Loading...
03/26/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD March 26, 1992 Members present: Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman Otto Gans John W. Homer Absent: Alex Plisko, Chairman (excused) Thomas J. Graham (excused) Also present: 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 Vice-Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. She 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. She 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. Due to only three members being present, Vice-Chairman Whitney informed the applicants that the three members present must vote in favor of a request for it to be approved and that they have the choice of asking for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting or proceeding with the request. I. Time Extensions 1. (2nd 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 348½ Coronado Dr, Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 118-119, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 91-17 The applicant was not in attendance and it was indicated he could not be reached and may not have known his request was scheduled for today. Planning Manager Scott Shuford stated an extension for a conditional use relating to this application is scheduled to be heard on April 14, 1992. Discussion ensued in regard to continuing the time extension request to April 9, 1992 so that the applicant can be notified that his attendance is required. Mr. Homer moved to continue this request to the next meeting to allow sufficient time to notify the applicant. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request continued to April 9, 1992. II. Public Hearings 1. Robert B and Shirley I Coleman for a variance of 9.5 ft to permit dock length of 75 ft to allow boat lift addition at 188 Devon Dr, Bayside Sub, Lot 27 and part of Lots 26 and 28, zoned RS 8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 92-17 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to locate a low profile cradle lift at the end of an existing dock, causing it to extend out further than allowed by Code. He stated there are existing docks in the area that are equal or greater in length than the proposed dock. Richard Baden, Gulfside Docks Corporation, contractor representing the applicant, stated the end of the dock is the only logical location for the proposed lift and the tie poles at the end of the dock will be removed. Discussion ensued with regard to placing the cradle lift along the west side of the existing dock creating an access problem in boarding the applicant's pontoon boat. It was also indicated the adjacent property owners objected to having the cradle lift on either side of the dock; however, supported a low profile lift at the end of the dock. Mr. Baden indicated the proposed lift would eliminate the existing tie poles and would be an aesthetic improvement. 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 subject to the conditions: 1) no tie poles shall extend seaward from the proposed cradle lift 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. A question was raised regarding whether or not height and setback requirements were met for an existing deck and gazebo on the west side of the subject property. Staff will investigate whether or not permits were pulled. 2. Jugal B and Manna J Shah (Sea Star Beach Resort) for variances of (1) 8 ft 4 in to permit 2nd floor addition 6 ft 8 in from a street right-of-way; and (2) 10.14 ft to permit 2nd floor addition 4.86 ft from a rear property line at 326 Hamden Dr, Columbia Sub No 3, Lots 3, 3a, 4, 4a, and part of Lots 2 and 2a, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 92-18 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to legitimize an existing second floor addition for which a building permit was issued in error. He stated the error was discovered when the applicant requested a variance to permit a railing and support structures for the second floor balcony. Mr. Shuford distributed a floor plan to the board. In response to a question, it was stated there is no deck beneath the existing overhang. Harland Heshelow, contractor representing the applicant, stated the second floor addition is above and in line with the first floor footprint and the building consists of 11 rental units plus one residential unit. He stated, for aesthetics and access, he wishes to install support posts and pour a concrete pad at the front of the building where paving blocks and a planter currently exist. He said nothing would be altered on the first floor. A question was raised regarding the number of rental units with it being indicated there are 11 units in the subject structure and 21 or 22 units in the entire complex. Concern was expressed regarding the potential for conversion of the new floor area into additional units as the development of the property was near the maximum density allowed. It was indicated the owner does not presently live on the property but wishes to move back into the residential unit. Questions were raised regarding square footage of the structures in the complex before and after the addition was constructed. Mr. Heshelow requested a continuance to the next meeting in order to obtain more information and address concerns regarding the application. A question was raised with regard to support posts encroaching onto City property. It was indicated five posts were permitted as part of the original application. Three additional posts are now being requested for the front deck which was not part of the original application. Discussion ensued in regard to the original application and the need to review the plans before a decision could be made. Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the meeting of April 9, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Homer and Gans voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney voted "nay". Motion carried. Request continued to April 9, 1992. 3. Morton F Plant Hospital Assoc Inc for a variance of 35 ft to permit canopy to extend to a street (Jeffords St) right-of-way at 323 Jeffords St, Sec 21-29-15, M&B 12.15, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 92-19 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a canopy covering the Jeffords Street entrance to Morton Plant Hospital for those exiting and entering the day surgery area. He stated the proposed canopy will extend 37 feet to the street right-of-way. He noted the City Traffic Engineering Department expressed no objection to the application as traffic stopping and loading are permitted at that location. Emil Marquardt, attorney representing the applicant, stated the canopy will only extend to the grass area along the sidewalk, and not to the street, and is necessary to protect patients and their attendants from bad weather. Discussion ensued regarding patient drop-off and pick-up and the shortage of available parking in the area. Douglas Dahlhauser, Vice President of Operations for Morton Plant Hospital, representing the applicant, stated overflow parking for the day surgery area is located across the street and indicated that the parking situation is confusing to people not familiar with the area. He feels the canopy will bring attention to and identify the day surgery entrance which is partially obscured by landscaping. Robert Kern, representing Harbor Oaks Homeowners Association, spoke in favor of the application. He feels the proposed canopy would be an asset to the facility, and will provide shelter from the weather for those attending classes at the hospital. 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 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 variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the necessity to provide protection for patients and their attendants entering and leaving the hospital subject to the conditions: 1) any signage associated with this request shall meet sign code requirements and shall be subject to separate permitting; 2) the canopy materials and design shall conform to all code requirements for wind loading and other construction requirements 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. 4. Morton F Plant Hospital Assoc Inc for a height variance of 56.1 ft to permit construction of a 106.1 ft high new equipment penthouse at 323 Jeffords St, Sec 21-29-15, M&B 12.15, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 92-20 Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant is seeking a height variance to construct an equipment penthouse atop the Witt building to house a new air conditioning and heating system as part of an overall renovation of the building. Emil Marquardt, attorney representing the applicant, stated the proposed equipment shelter is necessary to protect the replacement air conditioning and heating system and to muffle sounds coming from the units. He stated, in an effort to cooperate with the surrounding community, he has met with members of the neighborhood association and said their objections relate to noise rather than to height. Robert Kern, representing the Harbor Oaks Homeowners Association, objected to the application and read into the record a letter from the association expressing concerns that an environmental impact study was not performed to determine if new machinery will create additional noise as the present noise levels have been a problem for area residents. Discussion ensued with regard to the code allowing for the replacement of the heating and cooling system and the height variance being requested to allow for the construction of a protective covering for the equipment. Mr. Dahlhauser stated an acoustical company was contacted to address noise concerns resulting from the last project. Studies were done to determine the decibel levels of noise emanating from the building at all times. Early morning was found to be the worst; however, the noise levels never exceeded the maximum allowed. He said a formal sound study has not been done to evaluate the impact of the new system. He felt the new equipment would be less noisy as each air handler would be suspended from shock absorbers and not positioned directly against the building. The structure housing the air conditioning and heating system will be soundproofed. In response to a question, it was indicated Fagan and Associates did the previous sound study. Mr. Marquardt felt the proposal would significantly reduce the current noise problems. He said the hospital is sensitive to the homeowners' concerns regarding the noise issue. He indicated if their overall campus exceeded the allowable sound levels, some equipment would be shut down. Mr. Kern restated the homeowners' opposition to any installation creating any additional noise and asked that nothing be done until a study had been completed. He indicated his willingness to work with the applicant. 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 arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant due to the replacement of existing systems in an attempt to muffle the sound emanating from the equipment subject to the conditions: 1) the structure shall be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted with the variance request; 2) the new air handling equipment shall not exceed the noise levels from the existing equipment as measured from Jeffords Street and Druid Road and Jeffords Street and Bay Avenue and an acoustical survey by a registered Florida engineer shall be provided to City staff and the Harbor Oaks Homeowners Association which confirms the meeting of these requirements prior to the Planning and Development Department signing off on the requisite permit and 3) the requisite 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 Discussion ensued with regard to potential problems associated with having only three members present at a meeting as all three members must vote in favor of a variance request for it to be approved. IV. Approval of Minutes of March 12, 1992 Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of March 12, 1992, 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 3:30 p.m.