Loading...
03/25/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD March 25, 1993 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chairman Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman Otto Gans John B. Johnson Joyce E. Martin Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner Ted Clarke, Planner II Susan Stephenson, Deputy 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 1. (1st request for extension) - William A Day, Trustee, (East Shore Motel/Apts) for variances of (1) 6.5 ft to permit a building 3.5 ft from street right-of-way where 10 ft is required; (2) 21.5 ft to permit stairs 2.5 ft and a building and a second floor addition 6 ft from side (south) property line where 24 ft is required; and (3) 15.6 ft to permit a building addition 9.4 ft from Clearwater Harbor at 473 E Shore Dr, Clwr Beach Park First Add, Blk C, Lots 6 and 7, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 92-53 In a letter received February 26, 1993, the applicant requested a six-month time extension to allow additional time for processing a SWFWMD exemption. Ms. Whitney moved to grant a six-month time extension to October 8, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. (1st request for extension) - Louis J and Mary R D'Amico for variances of (1) 90 ft to permit minimum lot width of 60 ft; (2) 3.30 ft to permit a second story building addition 8.70 ft from side property line; and (3) 5 ft to permit an inground pool 5 ft from side property line at 410 Hamden Dr, Columbia Sub No 4, Lot 10, Zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 92-49 In a letter received March 12, 1993, the applicant requested a six-month time extension for financial reasons. Ms. Whitney moved to grant a six-month time extension to October 8, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. II. Public Hearings Item A - (continued from 2/25/93) Janusz and Roxana Nowicki (Gulf to Bay Pawn Inc) for a variance of 5 parking spaces to allow 18 spaces where 23 spaces are required at 2054 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13-29-15, M&B 13.06, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 93-01 This item was continued from the meeting of February 24, 1993 due to a tie vote. Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, explaining the uses within the former motel building. A previous partial conversion created a pawn shop with storage and office space. The current proposal is to expand the retail portion of the pawn shop into the remaining motel units, increasing the parking requirement. Staff felt the application does not appear to support the standards for approval for a variance. Roxana Nowicki, owner/applicant, stated she is requesting only five parking spaces and emphasized all required permits have been obtained for work performed up to this point. She said two of the motel units were previously converted to storage area and she wants one small unit for an office and one for additional retail. She presented photographs of the building before and after the conversion for the record. Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. While is was felt the applicant is trying to follow the code to work with what exists, concerns were expressed the property is overbuilt and there is a shortage of parking in the area. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated she has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unneces sary hardship was shown; the variance is not the minimum; the request for the variance is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property and the granting of the variance would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item B - (continued from 2/25/93) Austin W and Emma C Whitney for variances of (1) 9.9 percent to allow 51.9 percent building coverage where 42 percent is permitted; (2) 4.5 percent to allow 30.5 percent open space for the lot where 35 percent is required; (3) 7.7 percent to allow 32.3 percent open space for the front yard where 40 percent is required; and (4) 10 ft to allow construction 15 ft from front property line where 25 ft is required at 756 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 4, Lot 2 and riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Resid.). V 93-15 Ms. Whitney declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case. At the request of the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to table this item to the first meeting of April, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney abstained. Motion carried. 1. Robert J Nippert and Grace E Favero for a variance of 4.7 ft to allow a structure 20.3 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 318 N Lincoln Ave, Country Club Add, Blk 5, Lot 17, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-16 Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a covered walkway at the front entrance of the single family home to eliminate extensive water damage around the front porch. The water damage to the floor joists around the entryway was discovered while remodeling and it is necessary to extend the roof to eliminate the problem. The proposal is consistent with other structures in the area. Robert Nippert, the owner/applicant, stated there is already a stoop in place at the entrance and he wishes to extend the roof to cover the entrance to avoid further water damage. Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. In response to a question, Mr. Nippert stated the house was built in 1939. 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 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is not caused by the owner or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by water running into the front of the house, to improve the exterior front of the house and conform with others in the neighborhood, subject to the following conditions: 1) the variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicants, including maps, plans, surveys and other documents submitted in support of the applicants' request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the building addition shall remain unenclosed 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. 2. Laura E Austin for a variance of 10 ft to allow a structure 25 ft from street right-of-way where 35 ft is required at 1931 Oak Ridge Court, Oak Ridge Court Estates, Lot 1, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential). V 93-17 Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a single-family home on a one-half acre lot with three 35-foot street setbacks and a 15-foot conservation easement to the north. The variance is needed to shift the footprint of the proposed house ten feet to the south to save a 60-inch diameter live oak tree. The City's Public Works/Environmental Management Group supports the efforts to save the tree and protect the creek, bank and dry retention in the conservation easement. Laura Austin, the owner/applicant, explained the constraints associated with the lot and how her building plans were changed to protect the tree. Since the proposed shift is to the south, she said the creek would not be affected. Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. Ms. Austin said she plans to have a wooden deck around the tree, and will not be gaining any living area by shifting the footprint. She stated part of the house cannot have a second story due to overhanging tree branches. It was felt the design of the house would not be harmful to this type of tree. 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 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and are not caused by the owner or 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 variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the huge oak tree in the center of the property, subject to the following conditions: 1) the variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicants, including maps, plans, surveys and other documents submitted in support of the applicants' request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the north property line and the utility, drainage and conservation easement boundary line shall be field staked prior to the issuance of a building permit in order to ensure that the stormwater retention is provided as per approved construction plans and SWFWMD permit; 3) the existing landscaped berm along Sunset Point Road shall be maintained by the applicant in order to buffer nearby properties 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 upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Plisko, and Gans voted "aye"; Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried. 3. Dan's Island 1600 Condo Assoc Inc for a variance to allow a structure, consisting of a deck and steps, 26 ft seaward of the coastal construction control line at 1650 Gulf Blvd, Dan's Island on Sand Key Condo, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential), OS/R (Open Space/Recreation), and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 93-18 In a letter dated March 11, 1993, the applicant requested a continuance to allow time to obtain additional information relating to the location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). Mr. Johnson moved to continue this item to the meeting of April 8, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Ann Keller, Trustee, for variances of (1) 8 ft to allow a structure 17 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; (2) 3 ft to allow a structure 2 ft from side property line where 5 ft is required at 827 Mandalay Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 17, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-19 Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating there are numerous violations on the site which are being corrected. The variances are being requested to allow an existing gazebo and a screened porch, both built without permits, to remain. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the contractor who performed the construction said permits were not needed and the structures passed inspection. He indicated the irregular shape of the lot and the dual street setbacks are hardships. Due to not having a side or back yard, the gazebo was built in the front yard to provide a private outdoor seating area. He submitted a drawing of the site and a 1990 building permit for the record. In response to questions, he stated the house is single-family, on one lot and has separate maid's quarters. Portions of the structure encroaching onto a second lot have been removed. Discussion ensued regarding the aesthetics of the proposal and concern was expressed the property is overbuilt. It was felt requesting variances after the fact erodes the quality of residential areas. Ann Keller, the owner/applicant, indicated she was not trying to save money by not getting the required permits, but the construction was done behind her back and she was told permits were not needed. She said she understands there are violations and will do whatever is necessary to correct them. The adjacent property owner to the east spoke in opposition to the application, expressing concern with the non-conforming structures being built without permits. Mr. Cline felt it is reasonable to be able to sit in one's yard with a reasonable degree of privacy. Discussion ensued regarding the application. The small screened porch was not considered to be a problem as it aligns with the back of the house. Although screened from the street by shrubbery and considered attractive by some, the gazebo was felt to be out of place. Concern was expressed with a large stairway on the gazebo being used to access the second floor of the house. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to deny variance #1 as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated she has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant; the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood and would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin and Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney voted "nay". Motion carried. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant variance #2 as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the fact the porch has been there for many years subject to the following conditions: 1) the variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicants, including maps, plans, surveys and other documents submitted in support of the applicants' request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within thirty (30) days from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney and Mr. Plisko voted "aye"; Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried. 5. Charles D Snead for a variance of 5 ft to allow a zero ft landscape buffer where 5 ft is required at 2070 Range Rd, Pinellas Groves NE 1/4, Sec 12-29-15, part of Lots 11 and 12, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). V 93-21 Mr. Plisko declared a conflict of interest with regard to this case. Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a new parking lot, adding paved parking in the front and rear of the existing air conditioning business. The variance is needed to provide the maximum amount of drive aisle space between the existing building and the west property line. He stated a six-inch curb is recommended along the existing chain-link fence on the west side of the property to guard against vehicle encroachment into the adjoining property. The City Traffic Engineering Department commented the loading dock/maneuvering area cannot accommodate a full-sized semi tractor trailer, and an aisle width of 24 feet is the minimum for a new development. Discussion ensued regarding landscaping requirements and the proposed new parking area in the rear. Jack Joyner, an owner/applicant, stated he will do whatever is necessary with the landscaping. He feels paving the drive and parking area is critical as he is upgrading the site and does not want to buy the property if it cannot be paved. He felt the curb along the fence is not necessary because it would not stop a big truck. Discussion ensued regarding landscaping requirements, the loading dock in the rear, water retention and traffic circulation on the site. Mr. Joyner stated a two-way drive is required by the City although the lot can accommodate only one semi tractor trailer backing in at a time. Smaller trucks will be coming and going more frequently. The proposal was felt to be a great improvement to the area. 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 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and are not caused by the owner or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size and the improvements to the property subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) a minimum 2.7-foot wide perimeter landscaped area shall be installed along the west property line as shown on the amended site plan. This landscape area shall begin approximately 67 feet north of the Range Road right-of-way or at the point that an adequate width of 24 feet for two-way vehicular traffic can be provided 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, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried. Request granted. III. Approval of Minutes of February 25, 1993 Ms. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of February 25, 1993, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. IV. Board and Staff Discussion Ms. Joyce E. Martin was welcomed as the new member of the Board. The new format of the staff comments received a favorable reaction from the Board. Discussion ensued regarding the recent recodification of the Land Development Code. Concern was expressed the code is difficult to use and is not well indexed. Discussion ensued regarding tabling cases to be heard at a later date. Assistant City Attorney Lance suggested amending the rules to state that the Board may table a case for one year, unless opposed by the applicant, when the case may be tabled for 90 days. Discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of Standard Condition #1, which states deviation from any of the plans submitted with an application will nullify the variance. Concern was expressed the condition would preclude all changes, even when the changes would not directly affect the requested variance. While it was felt minor deviations not material to the application should be allowed, there was concern regarding having to discern between major and minor deviations. Staff was requested to investigate and report to the Board. It was noted the State Division of Administrative Hearings upheld the Board's decision to deny the setback variance in the Stinson case (V 92-46, 9/24/92). Assistant City Attorney Lance stated the hearing officers frequently refer to the minutes of the meeting in which the case was heard. V. Election of Officers Alex Plisko was nominated and unanimously re-elected as Chairman. J.B. Johnson was nominated as Vice-Chairman. He declined the nomination. Emma Whitney was nominated and unanimously re-elected as Vice-Chairman. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:42 p.m.