Loading...
10/24/1991 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD October 24, 1991 Members present: Thomas J. Graham, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman John W. Homer Alex Plisko Emma C. Whitney 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 3:00 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. Public Hearings Item A - (continued from 10/10/91) Betsy K and Rayford Hixon, Jr, for variances of (1) 2.5 ft to permit construction on a 67.5 ft wide corner lot; (2) 13 ft to permit additions 12 ft from Bay Esplanade Dr right-of-way; (3) 24 ft to permit garage addition 1 ft from Verbena St right-of-way; and (4) 3 ft to permit addition 2 ft from a (north) side property line at 821 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 39, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-70 A letter was received from the applicant requesting a continuance to the next Development Code Adjustment Board meeting of November 14, 1991 in order to provide additional information to the Board. Ms. Whitney moved to continue this request to the meeting of November 14, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued to November 14, 1991. 1. Ray W and Geri M Trautlein for variances of (1) 13 ft to permit a second floor deck addition 12 ft from Clearwater Harbor; (2) 16.1 ft to permit deck addition 18.5 ft from a side property line; and (3) 16.1 ft to permit encroachment of deck into required clear space at 673 Bay Esplanade, Unit 210, Five Palms Motel Condo, zoned CR 24 (resort commercial). V 91-71 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a second floor deck addition to a condominium unit. He stated previous variances for a deck on the east side of the property were denied on March 9, 1989 and he submitted copies to the Board of the minutes and the site plan from that meeting. Staff is recommending the deck be reduced to an 8 foot wide deck. In response to questions, Mr. Shuford said the deck will not lap around the corner of the building, will not extend further out than the patios on the ground level and will be located on the south wall of the condominium unit. Leonard Rocheleau, representing the applicant, stated they would be willing to reduce the width of the deck to 8 feet and the request for a wider deck would allow for a footer and the posts to be located on the outside of the proposed deck as there is an existing deck down below. In response to questions, Mr. Rocheleau indicated there is no intent to extend the proposed deck eastward toward the water, the subject property was purchased in April 1990 and approval was received from the flood board to locate the tiebacks 12 feet from the seawall. Ray W. Trautlein, owner and applicant, stated he knew variances were previously denied, but prospective tenants found the property more desirable with a deck. Discussion ensued regarding the request being minimal and the proposed structure not impacting the view as it would be an open deck. It was noted the other units in the development all have decks. There was some concern expressed that the deck was for financial gain. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant variance #1 as requested, #2 - a variance of 14.1 ft to permit a deck addition 16.1 feet from a side property line and #3 - a variance of 14.1 feet to permit encroachment of deck into the required open 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 more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant since the building was developed before the current land code and has been grandfathered into the current code; the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lack of this unit having a deck compared to the other units having decks. These variances are subject to the condition 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, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Plisko, and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted. 2. Michele R James for variance of one parking space to permit zero additional parking for office use at 664 Mandalay Avenue, Clearwater Beach Revised, Blk 2, part of Lot 10, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 91-72 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to convert the first floor of an existing two-story residential duplex to professional office use while continuing to use the second floor as a rental dwelling unit. He stated the subject property was grandfathered with no on-site parking spaces for the current use and it is not possible to provide adequate on-site parking due to the small lot size. In response to questions, Mr. Shuford indicated this request is strictly for a change in use and does not involve adding any floor area and the top half of the structure would remain residential. The City's Traffic Engineering Department commented, "If the change of use required a number of parking spaces, these spaces should be in accord with the code. Otherwise, the variance should be for all of the required spaces." John Doran, attorney representing the owner and applicant, indicated he wishes to lease the ground floor of the duplex for use as a professional office which is a permitted use under the current zoning and will be compatible with the area. He said he has maintained a business next door to the subject property for eight years and he felt having residential tenants in a professional area occasionally poses problems. Mr. Doran stated due to the extremely small lot size there is no room for any on-site parking and no other off-street parking is available. In response to questions, Mr. Doran indicated parking during the week is generally not a problem as there are a few available spaces in the area. He stated as an attorney and a certified public accountant with two employees, he would like a larger office in the vicinity for the convenience of his clients in the neighborhood. Mr. Doran said the upstairs unit will remain residential. Three letters were submitted in support of the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size subject to the conditions: 1) this variance shall remain in effect only while the unit is used as a professional office; 2) the requisite occupational license shall be obtained within one (1) year from the date of this public hearing and 3) 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. II. Board and Staff Discussion The Issue/Response Schedule was discussed. Staff was requested to investigate other possible code violations. Discussion ensued in regard to the variance application fee. Staff was requested to do a fee comparison study to see what other municipalities are charging. Consensus of the Board was to send a memo to the City Commission expressing their concern that the variance application fee is too high and to include the fee comparison study when completed. There was some discussion regarding lowering fees for minor requests. Discussion ensued regarding the stormwater utility fee and concern was expressed as to how the money is being spent. Mr. Shuford said he would ask the Environmental Manager to make a presentation to the Board at one of their upcoming meetings. There was discussion in regard to the City's sign code and having it more consistent with the County's. III. Approval of Minutes of October 10, 1991 Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of October 10, 1991 in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Homer, Plisko, Gans and Graham voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney abstained. Motion carried. Approved as submitted. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.