06/25/1992 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
June 25, 1992
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman (arrived at 1:01)
Thomas J. Graham
Otto Gans
John W. Homer
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney (arrived at 1:02)
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
The applicants were not present and concern was expressed they may not have been notified of the date and time of the hearing.
A. Valentino Koumoulidis (2nd request for extension) for variances of (1) 83 ft to permit a 67 ft wide lot; (2) 3 parking spaces to permit 6 spaces; (3) 24.85% front yard open space
to allow 25.15%; (4) 3.5 ft to permit 1.5 ft of perimeter land scape 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
Mr. Graham moved to continue this request to the meeting of July 9, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unani mous ly.
B. Robert E. Malke (Rose Garden Restaurant) (3rd request for extension) for a variance of 14 seats to permit 2-COP licensed establish ment with 36 indoor seats at 348 and 348-1/2
Coronado Dr., Lloyd-White-
Skinner Sub, Lots 118-119, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 91-17
Ms. Whitney moved to continue this request to the meeting of July 9, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unani mous ly.
Staff was directed to ask the applicants to bring background information and drawings relating to their variance requests to the next meeting.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 6/11/92) Lowell W Paxson (Paxson Broad casting, Inc) for variances (to allow construction of car ports) of (1) 3.54 acres to per mit con struction on a 0.46
acre lot; (2) 179.5 ft to permit con struc tion on a lot 120.5 ft in width; (3) 135.6 ft to permit construc tion on a lot 164.4 ft in depth; (4) 41.5 ft to permit construc tion 8.5 ft
from rear property line; (5) 2.1 ft to permit con struc tion 47.9 ft from south property line; and (6) 20 ft to permit construction 30 ft from north property line at 18401 US 19 N, Sec
20-29-16, M&B 33.06, zoned CC (commercial cen ter). V 92-33
In a letter dated June 25, 1992, the applicant has requested this item be continued to the meeting of August 13, 1992, in order to obtain additional information.
Mr. Graham moved to continue this request to the meeting of August 13, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
1. Mary L Lea, as Trustee, for variances of (1) 12.25 ft to permit a dock 38.50 ft in width; and (2) 9.25 ft to permit dock placement 10.75 ft from extended property line at 1039 Bay
Espla nade, Carlouel Sub, Blk 271, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 92-34
In a letter dated June 18, 1992, the applicant's representative has requested this item be continued to the next meeting.
Mr. Graham moved to continue this request to the meeting of July 9, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. L M Loken (Imperial Square Shopping Center) for a variance of 58 parking spaces to permit a shopping center with 293 parking spaces at 1440-1494 S Belcher Rd, Sec 24-29-15, M&B
41.02, 41.03, 41.04, and 41.05, zoned CC (commercial center) and CG (general commercial). V 92-35
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the request results from a proposed expansion to accommo date a new Food Lion store. He stated the applicant has
acquired an adjacent gas station located southwest of the site to provide additional parking spaces and stormwater retention. A Unity of Title would be required to combine the two parcels.
A variance for 30 parking spaces was approved on February 13, 1992 and is currently under appeal. It is anticipated either the variance request or the appeal will be dropped.
It was indicated any non-conforming signage on the property will be required to be brought into compliance by the October, 1992 deadline.
Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, stated some employee parking spaces in the rear will be eliminated as the applicant proposes to move the building back 15 feet. He
stated additional landscap ing is proposed for the front, that moving the building back will allow more parking spaces in front and rearrang ing existing landscap ing, water retention
areas and driveways will improve traffic circulation on the site.
The City Traffic Engineering Department concurs with the request, stating the applicant is attempting to improve internal circulation and eliminate parking on the right-of-way.
A question was raised with regard to the parcel pick-up lane in front of the store. Mr. Fowler indicated the lane is required by Food Lion and felt it did not violate the fire code
as unattended vehicles are not allowed.
In response to a question, it was indicated seven handicapped parking spaces would be required. Discussion ensued regarding the parking design and Mr. Fowler stated the required number
of handi capped spaces will be provided.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not a pending Hearing Officer appeal affects this variance request. It was indicated the appeal, filed by Pinch-A-Penny, is based on the proposed
location of a main driveway near their loading area. Assistant City Attorney Lance stated the appeal does not affect the current variance request. The rearrangement of the driveways
on the site has satisfied the appellant, who is expected to withdraw the appeal.
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 specifical ly because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property, that the center was developed
30 years ago and has
to conform to standards set forth today and not caused by the owner or applicant subject to the condi tions: 1) the site shall be devel-oped in general conformance with the submitted
site plan and this plan shall be submitted for certifica tion within six months of this public hearing; 2) all signs shall be brought into compliance with the City Sign Code on or before
Oc tober 13, 1992; 3) a Unity of Title tying the shopping center parcel with the service station parcel shall be recorded prior to certification of the site plan and 4) the requisite
build ing permit shall be obtained within one (1) year from the date of certifica tion of the amended site plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted.
3. Jan Guyette (Viking Motel) for variances of (1) 90 ft to permit construction on a lot 60 ft in width; and (2) 5 percent lot open space to permit 20 per cent at 124 Brightwater Dr,
Bayside Sub No 2, Lot 52, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 92-36
Planning Manager Shuford explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to install an in-ground swimming pool on a substandard lot. He stated permits do not appear
to have been obtained for existing fences or dock improvements and additional variances may be required.
It was noted, an existing wooden fence located in front of the property is indicated on the site plan to be six feet tall; however, is only 30 inches in height.
Phillip Hobby, representing the applicant, indicated the six and eight-foot fences abutting the subject property belong to adjacent property owners. Addressing concerns regarding the
dock, he stated the previous property owner had installed, on an existing dock, an electric boat lift which was found to be non-conforming and was removed. Mr. Hobby indicated the dock
was in compliance with the Code and nothing had been added to the dock. He did not feel a continuance to apply for addition al variances was necessary.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the applicant was given sufficient credit for green space. Mr. Hobby indicated some concrete was removed to increase permeable area on the
lot.
In response to questions, it was indicated a survey was submitted with the application and City staff visited the site.
Discussion ensued with it being indicated the applicant wishes to develop and improve the property and a hardship exists due to the lot size and the existing structure being built prior
to the current code.
A petition with 12 signatures of area hotel/motel owners was submitted in support of the application.
One letter from the property owner to the east was submitted in opposition to the application. Concern was expressed regarding the proposed location and noise potential of the pool
equip ment.
Mr. Hobby indicated the machinery is to be self-contained inside a box located directly beside the pool equipment of the eastern neighbor. In response to a question, he indicated the
box would extend approximately 30 inches from the ground. The applicant was complimented on the improvements that have been made to the property.
Discussion ensued with regard to the possibility of locating the pool at the rear of the property. Mr. Hobby indicated the City had said this could not be done. Discussion ensued in
regard to whether the applicant had been misled and whether he wanted to pursue locating the pool in the rear. He indicated there would be no advantage to the relocation and expressed
a desire to complete the installation as soon as possible.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Graham 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 a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner
or 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 variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the property being developed prior to the current code and the locations of the existing
buildings and other hard surfaces on the property subject to the conditions: 1) the swim ming pool shall be con structed as per 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.
III. Approval of Minutes of June 11, 1992
Mr. Gans requested the minutes be amended to include a paragraph informing applicants that when only three members are present, all three members must vote in favor of an application
for it to be approved and they have the choice of continuing the request to the next meeting or proceeding.
Mr. Homer moved to approve the minutes of June 11, 1992, as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
Staff was requested to investigate whether or not the dock at the Viking Motel is in compliance with the code.
V. Meeting Schedule for August
Discussion ensued in regard to the meeting schedule for August due to a City Commission meeting being rescheduled to August 13, the same date as a DCAB meeting. Consensus was not to
change the DCAB schedule.
Discussion ensued regarding going back to the 3:00 p.m. starting time when there are four or fewer cases on the agenda. Consensus was to keep the starting time at 1:00 p.m.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:28 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk