05/14/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
May 14, 1992
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Thomas J. Graham (1:05 p.m.)
Otto Gans
John W. Homer
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney (1:03 p.m.)
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
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
Item A - (continued from 4/23/92) Branch Sunset Associ ates, Ltd (Sunset Point Shopping Center) for variances of (1) 2 percent building coverage to permit 27 percent; (2) 12.51 percent
open space for lot to permit 12.49 percent; (3) 179 parking spaces to permit 1,180 spaces; and (4) a variance of 10 ft to permit zero landscape buffer between parking lot and U.S. 19
N right-of-way at 23660 U.S. Hwy 19 N, Sec 6-29-16, M&B 41.01, 41.02, 41.04, 41.05, 41.06, zoned CC (commercial center). V 92-22
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application was continued to allow the applicant to address concerns regarding traffic circula tion on the site. He stated the applicant will
provide a 15-foot strip of perimeter landscaping along U.S. 19 and modify the southwest corner of the parking lot. He stated a variance was previously granted for an addition to the
Publix supermarket and the building permit for the addition has been obtained within the
required time frame.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford stated ten feet is an average width for perimeter landscaping and extending the length of the proposed landscaping could possibly bring it into
compliance.
Nick Zarra, engineering consultant representing the applicant, explained changes to the site plan made in an effort to address concerns expressed at the last meeting. He stated a new
plan was submitted to staff wherein parking spaces backing out into the circulation lane were eliminated in the southwest corner, planters were added to help direct traffic and 13 parking
spaces for employees were added in the back. He indicated the width of the landscape buffer was increased to 15 feet wherever possi ble; however, increasing the length of the buffer
was not feasible due to encroaching into Joel & Jerry's and Burger King's parking areas. He said an attempt will be made to negotiate with Joel & Jerry's in order to provide the required
landscaping.
In response to questions, Mr. Zarra indicated the two-lane driveway around Joel & Jerry's is 24 feet wide and is required in their lease to provide better traffic circulation. He stated
the lease provides for no designated employee parking; however, it is hoped employees will use the parking spaces in the back and leave the spaces in front for the customers.
Discussion ensued in regard to AN increase in density. Concern was expressed the variances requested were not the minimum and based on financial gain. Efforts to improve traffic circulation
were commended. In response to a question, it was indicated no additional parking spaces will be required for the Publix addition.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant variances #1, #3 and #4 as requested and #2, a variance of 12.4 percent open space for lot to permit 12.6
percent because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Develop ment Code more specifically because, the variances
arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or applicant; the center was built prior to the current Land Development Code change in 1985 subject
to the conditions: (1) building permits shall be procured with in one year from the date of this public hearing; (2) a landscaping plan shall be sub mitted and approved by the en vironmen tal
group and director of plan ning & development prior to the issuance of a building permit; and (3) upon lease re newal or renegotia tions with Joel & Jerry's, the applicant shall pro vide
a 10 foot buffer which shall ex tend from the new 15-foot buff er, as shown on the site plan, to the north side of the south ern entry to the park ing lot. The motion was
duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Homer, Gans and Graham voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko voted "nay". Motion carried. Request granted.
1. R Wayne Temme for a variance of 5 ft to allow a garage addition 10 ft from a rear property line at 421 Jasmine Way, Harbor Oaks, Lot 38 and part of Lot 40, zoned RS 6 (single family
residential). V 92-24
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a utility shed addition to an existing detached garage. Although the existing
structure does not have a great deal of historic character, he indicated it is desirable to take into consideration the historic nature of the area.
A condition was recommended the applicant be encouraged to present the proposal to the Historic Preserva tion Board for a courtesy re view for suggestions and input. Discussion ensued
with it being felt the review was not necessary.
Wayne Temme, owner and applicant, indicated he wishes to develop the structure due to problems with standing rainwater in the garage and to add storage space. He presented a drawing
of the proposed addition stating several design alternatives were considered; however, there were constraints due to the location of a nearby tree and the architectural line of the garage
which does not blend with the surround ing area.
In response to questions, Mr. Temme indicated an existing six-foot fence adjacent to the garage will remain, the addition will blend with the architectural style of the house as closely
as possible and he wishes to achieve an aesthetically pleasing appearance. He stated he has submitted the plan to the Historical Preservation Board.
Two letters from adjacent property owners were presented in support of the application.
Discussion of the application ensued with it being felt the applicant did a good job designing the addition and it was indica ted the proposed gabled roof will blend with the historical
character of the neighborhood.
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 specifical ly because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner;
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 location of the house, swimming pool and tree subject to the conditions: (1) the requi site building permit shall be obtained within 6
months from the date of this public hear ing; (2) the utility shed shall be constructed as indicated on the site plan and (3) the ap plicant shall submit elevation drawings of the proposed
utili ty shed to the Historic Preser vation Board for a courtesy review. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
Mr. Temme commended the Board for their efforts in maintaining community development standards and said he supports the variance fee schedule currently in place.
2. Joseph R and Christine L Galinski for variances of (1) 4.35 ft to permit dock width of 25 ft; (2) 4.8 ft to permit dock to be positioned 13 ft from the (extended) north side property
line; and (3) 9.8 ft to permit dock to be positioned 8 ft from the (extended) south side property line at 107 Midway Island, Island Estates of Clwr Unit 3, Lot 33, zoned RS 8 (single
family residen tial) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 92-25
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to install a cradle lift along the south side of an existing dock and feels there is sufficient
hardship to justify granting the application. He indicated the City Harbormas ter has no objection to the application.
Mr. Gene Jerichow, marine contractor representing the applicant, stated the variances are being requested due to the pie-shaped lot narrowing toward the seawall.
Discussion ensued with regard to the placement of the proposed cradle lift. Mr. Jerichow said a 24-foot boat will be moored at the 17-foot-long dock. In response to a question, it
was indicated the cradle lift cannot be located nearer the seawall without requiring the boat to be backed into the lift.
Evelyn Parker, property owner to the north, requested clarification of the application. She expressed opposition to allowing tie poles due to boats docking at the pie-shaped lot encroach ing
onto her property. It was indicated approval of the variances could be conditioned upon eliminating all tie poles.
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 more specifical ly because, the variances arise from the unusual shape of the lot on Island Estates which is unique to the
property and not caused by the owner or applicant subject to the conditions: (1) the applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit
within 6 months from the date of this public hearing; (2) all tie poles existing at the previous slip shall be re moved upon comple tion of the boat lift and step down instal lation;
and (3) the installa tion of tie poles shall not be allowed at any time, now or in the future. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
II. Board and Staff Discussion
Mr. Shuford provided copies of the substantial improvement policy memo to the Board. Staff was directed to invite Victor Chodora and Jim Polatty to a future meeting to explain the policy
and communi cations between City departments.
Discussion ensued regarding the members' summer vacation schedule.
III. Approval of Minutes of April 23, 1992
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of April 23, 1992, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk