Loading...
01/09/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD January 9, 1992 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 1:04 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 Don Curtis Pierson - (2nd request for extension) requesting a six-month extension to July 13, 1992 for variances of 1) 1,753 sq ft to allow construction of a triplex on a 8,247 sq ft lot; 2) 5 ft to allow construction of a triplex on a lot 95 ft wide; and 3) 13 ft to permit construction of a triplex on a lot 87 ft deep, at 7 Heilwood St, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, Blk 6, Lot 3 and part of Lot 2, zoned RM-20 per RM-12 (multiple family residential). V 90-40 A question was raised if the variances requested to be extended were correct. Mr. Gans moved to continue this item until later in the meeting so additional background could be provided. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Development Code Adjustment Board granted the above variances on April 12, 1990. This decision was appealed by the applicant's neighbor and the appeal was heard on December 7, 1990. The Hearing Officer upheld the Board's decision in an order dated January 14, 1991. The subject property was extensively damaged by the storm of April 25, 1991 and the applicant requested the first time extension. On August 22, 1991, the Board granted a six-month time extension to January 13, 1992. Two additional variances were also granted at the August meeting which were appealed by the applicant's neighbor. Don Pierson, the applicant, indicated construction is delayed pending the results of this current appeal and this is the reason for the second time extension request. Mr. Gans moved to grant a six-month time extension. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Time extension granted to July 13, 1992. II. Public Hearings Item A - (continued from 12/18/91) Douglas L and Joyce W Alderman for variances of (1) 42 in to permit a 72 in high fence in setback adjoining street to which property is addressed; and (2) 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 application was continued from December 18, 1991 in order for the applicant to reconsider the style of the proposed fence being requested to provide privacy on the north side of the house. Concern was also expressed regarding whether or not an existing fence on the south side of the site was legal. Mr. Shuford indicated a permit to install a gate on the south fence was previously issued. He said staff review indicated this fence could be considered under the wording of the requested variances. Doug Alderman, owner and applicant, stated the fence will be installed by a licensed contractor, will be attractive and can be built of wood to match the south fence, or of masonry to match the house. Mr. Alderman felt a concrete block fence would provide better visual continuity in the neighborhood. Concern was expressed that granting variances for the proposed north fence would increase a non-conformity. It was indicated the non-conformity pertains only to the fence, not the building footprint. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variances as requested for the fence/wall on the north side of the property only 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 triangular-shaped lot which fronts two different streets, Lantana Avenue and Narcissus Avenue, subject to the conditions: 1) that the fence/wall shall be in conformance with the site plan submitted by the applicant in support of his application; 2) that the applicant shall agree to put a finished coat, satisfactory to the Planning Department, on the exterior of the block wall keeping it attractive from Narcissus Avenue and Lantana Avenue and 3) that the requisite fence 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"; Ms. Whitney and Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variances as requested to legitimize the existing six-foot high fence on the south side of the property because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the city previously granting a permit for the wood fence subject to the condition that the requisite fence 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. William J Jr and Beth A Fisher for variances of (1) 3 ft to permit house 12 ft from south side property line; (2) 7 ft 6 in to permit house 7 ft 6 in from north side property line; (3) 35 ft to permit construction on lot 65 ft wide; and (4) 8.33% front yard open space to permit 66.67% front yard open space at 1931 Oak Ridge Court, Oak Ridge Court Estates, Lot 7, zoned RS 2 (single family residential). V 92-01 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a new single-family one-story home on a substandard triangular-shaped lot. There is a drainage easement at the rear of the property which is located off a cul-de-sac. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford stated the subject property is in a platted subdivision approved by the City in 1987, after the advent of the new Code. William Fisher, Jr., owner and applicant, stated the homeowners association and property owners met on this issue amending the site plan submitted with the application to lessen the impact of the proposed house on the site and on adjacent property owners. He said there are a number of large trees, which he hopes to save, on the site. In response to questions, Mr. Fisher stated the approximately 2,800 square-foot house was originally to be his residence. However, he said he no longer intends to reside in the proposed house and wishes to sell the property. He indicated the requested variances include a pool deck and he distributed the revised site plan to the Board. He said the pool would not require a variance. Discussion ensued regarding the pool and it was indicated if the pool was eliminated, the house could be relocated on the lot in such a manner as to require fewer variances, however, a number of large trees would be lost. Discussion ensued with regard to the placement of the house on the substandard lot. It was indicated the City allows building on non-conforming lots if variances are not required. It was noted a creek flows through the middle of the subdivision, creating problems with relocating the drainage easement. In response to a question, Mr. Fisher indicated a deed restriction requires a minimum house size of 2,400 square feet. One letter and a petition with four signatures were submitted in support of the application. Gerald Klein, prospective buyer of the subject property, indicated he wishes to have a nice home, there is difficulty in meeting the 15-foot setbacks required and vacating the drainage easement would be difficult. Mr. Fisher feels residents of this subdivision take pride in maintaining the integrity of the area and said the revised site plan was a group effort of the homeowners. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the request is the minimum. Concern was expressed regarding the design of the house in view of the difficulties presented by the substandard lot. It was indicated a different kind of house could be designed, but would remove more oak trees and be more expensive. It was felt there would be no benefit in relocating the house on the lot or reducing the pool area to fit the site. Reducing the setbacks for this site was not seen as a problem as a 15-foot setback is not required for most homes. 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 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 size and shape of the lot subject to the conditions: 1) the single-family one story home shall be constructed as indicated on the site plan dated December 11, 1991 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. Robert S Walsh for variances of (1) 10.85 ft to permit dock width of 28 ft; (2) 22 ft to permit dock length of 46.5 ft; (3) 6.67 ft to permit dock to be positioned 9.67 ft from extended property line at 124 Devon Dr, Bayside Sub, Lot 11 and land to bulkhead, zoned RS 8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 92-02 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to install a 10,000 pound cradle boat lift on an existing privately owned, non-conforming multi-purpose dock. Mr. Shuford distributed minutes of the January 11, 1990 Development Code Adjustment Board meeting indicating a former owner of the subject property was granted a variance to permit a 46.5 foot long dock. Although the current variance requests exceed the dimensional and numerical development requirements of the code with regard to length, width and positioning, the dock is in keeping with the neighboring docks and the city harbormaster has determined that the proposed dock will not create a navigational hazard or obstruction. Michael Evans, representing the owner and applicant, stated there is limited space to accommodate a cradle lift due to the lot width, but the boat is too large to lift with davits alone. In response to questions, Mr. Evans indicated he did not build the subject dock, Mr. Walsh purchased the property in December of 1990 and tie poles will not be installed at the end of the dock. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer 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 subject to the conditions: 1) the dock facility shall be for the exclusive use of the applicant; 2) there shall be no tie poles located at the north end of the dock 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. 3. John Wayne Nightingale, as Trustee, (Roberts Printing) for a variance of 7.5 ft to permit garage 2.5 ft from a side property line at 2049 Calumet St, Clearwater Industrial Park, part of Lot 19, zoned IL (limited industrial). V 92-03 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant is requesting a setback variance to construct a garage addition to an existing storage building. Concern was expressed in extending an existing non-conformity. Wayne Nightingale, owner and applicant, stated he wishes to construct a protective structure for his new 34-foot service vehicle, to be located near the existing building for aesthetics and convenience. Bill Garren, contractor representing the applicant, stated the existing building was originally built prior to the property being annexed into the City and zero setbacks were allowed. He did not know whether or not proper building permits were obtained. Mr. Garren stated the building was in conformance before the property was annexed into the city. Mr. Garren presented a drawing of the subject property and explained the parking layout and maneuvering capabilities of the service vehicle. Mr. Nightingale, in response to questions, indicated United Electric shares parking on the site. He said his service vehicle resembles a white-sided panel truck, serves to demonstrate and promote his printing business, contains a printing facility and electronic equipment worth approximately $500,000.00 and requires electric hook-ups to relieve the load on the generators while in storage. Mr. Nightingale said the 46-foot length of the proposed structure is needed to accommodate support equipment for the vehicle, relocating the proposed structure would eliminate parking spaces and the ceiling of an existing storage facility is too low to store the vehicle. Discussion ensued regarding there being no hardship as it was felt the proposed structure could be relocated on the site. Concern was expressed this request is an overuse of the site and that there is no retention provided. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Gans moved to deny the variance 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 the minimum; the request for the variance is based partially upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; 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 and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Homer voted "nay". Motion carried. Request denied. The meeting recessed from 2:50 to 2:55 p.m. 4. Michael B Evans and Cynthia Huffman for variances of (1) 3.3 ft to permit construction of garage addition 3.7 ft from a side property line; and (2) 5.3 ft to permit garage addition 19.7 ft from a street right-of-way at 314 Magnolia Dr, Harbor Oaks Sub, Lot 93 and part of Lots 91 and 95, zoned RS 6 (single family residential). V 92-04 Mr. Graham declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case. Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to convert an existing garage into living area and add an extension for a new garage. Robert Resch, architect representing the applicant, stated the applicants wish to expand their house by adding two bedrooms and a playroom as their family has outgrown the existing residence. He explained the new garage location is limited by the many trees at the rear of the site. He said the house is located in a historic district. Discussion ensued in regard to the proposed structure not encroaching any further into the setback area than the existing structure and being in line with existing side and front setbacks. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer 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 subject to the conditions: 1) the garage addition shall be constructed as per the site plan, 2) the applicant shall provide elevation drawings of the proposed addition to the Planning and Development Director for review and to insure consistency with regard to the architecture on the site and compatibility with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood prior to the issuance of a building permit 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 upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Plisko and Gans voted "aye"; Mr. Graham abstained. Motion carried. Request granted. 5. Peppermill Restaurants, Inc for a variance of 10 ft to permit building zero ft from a rear property line at 1575 S Ft Harrison Ave, Sec 21-29-15, M&B 44.21, zoned CG (general commercial). V 9205 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating on September 27, 1990, the applicant received a variance to permit a deck roof fascia 1.5 feet from the rear property line. One of the conditions imposed in granting this variance related to extending an existing wall along the entire rear property line. The applicant now feels the deck would be better protected from the weather if the fascia extended completely to the property line. Concern was expressed there is insufficient parking on the site and patrons are parking in the right-of-way. It was indicated the current parking meets the City's regulations and the requested variance applies only to the roof fascia. The Assistant City Attorney returned at 3:15 p.m. David Lowery, owner and applicant, stated the roof overhang is necessary for aesthetics and water protection. He is seeking to purchase a small portion of the lot to the rear of the subject property for additional parking. Mr. Lowery indicated the concrete wall will be extended only to the corner of the building where the deck terminates. John Gallant, contractor representing the applicant, indicated he will provide a guttering system to contain water runoff on the subject property. Discussion ensued regarding extending the wall with it being indicated the applicant wishes to eventually enclose the deck, but it will remain open for the present. In response to a question regarding building into the 1.5-foot setback, Mr. Gallant indicated the proper plans were submitted and the 1.5-foot overhang was added upon recommendation by City staff to better manage the water runoff from the roof. Mr. Gallant said he was informed by City staff that he would need to request a variance; however, could proceed with construction only at his own risk. Concern was expressed regarding the absence of water retention on the site. Mr. Gallant stated water retention was not shown or requested on the original permit, but he is trying to create a condition for handling water on the property. Discussion ensued regarding the request being minimal. 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; the particular physical surroundings 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 subject to the conditions: 1) the applicant shall extend the existing wall along the rear property line to the point where the deck adjoins the existing wall of the structure; at this point, a six-foot tall wooden fence shall be erected to fully enclose the rear yard; 2) the applicant shall satisfactorily meet the minimum parking requirements; 3) the applicant shall submit a site plan that reflects additional open space, additional landscaping, non-glaring site lighting and other site amenities which are acceptable to the Planning and Development Director and the Division of Environmental Management; 4) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing; 5) this variance applies to the roof overhang/fascia only; no part of the external screening or wall of the deck area shall be closer than 1.5 feet to the rear property line; 6) a guttering system acceptable to the Director of Public Works for handling roof runoff shall be installed by the applicant prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy and all required retention facilities for the structure shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director as it pertains to the original building permit application and 7) this variance shall apply to either an unenclosed or enclosed deck area so long as condition five above is strictly observed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. III. Board and Staff Discussion Assistant City Attorney Lance stated on July 25, 1991, Edgar A. Bradford was granted an 80-foot separation distance variance to permit the establishment of an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF). The decision to grant the variance was appealed to a Hearing Officer with the appeal being scheduled to be heard on January 15, 1992. Mr. Lance stated that Mr. Bradford, per his letter of December 8, 1991, no longer wished to pursue the ACLF and is requesting the application be withdrawn. Mr. Gans moved to accept Mr. Edgar Bradford's request to withdraw V 91-47 per his letter of December 8, 1991, and acceptance of this request makes the granting of variance V 91-47 null and void effective as of this date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Chairman Graham, who is also Vice-Chairman of the Maas Brothers Task Force, requested that all meetings of the Development Code Adjustment Board start at 1:00 p.m. and that the 3:00 p.m. starting time for meetings with three or fewer cases be held in abeyance until further notice. There is a time conflict with the Task Force meetings which are held on the same Thursday as the DCAB meetings. Mr. Gans moved to hold the 3:00 p.m. meeting time for three or fewer cases in abeyance until further notice. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding the Maas Brothers property, the letter submitted to the City Commission relating to variance fees and the Hearing Officer order overturning the Planning and Zoning Board's decision in the Pick Kwik Case. Fritz's Market was discussed and it was indicated staff will investigate possible fence violations on Drew Street and Mandalay Avenue. IV. Approval of Minutes of December 18, 1991 Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of December 18, 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 4:00 p.m.