Loading...
02/24/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD February 24, 1994 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 (arrived 2:25 p.m.) Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director 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 2-10-94) City of Clearwater for a variance of 28 parking spaces to permit a new City 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 letter dated February 23, 1994, Building and Maintenance Superintendent Steve Kelly withdrew this request. 1. Robert S. Walsh for variances of (1) 5 ft to permit a dock 15 ft from extended property line where 20 ft is required; (2) 4.65 ft to permit a dock width of 26 ft where 21.35 ft is permitted; and (3) 9.5 ft to permit a dock length of 40 ft where 30.5 ft is permitted at 282 Bayside Dr, Bayside Sub #4, Lot 1 and riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 94-10 Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes, due to the nature and size of his boat, to construct a dock with a roof to replace an existing dock at his single-family home. Staff noted, while the proposed structure exceeds the dimensions of adjacent docks, the request is similar to other previous approvals on the same street. Mr. Shuford stated having dock variances heard by the Pinellas County Water and Navigational Control Authority is under consideration. Michael Evans, marine contractor representing the applicant, responded to questions. He stated he obtained the signature of William F. Traynor, the left side property owner and submitted a copy to the Board. He stated the owner wishes to center the proposed dock on his property to have a minimal impact on his neighbors. By extending it to reach water of sufficient depth for his boat, the proposal will have a minimal environmental impact. He stated the proposed 12-foot width is standard for a dock with a lift and the roof will have a one-foot overhang. Discussion ensued regarding what is existing in the area and what is proposed. It was indicated the City Harbormaster reviewed the request and did not feel the dock would pose a navigational hazard. Discussion ensued regarding Pinellas County's requirements for dock applications. A number of concerns were expressed. The request was not felt to be the minimum and discussion ensued regarding alternate designs. It was stated the only impact would be to the two adjacent property owners, who both signed off on the application. It was indicated any hardship is self-imposed due to a boat being purchased which is too large for the property; however, it was felt homeowners should be allowed reasonable freedom in their choice of boats. Concerns were expressed with the proposal extending seven feet farther than the adjacent dock to the left and with continuing to grant variances as homeowners buy progressively larger craft. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant #1, a variance of 1 ft to permit a dock 19 ft from extended property line and #2, a variance of .65 ft to permit a dock width of 22 ft 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 variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the size of the boat and the shape of 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 and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding the length of the proposed dock. It was felt the pie-shaped lot, narrowing toward the back, creates a hardship for the owner and he should be allowed to have a dock length similar to other properties in the area. In response to a question, Mr. Evans stated the dock length could be scaled down to 38 feet. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant #3 variance #3, for 7.5 ft to permit a dock length of 38 ft 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 length of the owner's boat 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 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, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "aye"; Ms. Martin and Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried. 2. William O. & Carol S. Bennett for a variance of 5% to permit 30% open space for the lot where 35% is required at 201 Bayside Dr, Bayside Sub #4, Unit A, Blk 2, Lot A, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-11 Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the applicants wish to construct a circular driveway in the front yard area of their single-family home, which is currently being remodeled. The addition of the proposed driveway, along with the addition of 410 square feet of living space to the existing house, exceeds the open space requirements for the site. Staff indicated the variance does not appear to comply with the standards for approval. However, it was noted amendments are being considered to the dimensional requirements on Clearwater Beach in the RS-8 zoning district and the applicant's proposal would be consistent with these recommended changes. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not reducing the open space requirements is appropriate on lots of this size. Carol Sue Bennett, the owner/applicant, stated there is a lot of traffic on her street and the driveway is needed to provide off-street parking for her and her family. She said the addition is being done tastefully and the circular drive will compliment the house. In response to questions, Ms. Bennett stated the two-car garage is used for exercise equipment and storage. She stated she purchased the house in December, 1992 and upon applying for building permits to remodel, she was advised it would be better to tear down what existed and build a home from scratch, elevating to meet FEMA requirements. She said she did not think about having a circular drive at that time. Concern was expressed with the property being fully developed, leaving no additional space for the driveway. Ms. Bennett stated there are multi-story homes in the area; however, it is difficult for her to go up and down stairs and she tried to build as much as possible on one level. Discussion ensued regarding open space, landscaping requirements and the back-out traffic hazard. A question was raised regarding the concept of self-imposed hardships. This application was not felt to be any more self-imposed than many other hardships for which variances are granted. Concern was expressed with not using the garage for parking cars. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin 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 not caused by the owner or applicant and 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 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 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 and Mr. Plisko voted "aye"; Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried. The following Land Development Code Amendment was also considered: Ordinance 5551-94, an Ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending section 40.367, Code of Ordinances, to delete certain setback and building separation requirements in the Beach Commercial Zoning District; providing an effective date. Mr. Shuford discussed the proposed ordinance, indicating there are concerns that developments on Clearwater Beach, by having parking in front, are losing their pedestrian oriented nature. The proposed ordinance would allow fronts of businesses to line up, eliminate some of the differences in setback requirements for residential and non-residential structures, and eliminate the separation distance requirement within a development. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford indicated the focus is in shifting the buildings toward the front of a property, placing the required parking in the rear. Details of the proposal were discussed. A question was raised whether or not this ordinance would automatically legalize existing buildings with non-conforming front setbacks in this zone. Mr. Shuford responded that it would. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding how the proposed amendment would affect the Pelican Walk application for a nine-foot driveway. Mr. Shuford stated he received direction from the City Commission to come back to the DCAB and to staff to see if the safety issues concerning this property could be worked out and whether DCAB would modify their decision and allow the driveway. He indicated the driveway will be approved if the ordinance is passed. Strong opposition was expressed to changing the Board's decision regarding the Pelican Walk proposal. It was felt the nine-foot drive is not appropriate. Assistant City Attorney Lance arrived at 2:25 p.m. A request was made to remove the first paragraph on the staff transmittal sheet referring to the reconsideration of the Pelican Walk development prompting staff to bring forward this amendment, originally proposed in 1992. Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Commission with the clear understanding that the Pelican Walk Development will not be reconsidered. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Plisko and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney and Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried. II. Approval of Minutes of February 10, 1994 Ms. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of February 10, 1994, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. III. Board and Staff Discussion ( Mr. Shuford reported revised standards of approval will be brought forward for consideration in March. ( Discussion ensued regarding recent Hearing Officer appeals as follows: In response to a question, Attorney Lance discouraged having a Board member speak during a public hearing appeal, stating offering testimony with less than the full board present could be considered to be a conflict of interest. Regarding the Magnolia Street dock appeal hearing, (V 93-66, 11-17-93), it was noted Attorney Lance stated as part of his argument that there was great and lengthy deliberation by the Development Code Adjustment Board and they did not make their decision lightly. The Board voiced its appreciation of these comments. Discussion ensued regarding the cruise ship appeal hearing. (V 93-86, 11/17/93) ( Discussion ensued with regard to the pros and cons of having appeals of DCAB decisions heard by the City Commission instead of the State Hearing Officer. Mr. Shuford indicated Mr. Plisko's comments during the presentation of the annual report to the Commission helped them get a better perspective of this subject. He stated there is some concern among the City Commissioners with regard to the timing of this issue due to the controversial nature of the upcoming Pelican Walk appeal. Strong unanimous consensus of the Board was for the appeal procedure to remain as it is. ( Mr. Shuford reported he has learned there are several rules of survey relating to drawing extended property lines. Staff will not be changing the previously established method. ( Concern was expressed with the City's practice of placing legal advertisements in the Tampa Tribune, even though it is less expensive, because it was felt the Tribune does not reach as many local readers. ( Discussion ensued regarding Board Rules and Procedures as follows: Mr. Shuford presented a copy of a portion of the Planning and Zoning Board's rules and procedures. Discussion ensued regarding Article VI(a)1-13 concerning the rules of presentation for public hearings. The Board supported saving time by cutting down on excessive conversation by setting time limits for all speakers. Mr. Gans moved to adopt the Planning and Zoning Board's rules of presentation for public hearings Article VI(a.)1-13 as submitted by staff and incorporate it into the rules and procedures for the Development Code Adjustment Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Referring to a February 4 memo, Mr. Shuford suggested adding a paragraph to the rules regarding modification of conditions. He indicated the language draws a distinction between this and reconsideration of a variance. While it was indicated there could be circumstances where reviewing imposed conditions is justified, the Board felt caution was in order. Staff was requested to report what action is taken by the Planning and Zoning Board related to this issue. ( A question was raised regarding the status of the variances granted to Louis D'Amico and Howard Jimmie's Truck Parts for which time extensions were granted (V 92-49; 10/28/93 and V 92-56; 11/17/93). Mr. Shuford indicated if applicants do not act on their variances within the specified time limit, the variances expire. Staff is to investigate. ( Discussion ensued regarding how the Sunshine Law is applied to DCAB public hearing items. While it was felt that past cases may by discussed off the record, Mr. Lance noted those cases could still come back before the same board. He recommended using common sense and not discussing pending matters out of the sunshine. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:38 p.m.