07/28/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 28, 1994
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chair
Otto Gans
Joyce E. Martin
John B. Johnson
Absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair (excused)
Also present:
John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department
Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney (Mr. Lance departed at 2:35 p.m.)
Patricia Sullivan, Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. Mr. Johnson lead the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation. Mr. Plisko outlined procedures
and advised 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.
1. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for variances of (1) 8 ft to permit a setback of 17 ft from a street right-of-way (Jurgens St) where 25 ft is required; (2) 15 ft to
permit a setback of 10 ft from a street right-of-way (Metto St) where 25 ft is required; (3) 32 ft to permit a minimum lot depth of 78 ft where 110 ft is required for a double frontage
lot to allow a new detached single family dwelling at 913 Jurgens St, Palm Park Replat, Blk B, Lots 3 and 4, zoned RM 8 (Multi-Family Residential). V 94-40
A letter from Jerry Spilatro, Assistant Executive Director/Loan Officer for Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc., requested this variance request be put on hold due to the
homeowner's selection of a new contractor and floor plan. Staff recommended continuance until the applicant files another request.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item until August 11, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. George W and Jeanette A M Godfrey for variances of (1) 10.4 percent to permit a minimum open space for the lot of 49.6 percent where 60 percent is required; (2) 23 percent to permit
a minimum open space for the front yard of 52 percent where 75 percent is required; (3) 4 ft to permit a structural setback of 31 ft from a street right-of-way (Camden Rd) where 35 ft
is required; (4) 2 ft to permit a wall height of 8 ft where a maximum height of 6 ft is permitted in a structural setback area from a street right-of-way (Second St E) where the property
is not addressed from; (5) 12 ft to permit a minimum lot width of 88 ft where 100 ft is required; (6) 9 ft to permit a structural setback of 26 ft from a street right-of-way (Second
St E) where 35 ft is required to allow a new detached single family dwelling at 2783 Camden Rd, Chelsea West Sub, Lot 13, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential). V 94-41
Chairman Plisko declared a conflict of interest regarding this case. Mr. Gans assumed the chair and explained a unanimous vote would be required for approval. The applicant did not
object.
Senior Planner John Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants request approval of variances to build a two story, single family residence. The subject property
is a double frontage lot with the rear property line running along 2nd Street E. The 88-foot wide lot is substandard in size because properties in this zoning district require a minimum
100-foot lot width. The applicants maintain they cannot meet the front yard development requirements and open space conditions for this zoning district because of the lot's substandard
width and irregular shape.
The proposed building with 5,000 square feet of floor area is within the required setbacks on 20,008 square feet of land. Due to the lot's configuration, the front covered portico extends
into a small triangular area, four feet into the front setback.
A variance requested for wall height relates to a proposed, eight-foot high, stone waterfall within the birdcage that the applicants intend to create as a backdrop for a lap swimming
pool. An existing six foot high masonry wall encloses the property on the west. Mr. Richter stated the waterfall could be eliminated but noted, because of substantial backyard vegetation,
it would be difficult to see over the six foot rear wall.
The applicants note hardships experienced in the layout of the building due to the lot's configuration. Locating the garage and paved driveway on the south of the property has usurped
space necessary for vehicle maneuverability and required the curvilinear design for the driveway. Following the pattern of neighborhood development, the building will align with the
rear of existing structures.
Staff feels the structural setback variances from the street rights-of-way are minimal. The variance to the minimum lot width requirement is not self imposed on this existing subdivision.
The front yard open space variance is associated with the narrow lot frontage. Apparent hardship exists due
to the unique situation caused by the narrow frontage and pie-shaped lot. The proposed building setback will be consistent with existing area structures and will follow the pattern
of development in this neighborhood. The variances requested will enable the applicants to make a reasonable use of their property. Mr. Richter stated the variances requested meet
the standard of approval based on special conditions, are not requested for financial gain, and satisfy the spirit and intent of the code.
Mr. Richter stated each lot in the development, subdivided in 1987, has a minimum 20,000 square feet, almost 1/2 acre. He noted some of the 13 trapezoidal lots back up to a 100 foot
Florida Power easement. Variances issued in 1987 permitted the subdivision's enclosure by a six foot wall and setbacks of the perimeters narrowed to 25 feet. Mr. Richter noted variance
#6 can be deleted because the proposed design meets rear setback requirements.
He explained the variance requested for the front yard is due to the curvilinear driveway. The pool and deck triggers the need for a variance for required open space in the back yard.
He indicated boards traditionally have granted variances to width requirements. This one request would have been approved by staff had it been the only variance requested. Mr. Richter
stated eliminating the curvilinear drive would require the construction of a sidewalk from the front door to the single-wide driveway. Substantial jockeying would be required to accommodate
cars in the driveway.
Mr. Richter stated the few empty lots in the subdivision are trapezoidal in shape and will be subject to similar developmental difficulties. He noted most neighborhood homes have pools.
Lot 3 meets the backyard open space requirements because it lacks a pool. In answer to a question, Mr. Richter stated staff did not locate other variances approved for this subdivision.
George W Godfrey, applicant, indicated he and his architect spent a considerable amount of time designing a house to fit on the lot because of the subject property's narrow frontage
and its double frontage setbacks. He expressed his desire to avoid dominating the entryway with a vast expanse of garage.
Mr. Godfrey explained variance #3 was required because a small corner of the portico, consisting of a covered, columned entryway designed to grace the front of the house in a manner
similar to established neighborhood standards, would extend four feet into the front setback. He noted the intrusion of the cul de sac affected this need and the house would sit deeper
on its lot than neighboring properties. He considered the portico necessary to protect visitors from inclement weather.
Mr. Godfrey stated his request for variance #2 was based on his family's need for a front yard turnaround and visitor parking. He noted the storm sewer's location in front of his property
and the narrowness of his lot limited street parking availability. He expressed his desire to avoid disturbing neighbors with his visitors parking automobiles in front of their houses.
Mr. Godfrey explained his request for variance #1 was based on the subject property's shape. No variances would be necessary if the lot were rectangular. The building's design was
juggled to incorporate less than 25% of the lot's size. The long driveway, designed to be as narrow as feasible, is responsible for most of this request. The remainder is for installation
of a modest size pool. He
indicated most homes in the development have pools. He noted a 3% open space variance was granted the property two doors away. In response to a question, Mr. Godfrey stated the pool
will be 36 feet by 14 feet. He has not decided to include a spa.
Mr. Godfrey referred to his request for variance #4 and submitted a picture for the record of an eight foot high waterfall, tapering to six feet on the sides, similar to one he has planned
for inclusion at the edge of the pool within his birdcage. He stated neighbors would not be able to see it and expressed surprise it might offend them. He indicated his grounds as
well as greenery within the pool area would be professionally landscaped. In response to a question, Mr. Richter indicated the variance is required because the waterfall is regarded
as a wall. The code treats birdcages separately.
Charles Brown, 2132 Camden Way, stated his lot backs up to the subject property. He objected to requests for variances #1 and #2 and expressed concerns about plans to cover most of
the front yard with driveway. He felt adequate street parking was available and expressed concerns that water runoff would be affected if too much green space was covered with impermeable
materials. He objected to the location of the planned birdcage.
Daryl Saylor, 2131 Camden Way, said the requests for variances #1 and #2 did not meet the standards for approval. He felt the structure would be injurious to neighbor properties and
affect the harmony of the code.
Rory Hiller, 2751 Camden Road, past president of the neighborhood association, felt the building's large footprint does not conform with City code. He said he was able to locate his
garage in the front of his house on his trapezoidal lot. He indicated water rises to his fence from the retention pond behind his property. He expressed concern the proposed home would
increase the runoff. He expressed concerns about building a large house for a family with no children. He felt street parking was adequate. He opposed the waterfall because it could
be seen over the back wall and would be loud enough to disturb neighbors.
Marvin Cutson, 2791 Camden Road, objected to the variances. He noted green space requirements were followed when 22 other properties were developed and felt approval of these variances
would be an injustice to those who built according to established criteria.
Robert Beckwith, 2794 Camden Road, objected to four of the requested variances. He felt the lot was too small for the large house proposed. He felt no unique hardships existed.
Robert Nussear, 2136 Camden Way, felt the house was too large and would negatively impact the value of neighboring homes. He expressed concerns regarding setting a precedence for future
development. He felt limiting the green area would negatively impact water runoff.
Judy Mitchell, 2151 Camden Way, noted neighbors have closely adhered to development restrictions. She spoke against variances #1 and #2 because of their negative effect on limiting
green area. She felt permitting this non conformance would alter the subdivision's appearance and
violate the general spirit of the neighborhood.
Mike Johnson, vice president of Republic Bank and representative for the original developer, RCF Stevens, spoke in opposition to all six variances.
Theresa Peterson, 2779 Camden Way, expressed concern about the destruction of the neighborhood's aesthetics if the green space requirements were limited. She opposed variances #1 and
#2 and stated her desire to guard this tree preserve.
Richard Heiden, attorney for the homeowner's association, noted deed restrictions limit home construction to a minimum 3,000 square feet in size. He felt this house would be twice as
large as other homes in the neighborhood. He said the circular drive in the front yard and drive along the property line was not totally responsible for limiting green space. He felt
the planned structure was too large for the lot and needed to be reduced in size and designed within setback limits to be in compliance. He expressed concern that 28 to 30 trees would
be destroyed. Mr. Heiden spoke in opposition to variance #4. He noted the falling water from the waterfall would be loud, and the structure would be visible over the back wall.
Mr. Heiden submitted for the record pictures of every house in the subdivision. Sixteen letters in opposition were submitted. All but one were from subdivision residents.
Mr. Godfrey stated engineering studies concluded the construction would have no affect on the nearby retention pond. He indicated the house is designed with 3,400 square feet of living
space on the first floor, and 2,000 square feet on the second. He noted the house next door is larger. He felt the number of people who live in a house should have no bearing on its
size, but indicated he and his wife have a college aged child plus married children and grandchildren who visit. He reported the waterfall could not be heard from 15 feet away. In
answer to a question, Mr. Richter indicated the pool deck and waterfall area will cover 2,300 square feet.
Concern was expressed that so many variances were needed to adapt a structure to the subject property. Concern was expressed that too many variances were requested. It was felt that
standards of approval did not support the approval of variances #1 and #4 because these would negatively affect the neighborhood's harmony. It was suggested the applicant may want too
much in his desire to build a beautiful home on a beautiful piece of property.
Concerns were expressed regarding the house's relationship to the green space and the proposed destruction of trees. It was felt the planned house, being larger and more imposing than
neighboring ones, would be destructive of the view. It was recommended that changes be considered to reduce the need for variances.
It was noted most of the opposition to this plan was to variances #1, #2, and #4. Concerns were expressed that new standards of approval would be established if these requests were
approved. It was noted that applicants cannot be deprived of reasonable use of their land or building. Variance #5 was noted as a minor request for a small corner of the front portico.
It was suggested the request for the 6-foot waterfall, too, was minimal.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicants, Mr. Johnson moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicants have not substantially met all of the standards for
approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because the special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, and the granting
of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and the granting of the code would violate the general spirit and intent of this
development code as expressed in Section 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Board recessed from 2:35 until 2:45 p.m.
3. Steven R. and Carolanne Krakower/Red Ribbon Homestead for a variance of 7 parking spaces to permit zero additional parking spaces required for a change of use to a Level II group
care facility where 7 parking spaces are required at 1109-1131 Pinellas St, Georgas Sub, Lots 2, 3, 13, 14 and 15, zoned RM 12 (Multi-Family Residential). V 94-42
A letter received from the applicant's representative, Thomas J. Graham, President of Graham Design Associates, requested this request be continued until August 11, 1994.
Mr. Gans moved to continue this item until August 11, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
4. Christopher G. and Caroline K. Roetzer for variances of (1) 3.5 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 2.5 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback area from a street
right-of-way (Sunset Point Rd) where the property is addressed from; and (2) 2 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback from
a street right-of-way where the property is not addressed from at 3001 Sunset Point Rd, Sec 4-29-16, M&B 23.03, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 94-43
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants request approval of height variances to allow the construction of two fences in structural setback
areas from the street rights-of-way. The subject property is a single family residence.
One fence is proposed to be six feet high and constructed along Sunset Point Road where the property is addressed. The applicants contend properties along both sides of Sunset Point
Road from their property eastward to McMullen Booth Road have fences with heights greater than allowed by code. Mr. Richter indicated some fences along Sunset Point Road appear to be
taller than six feet.
The second, a six foot high non-opaque chain link fence, was erected along the property line where the rear yard adjoins the Oak Forest Drive right-of-way. Mr. Richter stated the subject
property is larger than subdivision lots and the house is not part of the Oak Forest subdivision where properties are oriented to residential streets. The height of fences in this location
is limited to four feet. The
applicants request the fence for privacy, security, and to prevent trespass from children crossing the backyard on their way home from school.
The County issued the permit for construction of the residence on December 8, 1993, and the permit for construction of the fence on May 19, 1994. On March 17, 1994, the subject property
was annexed by the City. On June 7, 1994, the fence along Oak Forest Drive was erected. On June 9, 1994, the City issued a notice of violation of permitting requirements.
Staff feels a six foot high fence is in keeping with the character of adjoining properties on the both sides of Sunset Point Road eastward to McMullen Booth Road. Placement of buffer
landscape by the applicants along Sunset Point Road and Oak Forest Drive rights-of-way will complement the visual appeal.
It was indicated the back fence height is legal on three sides and a variance is only necessary where the property adjoins Oak Forest Drive. A question was raised regarding the advantage
of landscaping the fence inside the Oak Forest Drive property line.
Christopher and Caroline Roetzer, applicants, indicated over time landscaping would provide visual appeal and soften the look of the fence. Mr. Roetzer stated when they purchased the
subject property, it was zoned General Commercial by the County and had a potential for retail development. He said they requested annexation into the City because of their need for
sewer service. When he received the permit to construct the six foot fence, neither he nor the County had been advised that annexation had been approved. Had the permit been requested
two months earlier, the fence would be of legal height. He felt lowering it to four feet would be ineffective in stopping a dog or person from hopping over it. In answer to a question,
Mrs. Roetzer estimated the cost of reducing the height of their rear fence at $980. For the record, Mr. Roetzer submitted a letter of support signed by neighbor, Richard Slater.
Mr. Roetzer stated their desire for a fence along Sunset Point Road was based on their need for privacy and security. He said they intended to erect a chain link fence in the setback,
with landscaping on the outside and angled inward approximately 12 feet by the driveway so vehicles waiting for the gate to open would not block the sidewalk.
Robert King, 1846 Oak Forest Drive, stated he advised the contractor during installation that the fence along Oak Forest Drive lacked City permits. He said the fence creates a barricade
along a street where neighbors have their front yards and harms the desirability of neighborhood property. He questioned the need for a six foot fence height in an established neighborhood
and the applicant's need to fence that large an area.
Irving and Gloria Carlson, 3012 Oak Forest Drive, said they lived there for 20 years and objected to the fence they describe as ugly. Mr. Carlson noted the subdivision's singular entrance
off Sunset Point Road enhances security. Mrs. Carlson felt the fence's commercial appearance detracts from the residential area. She questioned why a wide double door gate was installed.
Camplin Straker, 1883 Oak Forest Drive, felt the fence resembled a prisoner of war stockade. He
said a real estate agent indicated the fence is detrimental to neighborhood house sales due to potential customers' objections. He felt the fence negatively impacts the value of area
homes.
A phone message from Carl Dixius, 1882 Oak Forest Drive, was read into the record. Mr. Dixius, whose house backs into the subject property, has been ill and could not attend the meeting.
He opposed the fence due to aesthetics.
A petition, with 22 signatures of Oak Forest Subdivision residents, was submitted for the record. The petition opposed the fence's height and expressed concerns regarding noise and
possible harm to children should dogs be bred on the subject property.
Concerns were expressed regarding the fence's height along Oak Forest Drive. It was noted the subject house's elevation is five feet higher than the property next door. Mr. Roetzer
stated he needed that height for his dog. Concern was expressed regarding three dog runs behind the home. Mrs. Roetzer indicated they have one dog on the property and that area was
constructed as the dog's living quarters. Mr. Roetzer stated he was not advised by the fence installer of any complaints made to a company employee. Mrs. Roetzer indicated they installed
a gate to provide for future access.
Concern was expressed regarding the request for a six foot fence along the front property line. Though traffic will move closer to the house and its volume will increase when the road
construction is completed, it was noted this house's 25 foot lawn is the largest on the street.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated they have met all of the standards
for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, because there are no special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions applicable to the land or buildings, and such circumstances are not peculiar to the land, do generally apply to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; the
strict application of the provisions of the code would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or building; and the variances, in part, are based upon the desire
for economic gain by the applicant or owner; and the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and the comprehensive
plan and would be injurious to surrounding properties. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
5. Cynthia Afendoulis for a variance of 3.5 ft to permit a structural setback of 21.5 ft where 25 ft is required from a street right-of-way (Kipling Plaza) to allow expansion of existing
front entrance at 66 Kipling Plaza, Mandalay Sub, Blk 45, Lots 1-3 and part of Lot 4, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-44
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant is requesting a street setback variance to construct an entrance canopy to project 3.5 feet from the
south side of the existing single family residence, thereby encroaching on the 25-foot front yard setback established for Kipling Plaza.
The applicant wishes to modernize and improve the front entrance with the proposed canopy. This
variance relates to the area's aesthetics. Variances are occasionally granted in retrospect to facilitate improvements on previously developed sites. Staff feels granting the variance
will not violate the general spirit and intent of the Land Development Code and the variance requested is minimal. Mr. Richter indicated staff felt special conditions exist and it would
improve the neighborhood.
Gus Afendoulis, representative for the applicant, stated the building's present configuration is already beyond the setback. The applicant requests to stay within the present line and
beautify the house's facade. It was noted the canopy's rim will be flush with the edge of the existing flat roof.
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 was not caused by the owner
or 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 months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Approval of Minutes - None.
III. Board & Staff Discussion
A 1992 memorandum was distributed to board members regarding "Ex Parte" Communications in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings and the Sunshine Law's impact on communication between board members
prior to meetings. Concern was expressed that members are unable to meet with new board members for orientation and discussion of procedural matters.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter indicated neighbors living within 200 feet of subject properties receive written notice of variance requests. It was noted that anyone may express
support or objection to variance requests.
Concerns were expressed that the new standards for approval were more liberal and permitted added flexibility to previous guidelines. It was felt previous requirements regarding hardship
were easier to judge than assessing and/or defining special circumstances. Discomfort with the new standards was expressed.
A formal request was made for Mr. Lance and Mr. Shuford to meet with the Board and explain the new standards and ramifications of special circumstances. Concern was expressed regarding
special circumstances caused by developers' subdivision of tracts into too many lots.
It was felt that each variance requested needs to be examined individually. Concern was expressed regarding homeowners requesting a large number of variances. It was noted that few
remaining lots
in the City are of standard size.
Concern was expressed regarding office staff commenting on variance requests.
Concern was expressed that contractors are not required to shoulder some responsibility for adhering to code requirements.
An opinion will be requested of the Interim City Attorney regarding limitations placed on Development Code Adjustment Board members in cases involving conflict of interest.
Mr. Gans reported he may miss the August 11, 1994 meeting due to health concerns. It was requested that staff verify with Ms. Whitney regarding her planned attendance at that meeting.
It was requested that the policy regarding absences be reviewed. It was questioned if a maximum number of absences was permitted.
Mr. Johnson expressed his need for a new identification card.
IV. Adjournment -
The meeting was adjourned at 4:23 p.m.
Chairman