Loading...
03/12/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD March 12, 1992 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chairman Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman Thomas J. Graham Otto Gans John W. Homer Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Mary K. (Sue) 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. Public Hearings 1. Fred Sadowski for variances of (1) 18.08 ft to permit dock length of 42.75 ft; (2) 7.23 ft to permit dock width of 24.5 ft; and (3) 9.2 ft to permit dock to be positioned 7.08 ft from a (extended) side property line at 136 Devon Dr, Bayside Sub, Lot 14 and land to bulkhead, zoned RS 8 (single family residential and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 92-14 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to add a cradle lift and expand an existing dock. He recommended the dock expansion extend no further toward the east side property line than what is existing. Michael Evans, representing the applicant, felt there would be no objection by the owner to align the proposed dock with the eastern edge of the existing dock, stating that section is not critical to the dock. In response to questions, Mr. Evans anticipates obtaining the signature of the property owner to the east within the week and he said no tie poles will be placed on the east side of the dock. Discussion ensued with regard to the County's requirement to obtain the signatures of adjacent property owners on applications for permits and building permits not being issued without the approval of both City and County agencies. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant 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 are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship of low water and the inability to provide proper mooring for the boat subject to the conditions: 1) the height of the proposed dock expansion area shall remain the same height as the existing dock on the eastern side; 2) the variance to the positioning requirement shall be reduced to 9.08 feet instead of 7.08 along the eastern side of the dock and the eastern side of the deck addition shall not extend further in an easterly direction than the existing dock; 3) no tie poles shall be allowed on the east side of the dock and 4) 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. Charles and Ypapanti Alexiou/Anthony Alexiou (Rockaway Grill) for variances of (1) 52.14 ft to permit canopy to extend seaward of Coastal Construction Control Line (C.C.C.L.); and (2) 15 ft to permit canopy zero ft from a street right-of-way at 7 Rockaway St, Miller's Replat, Lot 2 & vacated Beach Dr on W and Lot 3, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 92-15 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to attach a canopy to the side of a restaurant to extend over a portion of an existing deck. He said the proposed canopy will cover no more than 99 inches, or approximately one-third, of the deck and recommended reducing variance #1 to 43.3 ft. Jim Dowling, attorney representing the applicant, stated in response to questions, the proposed canopy will not cover the entire deck, nor extend the entire width of the building. DNR approval has been received for a canopy only along the width of the deck area. He said the building permit will be pulled before the end of the week; therefore, a six-month time limit for obtaining the requisite permit will not pose a problem. Discussion ensued with regard to the history of variance applications relating to the subject deck. It was indicated variances were granted to legitimize an existing, illegal and non-conforming structure which was built by a previous owner and has created a hardship on subsequent owners. Concern was expressed in allowing any addition to something that started out as an illegal and non-conforming structure. In response to a question, it was indicated if the canopy is cantilevered from the building it is allowed and can extend 40 percent or ten feet into the setback, whichever is greater. Discussion ensued regarding the application with it being felt the proposed canopy is needed to provide shade, will make the outside of the building more attractive, will cause no undue hardship upon adjacent property owners and no attempt is being made to cover outside seating. Mr. Graham moved to grant variance #1, a variance of 43.3 feet to permit the canopy to extend seaward of the CCCL, and variance #2 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 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 of the sun on the western face of the restaurant restricting the use of seats in areas within the restaurant, and a solution to that hardship is to provide an overhang to help block the sun, subject to the conditions: 1) no enclosure of the canopy or deck area shall be permitted and 2) all requisite permits 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. 3. Metat and Emine Idrizi for a variance of 3 ft to permit pool enclosure 4 ft from rear property lines at 510 Island Way, Island Estates Unit 6D, Lot 68, zoned RS 6 (single family residential). V 92-16 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a screen enclosure around an existing swimming pool and concrete deck, on an irregularly shaped lot. Discussion ensued regarding the side and rear property lines with it being indicated due to the odd conformation of the lot, the subject property has three rear property lines. For the record, it was stated the staff report is correct regarding the location of the existing concrete deck. Metat Idrizi, owner and applicant stated he purchased the subject property in 1978, built the pool and deck in 1981 and there was difficulty in placing the pool in order not to interfere with the waterfront. He wishes to build the screen enclosure to protect the pool from debris. Mr. Idrizi said the enclosure will only screen the perimeter of the existing deck. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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 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 and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the shape of the property and the location of the existing pool and pool deck subject to the conditions: 1) the swimming pool enclosure shall be constructed as indicated on the 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. Assistant City Attorney Lance left the meeting at 1:45 p.m. II. Board and Staff Discussion Discussion ensued regarding the space leased by McDonald's on Clearwater Beach to meet parking requirements, charging for parking at the Pelican parking lot and restaurant expansion at Gionnis Plaza. It was indicated the code violation reporting forms issued by the Planning and Development Department are intended to replace the issue/response schedule formerly used to respond to code violation complaints. III. Approval of Minutes of February 27, 1992 Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of February 27, 1992, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Approved as submitted. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 1:57 p.m.