Loading...
02/10/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD February 10, 1994 Members present: Alex Plisko, Chair Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair Otto Gans John B. Johnson Joyce E. Martin Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney (arrived 1:08 p.m.) Scott Shuford, Director of Central Permitting Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II The meeting was called to order by the Chair 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. City of Clearwater for a variance of 28 parking spaces to permit a new City Building & Maintenance facility to be built providing 0 additional parking spaces where 28 additional parking spaces are required at 1900 Grand Ave, Marymont Replat, Part of Tract A (subparcel 9), zoned IL (Limited Industrial). V 94-06 In a memo dated February 10, 1994, Building and Maintenance Superintendent Steve Kelley requested this case be continued to the next meeting. Mr. Johnson moved to continue this case to the meeting of February 24, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Thomas A. & Frances R. Caleca for variances of (1) 11.0 ft to permit a dock 9 ft from extended property line where 20 ft is required; (2) 19.85 ft to permit a dock width of 49.5 ft where 29.65 ft is permitted; and (3) 26.5 ft to permit a dock length of 44 ft where 17.5 ft is permitted at 625 Snug Island, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 7A, Lot 9, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential) and AL/C (Aquatic Land/Coastal). V 94-07 Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a roof and catwalk for an existing wetslip on the south side of an existing dock. The proposed roof is to replace the existing roof, which will be removed. On April 22, 1993, the Development Code Adjustment Board denied two variances related to dock width and length proposed for the north side of the same dock. Mr. Shuford pointed out the nine-month waiting period for submitting a substantially similar variance application has passed. Originally, the two adjacent property owners signed the Pinellas County dock application with no objection. The City has since received a letter of objection from the adjacent property owner to the south. Staff expressed concern this dock is oversized and did not feel the request appears to comply with the standards for approval. It was noted the current method of extending property lines for the purpose of positioning a dock is a perpendicular line from the point at which the side property line intersects the seawall property line. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, gave an overview of the case, stating the existing roof is three feet too short to cover the existing boat. He said the proposal is to remove the roof and reverse the plan, placing the roof on the south side of the dock. He submitted an aerial photograph, a portion of the site survey and a map of the area. The majority of the neighbors opposed expansion on the north side of the dock. The adjacent property owner to the south opposes construction to the south. Mr. Cline outlined the current plan, stating the catwalk, to be built at grade level, is for safety and access to the boat. The variance to the dock width is needed due to the pie shape of the applicant's lot narrowing toward the rear. The increased dock length is being requested due to changes in the calculation procedures; however, will extend no further waterward because of the curve of the seawall. He felt the application meets the standards for approval because of circumstances unique to the property: 1) the dock to the north extends ten feet across the applicant's extended property line; 2) the applicant has the least amount of water frontage in neighborhood and 3) the cul-de-sac limits the use of the property. He said there are no visual impacts to having the roof on the south side, there are no adverse impacts in the waterway and the proposal will open up the crowded conditions on the north side. Mr. Cline felt the request is the minimum under the circumstances to allow reasonable use of the land. He explained this type of structure is common in the neighborhood and meets the standards for approval. In response to a question, it was stated the dock has a mechanical boat lift, which was purchased in 1990, prior to the boat being purchased. Mr. Cline submitted ten letters in support of the application. Five citizens spoke in opposition to the application as follows: Wayne Sibbert, having a financial interest in 361 Harbor Passage, stated the variances being requested are excessive. He indicated the applicant can legally build a dock without variances by tearing down what exists and rebuilding in the center of the property. He expressed concern with the perpendicular method of extending the property lines. He felt the hardship was self-imposed by the applicant buying a boat too large for the property. Mr. Sibbert objected to the applicant, in effect, having two docks on his property and using 71 percent of his water frontage. Mr. Shuford stated the perpendicular lines are drawn according to the standard rules of survey advised by Bill Baker, Acting Assistant City Manager and Acting Public Works Director, Peter Yauch. In response to a question, it was not immediately known which code section determines how to extend property lines. Mr. Shuford is to investigate and report at the next meeting. Bonnie Barak, 624 Harbor Island, submitted two letters in opposition to the application. It was felt any construction of a roof and dock should be contingent upon the old dock being removed. Concern was expressed the proposal would block their view and make it difficult to maneuver their boat. Ester Fortley, 361 Harbor Passage, submitted one letter and spoke in opposition to the application. Fred Beckham, 321 Palm Island SE, spoke representing the Island Estates Civic Association Board of Directors. He stated his association is totally opposed to granting this request. He expressed concern the proposal would give the look of a commercial marina, harm adjacent property values and violate several deed restrictions. John Carey, 619 Snug Isle, mailed a letter protesting certain exhibits which were submitted with the application packet. He stated they are not factual and signatures indicating approval were obtained by deception. He indicated several area property owners, including himself and his wife, who supported the original application have since withdrawn their support, feeling the approach was unethical. He spoke in opposition to the request, distributing copies of twelve letters and a map of the area. He expressed concern with the change in method of drawing the extended lot line, violation of deed restrictions and the impact on the small waterway. Harry Cline spoke in rebuttal to the opposition, indicating this is a straightforward request to relocate what already exists. He stated Dr. Caleca did not misrepresent anything and takes personal offense at the suggestion. In response to a question, Mr. Cline stated Dr. Caleca did not tell anyone the boat lift would be removed. Concern was expressed with the public dispute regarding the application and discussion ensued. It was felt the request is not the minimum necessary and the hardship is self-imposed. While the Board did not support tearing down the entire structure and starting from scratch, questions were raised regarding downsizing the request. It was pointed out two docks are not needed and the amount of the variances could be reduced by removing the existing boat lift. Mr. Cline stated the second walk is needed for safety and removal of the lift should not be required because it is only four years old and is in working order. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown; any hardship was caused by the owner or applicant; the variances are not the minimum; the granting of the variances would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood; would substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property and 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. 3. Donald W. & Janice G. Skelly for a variance of 1.33 ft to permit a wall 7.33 ft in height where 6 ft is permitted at 480 Island Way, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 6C, Lot 53, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 94-08 Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a wall for a proposed courtyard area at the front of the existing single-family residence. The wall meets the front and side yard setbacks and will be connected to the house. If the area was enclosed with a roof, no variance would be necessary. Greg Deichman submitted copies of a drawing of the proposal to the Board and explained details of the wall heights and location. He stated the walls are needed for privacy and to create a garden area at the entry. He said the walls will alternate between six and seven feet high and step in and out from the foundation. The multiple levels are for aesthetics, to avoid giving the house a fortress look. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not variances are needed, because walls attached to the structure did not require height variances in the past. Mr. Shuford stated this will be investigated and the application fee will be refunded if it is determined variances are not necessary. Discussion ensued regarding the rounded 16-inch planter wall which will be in front of the six and seven-foot walls. It was indicated the hardship is due to a technicality in the way the zoning ordinance is interpreted. Because of its design, the proposal is considered to be a wall even though it is attached. 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 conflict resulting from the applicant's clarification of the zoning code creates an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant 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 and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six (6) months of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Martin and Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. 4. Richard H. & Judith A. Baier for a variance of 3 ft in fence height to permit a fence in waterfront setback where fences are not permitted at 340 Palm Island NE, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 6B, Lot 78, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 94-09 Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a three-foot high chain link fence within the waterfront yard of the single-family home for the protection of the family's small children. It was reported there is a screened pool in the rear of the house. While there is always a concern with regard to the safety of small children, there does not seem to be a hardship on the property which warrants approval of this request. Evidence presented by the applicant was not found to meet the criteria for granting a variance. Staff noted there have been other, similar requests granted in the past and the Board may wish to consider proposing a Code amendment regarding this issue if requests for three-foot fences are found to be appropriate within waterfront yards. Richard Baier, representing his parents, the owners, stated the distance from the end of the patio to the dock is very short and his parents are very concerned with the safety of their small grandchildren who frequently visit. In response to a question, Mr. Baier stated the children belong to him and his sister. He stated the adjacent property owners have indicated no objection to the request, which will not have adverse visual or aesthetic impacts on the harbor. The water is deep in this area and there are no pets in the house; the request is solely for protection of the children, all under the age of three. Discussion ensued regarding the effect of the screened enclosure in the back yards and the allowable heights and locations of fences on the property. Mr. Shuford stated the difficulty arises because no fence is allowed within ten feet of the seawall. Two citizens spoke in opposition to the application as follows: Roy Lee Miller, 380 Palm Island NE, stated he purchased his home in 1967 because of the park-like atmosphere of the neighborhood. He felt the presence of children is no problem as long as they are supervised and the Code should be upheld. Carl B. Whitehorn, 360 Palm Island NE, stated the reason he decided to settle at this location 23 years ago is because no fences were allowed on the waterfront. He felt this beautiful, open setting would be ruined by having fences, which could present a hazard in the event of storms or flooding. He stated he has great grandchildren and sympathizes with the owners; however, feels a fence is not the answer. In response to a question, Mr. Baier stated, while his parents sometimes take business trips up north, they are full-time residents. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not this type of fence is an adequate safeguard. Concern was expressed the fence would give a false sense of security and the surrounding property owners have a right to enjoy an unrestricted view. However, it was also felt that the fence is not meant to replace supervision; it provides a barrier to stop a child who has tripped or fallen before they hit the water. It was indicated property owners should have the right to secure their properties. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated they have all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown; if any hardship exists, it was caused by the owner or applicant; the variance is not the minimum; the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood; would substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property 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, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko voted "nay". Motion carried. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to pursue a Code amendment to allow fencing within ten feet of the seawall on waterfront properties. A study of sight lines was suggested. While one member supported having an amendment, the majority felt that people shopping for homes look for a certain environment and buy their homes where those conditions exist. The majority of the Board did not favor an amendment changing the 10-foot restriction. II. Approval of Minutes - October 28, December 9, 1993 & January 13, 1994 Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of October 28, December 9, 1993 and January 13, 1994, in accordance with copies submitted to each Board member in writing. Discussion ensued regarding page eight, paragraph four of the minutes of January 13, concerning the Pelican Walk Shopping Center (V 93-36). A question was raised regarding whether or not it was brought up, during the original hearing, that negotiations were underway with Eckerd. After discussion, it was felt the minutes of January 13 reflect what was said and consensus was to let them stand as submitted. Discussion of this issue continued during Board and Staff Discussion. A typographical error was pointed out on page 6, paragraph 3 and "chaird" was corrected to read "chair". Mr. Johnson amended his motion to approve the minutes of October 28, 1993 and January 13, 1994 as submitted and the minutes of December 9, 1993 as corrected. III. Board and Staff Discussion ITEM - Discussion ensued regarding the Pelican Walk Shopping Center issue having gone before the City Commission on February 3, 1994. It was indicated the Commission was unhappy with the decision not to allow the proposed major modification of the original site plan. However, it was made clear the City Commission stands behind the decisions of the Development Code Adjustment Board. It was reported there was some support among the Commissioners of eliminating the State Hearing Officer and having the City Commission consider variance appeals. The pros and cons of that issue were discussed and Mr. Shuford is to bring back more information. Mr. Shuford reported the Commission adopted an ordinance that would eliminate the setback requirement off Mandalay Avenue. Further discussion of the Tropical Seascape, and other matters related to this issue is expected. Concern was expressed there was public criticism of some of the Board's actions and the Board was not given an opportunity to respond. A request was made that the Board be notified and allowed time to respond when their actions are agendaed for discussion by another board. Mr. Lance left the meeting at 3:46 p.m. ITEM - Mr. Shuford stated the Development Code Adjustment Board's annual report is scheduled to be heard at the City Commission meeting of February 14, 1994. He said the City Commission has also asked the members of the City advisory boards for their recommendations regarding changes the members would like to see. A Board representative is to present the report. Mr. Shuford submitted copies of an outline he said the Board may want to use in preparing the presentation. Issues of interest to the Board were as follows: 1) retention pond maintenance; 2) follow-up of code violation complaints; 3) having dock variance requests heard by Environmental instead of DCAB; 4) having address numbers posted and visible from the street; 5) having the City Commission stop reviewing site plans; 6) asking for Commission direction relating to backout parking requirements and 7) simplifying the Code index. Going to monthly DCAB meetings, enforcing a 3-minute time limit for speakers and tightening up Board procedures to save time were discussed. It was suggested to have sign variance requests heard by DCAB instead of the City Commission. Visually examining each of the sites was felt to be very important to the variance process; however, the majority of the Board did not favor hearing sign cases. It was felt there is enough sign business to justify a separate sign board. Mr. Shuford reported streamlining the standards for approval of variances is currently under discussion. IV. Election of Officers Ms. Whitney moved to re-elect Mr. Plisko as Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Martin moved to re-elect Ms. Whitney as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly seconded. Mr. Johnson moved to elect Mr. Gans as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly seconded. While it was generally felt the Board operates well with the current officers, there was some feeling that, to be fair and give everyone a chance to participate, the seats should be rotated among the membership. After further discussion, Mr. Gans declined his nomination as Vice-Chair. The motion to re-elect Ms. Whitney as Vice-Chair, having been made and seconded, carried unanimously. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.