Loading...
12/18/1991 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD December 18, 1991 Members present: Thomas J. Graham, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman John W. Homer Alex Plisko Emma C. Whitney (arrived at 1:05 p.m.) 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 A. (1st request for extension) Charles E. Knell, as Trustee, for variances of 1) 7 ft 11 inches to permit height of 32 ft 11 inches as measured to midpoint of a sloped roof, 2) 1 ft 11 inches to permit ridge height 5 ft 11 inches above midpoint of sloped roof and 3) 33 ft 4 inches to permit house 33 ft 4 inches beyond Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) at 1170 Mandalay Point Road, Mandalay Point Sub, Lots 18, 18A, 19 and 19A, zoned RS-4 (single-family residential) and OS/R (open space/recreation). V 91-02 A letter from the applicant's representative requesting a one-year extension was read into the record. The letter stated construction was delayed pending approval of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) due to the properties being seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and requested to have the record reflect the change in ownership of the subject properties to Cecilia Odio. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not a one-year extension could be granted. Tom Nash, representing the applicant, stated a one-year extension is being requested as DNR approval will be subject to many issues, one of which is the turtle nesting period. It is hoped final DNR approval will be obtained by October, 1992. Planning Manager Shuford said an extension granted by the Board shall not exceed six months. The applicant can request an additional six-month extension, if necessary. Ms. Whitney moved to grant a six-month extension to July 10, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. B. (1st request for extension) Valentino Koumoulidis for variances of (1) 83 ft to permit a 67 ft wide lot; (2) 1 parking space; (3) 24.85% front yard open space to allow 25.15%; (4) 3.5 ft to permit 1.5 ft of perimeter landscape buffering; and (5) 12.8 ft to permit 0 ft of clear space at 606 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub No 5, Blk A, Lot 7, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 91-25 A letter from the applicant requesting a six-month extension was read into the record. The application was originally heard at the June 27, 1991 meeting. The applicant is requesting a six-month extension to allow sufficient time to complete the working drawings required to obtain the necessary permits. Mr. Homer moved to grant a six-month extension to June 27, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. II. Public Hearings Item A - (continued from 11/14/91) Westchester Lakes Development Corp (Westchester Lake Townhomes) for variance of 42 in to permit a 72 in high wall in setback area adjoining a street right-of-way to which property is addressed at 2644 through 2658 Sabal Spring Dr, Westchester Lake Townhomes, zoned RPD 10 (residential planned development). V 91-75 This application was continued as the Board expressed concern regarding a six-foot-high solid block wall. The applicant was to come back with an alternative; however, staff has not received a revised proposal. Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct an overheight concrete block wall to deter trespassing, loitering and unauthorized parking on the subject property. Richard Donahue, representing the applicant, stated after meeting with City staff, the applicant decided to withdraw the request for a wall. He said instead of a wall, a visual barrier will be created by berming and planting shrubs, and the applicant is now requesting to have 48-inch high pilasters and gate. In response to questions, Mr. Donahue indicated he is employed by the developer and feels the 30 inch height allowed by code is too low for to deter trespassers. The proposed vegetation will extend the same distance as the originally proposed wall. There will be a vehicular gate only. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant a variance of 18 inches to allow 48 inch high pilasters and gate to be located as indicated on the site plan for vehicular traffic 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 particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property involved would result in a hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the location of the site subject to the conditions: 1) Traffic Engineering shall review the location of the gate before a building permit is issued 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. 1. Joseph C and Jayne M Jurgelonis for variances of (1) 11 ft to permit construction on a 59 ft wide corner lot; and (2) 15 ft to permit bedroom addition 10 ft from a street right-of-way at 55 Verbena St, Mandalay Sub, Blk 29, Lot 6, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-80 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a bedroom addition to an existing family residence on a substandard corner lot that abuts two streets. Joe Jurgelonis, the applicant, indicated his family has outgrown the house and he wishes to add a small bedroom to match the construction of the house. He said the proposed site is the only feasible location for the addition due to the shape of the lot and for aesthetics. Discussion ensued regarding building the addition to the rear of the house. It was indicated this would be difficult and more expensive due to three deck levels and also inconvenient as there would be no rear exit and the back yard is the only open area on the lot for recreation. 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 not caused by the applicant; the particular shape of the property involved creates an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the code were to be applied and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size and configuration subject to the conditions: 1) the bedroom addition shall be constructed as indicated on the submitted site plan 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. William Kebort (Island Breeze Cafe & Grill) for variances of (1) 600 sq ft to permit a 400 sq ft alcoholic beverage service establishment; and (2) 34 interior seats to permit 16 seats in alcoholic beverage serving establishment at 740 S Gulfview Blvd, Bayside Shores, Blk C, Lots 1 thru 10, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 91-81 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant is currently operating a restaurant and would like to serve beer and wine with meals. Mr. Shuford indicated the location of the establishment in a shopping center precludes any expansion of the facilities and neither City Police nor staff has raised any objections to the application as the 9:00 p.m. closing time established by the Planning Zoning Board does not promote use of the facility as a bar or nightclub. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the closing time would be a deterrent to the operation of the facility as a bar. It was indicated the 9:00 p.m. closing time was specified on the application and was not a problem for the current owner. There was discussion regarding parking being determined by the percentage of retail use. Brian Shanahan, owner and applicant, stated he personally operates the business which opens at 8:00 a.m. and he has no desire to remain open later than the 9:00 p.m. closing time. Concern was expressed regarding the effect of the time limitation on any subsequent owner. It was indicated a change in business ownership requires a new conditional use permit. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans 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 not caused by the applicant; the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the store size subject to the conditions: 1) sales of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to sales for on-premise consumption; 2) the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited after 9:00 p.m. all days of the week; 3) the variance granted shall remain in effect only as long as Robert Shanahan is the operator of this establishment and 4) all permits and licenses shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. 3. Treva L Crimens for variances of (1) 20 ft to permit construction on a 50 ft wide corner lot; and (2) 15 ft to permit construction of veranda 10 ft from a street right-of-way at 1746 Sunset Dr, North Shore Park, Blk 12 , Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-82 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a roof over an existing open patio at a single-family residence. He indicated the variances are the result of pre-existing conditions as the lot was platted in 1913 and is nonconforming with regard to corner lots less than 70 feet in width. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, indicated the proposed addition will improve the quality and safety of what already exists and will only exceed the footprint by a few feet in the rear. He submitted photographs of the subject property. Discussion ensued regarding the roof extension and the necessity of a sea wall due to the effects of weather and wave action on the veranda. It was felt this is not an unusual hardship as everyone who resides on the beach is affected in a similar manner. Lorne Kanaki, representing the applicant, referring to a drawing, explained what is existing and the four- to six-foot extension being proposed. 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 not caused by the applicant; the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property involved creates an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the code were to be applied and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of the lot size and the location next to the dedicated right-of-way subject to the conditions: 1) the proposed veranda be constructed as indicated on the plans and not be enclosed in the future 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. 4. Roy E and Patricia Corrall for a variance of 2.5 ft to permit air conditioner platform 2.5 ft from a side property line at 228 Bayside Dr, Bayside Sub No 4 Unit A, Blk 1, Lot G, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-83 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to elevate air conditioning units on four-foot-tall platforms in a side setback area. He indicated air conditioning equipment not enclosed within a building and not obstructing through access is exempt from the side setback requirement except when elevated more than 12 inches off the ground due to flood zone requirements. The platform creates the need for a variance. Dan Drayton, contractor representing the applicant, submitted photographs of other platforms and letters in support and indicated three adjoining property owners do not object to the application. Discussion ensued regarding a proposed Code amendment to accommodate elevated air conditioning units in setbacks with it being indicated the amendment has not yet been received by the City Commission. Concern was expressed regarding the appearance of the platform. Three letters from the three adjoining property owners were presented in support of the application. Ray Corrall, owner and applicant, indicated adjacent property owners favor the proposed location for the air conditioning platform. 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, the additional requirement of the flood plain having to be met for the air conditioner and was not caused by the applicant, subject to the condition that the requisite certificate of occupancy be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. 5. Douglas L and Joyce W Alderman for variances of (1) 32.08 ft to permit lot depth of 47.92 ft; (2) 5 ft to permit addition 20 ft from a street (Narcissus Ave) right-of-way; (3) 18 ft to permit addition 7 ft from a street (Lantana Ave) right-of-way; (4) 42 in to permit a 72 in high fence in setback adjoining street to which property is addressed; and (5) 2 ft to permit a 6 ft high fence in setback area adjacent to street to which property is not addressed at 958 Narcissus Ave, Carlouel Sub, Blk 257, part of Lots 1 and 2 and part of vacated street on west, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-84 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to convert an existing carport into a bedroom with a bath and construct a high privacy fence on a triangular-shaped, substandard corner lot. He indicated variances were granted in June, 1990 to allow a screen room addition which has been completed on the opposite side of the building. Concern was expressed regarding the height of the fence with it being indicated privacy could be provided with landscaping. Doug Alderman, owner and applicant, stated there is no financial return involved, no other properties are affected, the appearance of the proposed addition will be attractive and enhance the area tying into what is already existing and the fence will be landscaped. He feels the variances are necessary to permit reasonable use of his land. Mr. Alderman presented photographs and drawings of the subject property from several angles. Concern was expressed the existing fence on the south side may be in violation. Mr. Alderman stated he believes the fence was properly permitted as it was constructed by a licensed, reputable contractor in 1987. A suggestion was made to continue the current request to the next meeting in order for staff to research and inform the applicant if an additional variance is necessary. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to take action on the first three requests and to continue the last two requests dealing with the fence until staff could research to see if the existing fence was permitted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant variances #1, #2 and #3 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 not caused by the applicant; the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property involved creates an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if a strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the shape of the lot and the frontage involved with the two streets subject to the conditions: 1) the bedroom and bath additions shall be constructed as indicated on the site plan submitted 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. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant variances #4 and #5 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 not caused by the applicant; the particular physical surroundings, shape of the lot involved create an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant if the strict interpretation of the Code were to be applied and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of the double frontage, the lot size and the fence is basically an extension of the bedroom/bath arrangement, not being used as a privacy lot fence but to add an extension to the bedroom subject to the conditions: 1) the fence shall be installed as submitted on the site plan and 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. There was no second. Discussion ensued regarding the necessity of a visual barrier for privacy and whether or not a masonry fence would provide visual continuity and be more acceptable than the proposed wooden fence. Mr. Alderman said he would discuss this possibility with his decorator and requested a continuance to the first meeting in January. Mr. Plisko moved to continue variances #4 and #5 to the meeting of January 9, 1992 when there may also be an additional variance request relating to the fence on the south side. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued to January 9, 1992. It was pointed out, if the existing fence is not permitted, an additional variance will be needed and will be heard along with the continued requests. 6. John E Jr and Patricia Slaughter for a variance of 3 ft to permit carport 4 ft from a side property line at 711 Bay Ave, Harbor Oaks Sub, Lot 21 and part of Lot 19, zoned RS 6 (single family residential). V 91-85 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a carport for an existing single family residence on a corner lot in a historic district. He stated the proposed carport footprint appears to be in character with the existing side setback and will not detract from the surrounding houses and outbuildings in the district. Robert Aude, architect representing the applicant, indicated the subject property is being renovated and he expects to apply for the requisite building permits within a few days if this variance is granted. He stated he is reluctant to refer to the proposed structure as a "carport" as he feels the term "pergola" is more descriptive of the design of the proposed custom-built, architecturally compatible structure. In response to questions, Mr. Aude indicated the design is for an area, open on all four sides, to afford a walkway as well as drive-through access, allow light to enter the garage and provide an attractive entry sequence into the house. He stated no variances had previously been requested for the subject property. Mr. Aude presented a sketch illustrating the proposed construction and noted a letter of support from an adjacent property owner was attached to the application for variance. John Slaughter, owner and applicant, stated he discussed the proposed construction with neighbors who indicated no objection to the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney 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 the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of the lot size subject to the conditions: 1) the applicant shall provide the Planning and Development Department staff with information concerning the proposed carport elevation design. This design shall contribute architecturally to the historic integrity of the existing residence. 2) the carport shall be an open carport and not be enclosed 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. III. Board and Staff Discussion Concerns were expressed by the Board regarding back-out perpendicular parking at the Avis office on Myrtle Avenue and Cleveland Street and a chain-link fence on the southwest side of Skycrest Church. Discussion ensued regarding houses of historical significance and whether or not an ordinance has been passed dealing with historical houses throughout the area. It was indicated a historical district is provided for in the Code. There was discussion regarding the cost of variance fees with it being indicated direct guidelines were given that the variance process be self-supporting. A memo outlining the Board's concern that variance fees for residential applications are too high was submitted for consideration. It was the consensus of the Board to forward the memo, along with a comparison of variance fees, to the City Commission. IV. Approval of Minutes of November 14, 1991 Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of November 14, 1991, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Approved as submitted. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:33 p.m.