. Homer moved to grant a six month extension to May 23, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. 2. (1st request for extension) Robert E. Malke (Rose Garden Restaurant) for a variance of 14 seats to permit 2-COP licensed establishment with 36 indoor seats at 348 and 348-½ Coronado Dr, Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 118-119, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 91-17 Mr. Gans moved to grant a six month extension to March 14, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. II. Public Hearings Item A - (continued from 9/12/91) Vision Cable of Pinellas, Inc, and Florida Power Corp for variances of (1) 42 in to permit 72 in high fence in setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way to which property is addressed; and (2) 24 in to permit a 72 in high fence in setback area adjacent to a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed at 2530 Drew St, Sec 7-29-16, M&B 44.02 and 41.02, zoned CH (highway commercial) and P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-62 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a six-foot-high chain link fence within the structural setback area of property which is being leased from Florida Power. He expressed concern regarding the visual impact from Old Coachman Road and Drew Street. Discussion ensued regarding the parking and setback variances granted in December of 1989 to redevelop the site by redesigning the vehicular use areas and constructing a building and parking lot on the adjacent Florida Power easement. The meeting was recessed from 1:13 p.m. to 1:25 p.m. due to a fire drill. Steve Seibert, attorney representing the applicant, stated Vision Cable's fleet of 70 service vehicles contains electronic equipment and needs to be secured. It is more practical, compact and convenient to have all the vehicle parking adjacent to the building site. He indicated there is a similar fence on the property across the street, the proposed fence will be 30 feet from the street and the height of the fence will not affect the aesthetics or impact traffic safety. Mr. Seibert referred to the Traffic Engineering Department's comment that chain link fences sometimes appear opaque and stated the applicant will angle the fence along entrances to avoid creating a traffic hazard during ingress and egress. He indicated providing landscaping and a fenced area to provide for vehicle safety were overlooked when obtaining site plan approval. In response to questions, Mr. Seibert indicated the northwest corner of the property has less space for a parking lot and would also require setback variances. He stated Vision Cable's lease with Florida Power is annual and renewable, allows for fencing and parking and the fleet is operated by Vision Cable employees. The Assistant City Attorney returned at 1:40 p.m. Concern was expressed in having permanent parking in a Florida Power easement and it was indicated the parking variance granted in December of 1989 was for overflow and not permanent parking. Discussion ensued in regard to the location of the subject property in relation to the junior college and it was indicated great pains had been taken in that vicinity to maintain the openness of a college campus by the use of rail fences and landscaping in the parking areas. Mr. Seibert requested a continuance to explore other options. Mr. Homer moved to continue this request to allow the applicant to consider other options. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued to the meeting of October 10, 1991. 1. Thelma Jones for variance of 10 ft to permit porch enclosure addition 15 ft from a street right-of-way at 1017 N Madison Ave, Springfield Sub No 1, Blk A, Lot 8, zoned RM 12 (multiple family residential). V 91-65 Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to build an enclosed porch addition on the front of the house which will be in keeping with setbacks in the neighborhood. Gloria Jones, daughter of and representing the applicant, indicated the proposed addition will be an enclosed room and will extend farther toward the street than the existing slab which is about five feet wide. She stated she feels the addition will improve the property and be an asset to the neighborhood. Thelma Jones, owner and applicant indicated building materials for the proposed construction have already been purchased and if left out in the weather will deteriorate. She hopes the variance is granted quickly in order for construction to proceed. Six letters were presented in support of the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer 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, more specifically because, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the change in the code and the subdivision being developed under different zoning regulations subject to the conditions: 1) the dimensions of the proposed addition will not exceed 10 ft deep by 14 ft wide and 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. 2. Mieczyslaw W and Maria Cius for variances of (1) 7 ft to permit 5 ft clear space; (2) 7.45 ft to permit side setbacks of 5 ft; (3) 14 ft to permit addition 11 ft from Clearwater Harbor; and (4) 90 ft to permit construction on a 60 ft wide lot at 162 Brightwater Dr, Bayside Sub No 2, Lot 42, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 91-66 Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to expand his living quarters by placing a second-floor addition over the existing footprint. He stated a portion of the proposed deck for use exclusively by the owners will extend out farther than the existing footprint . Robert Fuchs, representing the applicant, stated the addition will create more space for the family, the deck size can be reduced and is necessary to enable the handicapped child, who lives in the home and requires constant attention, to be safe and enjoy the view of the water. In response to questions, Mr. Fuchs stated the proposed deck will be directly over an approximate eight by ten foot patio and the motel consists of four units plus the applicant's residence. He indicated the entire family currently resides on the first floor which includes two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, laundry and a staircase leading upstairs. In response to questions, Mr. Fuchs indicated the proposed addition will enhance the area where a number of motels have live-in owners, Mr. Cius wishes to keep the rental units intact and it is necessary for the elderly parents to live in the home to help take care of the handicapped child. Discussion ensued regarding the conversion of the unit to accommodate six family members being an intense use of the property, whether a hardship exists and whether the request is based on financial gain. Although there was no objection to a second floor addition, concern was expressed that the proposed square footage for the addition was excessive. There was discussion in regard to reducing the number of motel units resulting in a financial loss for the applicant. Concern was also expressed in regard to future expansion of this unit into two and it was suggested, if approved, conditions of approval could include no additional kitchen being allowed and the existing apartment and addition being for the exclusive use of the owners. Discussion ensued in regard to whether or not the square footage of the expansion could be limited as concern was expressed regarding whether the request is minimal. It was pointed out the expansion of this unit will be required to meet FEMA regulations. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant variances #1, #2, 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, more specifically because, the particular physical surroundings and shape of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant subject to the conditions: 1) this variance is only in effect when the subject improvement and the existing owners' apartment on the first floor is used exclusively by the owner of the property; 2) this variance shall not be used in any manner for the addition of an additional motel unit or separate apartment; 3) no kitchen facilities shall be installed on the second floor of the proposed addition; 4) the motel rental units shall not exceed four in number and 5) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny variance #3 as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown; the variance is not a minimum and the granting of the variance would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded. Mr. Shuford pointed out denying this request would result in having to set back the second floor addition. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the new roof over the patio was legal and it was indicated the roof was rebuilt after it was destroyed by a storm. Mr. Gans withdrew his motion to deny variance #3 and the seconder withdrew the second. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant variance #3 for four feet to permit construction 21 feet from Clearwater Harbor 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 not caused by the applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the location of the existing building on the property subject to the conditions: 1) this variance is only in effect when the subject improvement and the existing owners' apartment on the first floor is used exclusively by the owner of the property; 2) this variance shall not be used in any manner for the addition of an additional motel unit or separate apartment; 3) no kitchen facilities shall be installed on the second floor of the proposed addition; 4) the motel rental units shall not exceed four in number and 5) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Homer, Plisko, and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted. 3. William W and Hala June Bentley for variance of 2 ft to permit pool enclosure 5 ft from a rear property line at 1856 Greenhill Dr, Woodmont Park, Lot 133, zoned RS 6 (single family residential). V 91-67 Mr. Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a screen enclosure over an existing pool five feet from the rear property line. Carl Kleinschmidt, representing the applicant, stated he built the owner's pool and the owner intended from the beginning to obtain bids from screen enclosure companies to enclose the pool. He said he was not aware of the seven-foot setback requirement for screen enclosures. He indicated the enclosure is necessary due to a nearby tree dropping berries which stain the pool and deck and the two feet in the rear are necessary for maintenance access. In response to questions, Mr. Kleinschmidt indicated he has worked for the pool contractor for 12 years, has built other pools in the county but not recently in the City of Clearwater and the original plans did include the screen enclosure. It was felt allowances should have been made for the enclosure when building the pool. Mr. Kleinschmidt said failure to request variances for the enclosure was an oversight. William Bentley, owner and applicant, stated he relocated to the area a year ago and would not have put in a pool without being able to screen it because of falling debris from the nearby tree. He indicated he had confidence in his contractor when he contracted for the pool and enclosure. In response to a question, he indicated he desired a larger pool, but the area was too small. A petition containing six names was presented in support of the application. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the variances for the enclosure would have been granted if requested at the time of the original application. Concern was expressed that applicants sometimes misrepresent what they intend to do. It was felt although this is a minimal request the contractor should have been aware of the Code regarding the setbacks involved. 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, more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the condition being the location of the tree and the existing conditions of the house and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the tree and house location subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. 4. Everybody's Tabernacle Inc for variances (1) of 42 in to permit a 72 in high fence in a setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is addressed; (2) of 24 in to permit a 72 in high fence in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is not addressed; (3) of 5 ft to permit fence zero ft from a street right-of-way; and (4) to permit zero landscaping on right-of-way side of fence at 1120 N Betty Ln, Fairburn Add, Blk F, Lots 1 thru 14, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 91-68 Mr. Shuford stated the applicant is requesting a continuance due to incorrect information having been furnished by the applicant. Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of October 10, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued to the meeting of October 10, 1991. III. Board and Staff Discussion Discussion ensued regarding dumpster locations and enclosures. Consensus was to send memo to Solid Waste/Operations regarding sanitation dumpsters with a copy to the City Commission. Staff was requested to check on fees being charged to park at Pelican Restaurant on weekends, whether a permit was obtained to replace a roof destroyed by a storm at 126 Brightwater Drive and to review the Code regarding the size of additions in some areas. Staff suggested an Architectural Design Board be established to address the Board's concerns regarding colors and designs of structures in Clearwater. Assistant City Attorney discussed ex parte communications. IV. Approval of Minutes of August 22, 1991 The minutes of August 22, 1991 reflected Mr. Plisko as having voted in cases V 91-40, V 91-54 and V 91-56. Mr. Plisko was not in attendance at this meeting and the minutes will be corrected to reflect this. Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of August 22, 1991, as corrected, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Approved as corrected. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. Chairman ATTEST: Assistant City Clerk