Loading...
03/09/1995 MINUTES DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Thursday, March 9, 1995 - 1:00 p.m. Commission Chambers, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, FL Members present: Alex Plisko, Chair Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair Joyce E. Martin Otto Gans John B. Johnson Also present: Scott Shuford, Director, Central Permitting Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Sally Demarest, Board Reporter, City Clerk Department The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. Mr. Gans led 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 through the City Clerk Department 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. By motion duly seconded, the minutes of the February 23, 1995 meeting were approved as submitted. The following variance requests were considered: B1. Jack J. Geller & Patricia Perzel-Geller for a variance of 10 ft to permit a structural setback of 10 ft from a rear property line where 20 ft is required at 3431 Lake Shore Lane, Wynwoods Landing, Lot 63, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 95-20 Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the applicants are requesting a new addition to be used as an exercise room with a handicap accessible bathroom, which addition will extend 10 ft. from the existing building to the 10 ft. drainage easement. The applicant, Jack Geller, 3431 Lakeshore Lane, Clearwater, reported a breakdown between him and his contractor regarding the reason for the requested addition. He distributed copies of a letter dated March 8, 1995, from Fred I. Ferderigos, M.D., Mrs. Geller's doctor, reporting an office visit on June 24, 1994, at which time he diagnosed a problem with her right knee and recommended strengthening exercises and a return to the office if pain persisted beyond six weeks. Mr. Geller said the first floor exercise room is necessary because of his wife's knee problem and to avoid her use of the stairs. He additionally distributed two simple sketches to illustrate the present and future utilization of the area, located off the master bedroom. The Chairman questioned the sketch which indicated an oversize bathroom and large master closet as part of the new addition; the applicant replied that the drawing may not be according to scale. The applicant's contractor, Kathy Helmus, 668 Poinsettia Road, Belleair, described the proposed changes to the existing bathroom and closet to accommodate handicap use. There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. In the ensuing discussion it was noted the proposed addition infringes 10 ft. into the rear setback of the applicant, and abuts the 10 ft. side setback of Mr. Geller's neighbor. Overutilization of the property and creation of a non-conformity was questioned, as well as the lapse of time between Mrs. Geller's doctor visit on June 24, 1994, and her doctor's letter of support dated March 8, 1995. A lift to carry Mrs. Geller to the present upstairs exercise room was suggested as a feasible solution to the Gellers' problem. Concern was expressed that the proposed addition was not in harmony with the Land Development Code and would result in overutilization of the property. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because: 1) There are not special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; and 2) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and comprehensive plan and will be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Gans, Ms. Whitney, Ms. Martin voted "aye"; Chairman Plisko voted "nay". Motion carried. (4-1) B2. William D. & Mary E. Repper for variances of (1) 13 percent to permit 42 percent of open space for the lot where 55 percent is required; and (2) 10 percent to permit 50 percent open space for the front yard where 60 percent is required at 3268 San Mateo St, Del Oro Groves, Lots 544-546, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential). V 95-21 When the item was introduced, Mr. Johnson said he would not include himself in the discussion and vote, and he was excused from the room. Mr. Shuford gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He noted a staff recommendation for continuance of this item has been changed because the applicant has submitted a required floor plan. Mr. Shuford said the house was built in 1959. Much of the requested variance will correct code violations generated at the time the house was built, and will consist of a 10% open space for the driveway addition and 120 sq. ft. lot open space. Mr. Shuford mentioned that the recent ordinance prohibiting front lawn parking may produce more requests of this type. The applicant, Bill Repper, 3268 San Mateo Street, Clearwater, said the proposed construction would move the front of the house out, actually using about 80 ft. of open space which is now covered with old shrubbery. Mr. Repper said his father has had two strokes, is handicapped, and lives with him; the wider driveway will accommodate transportation for the father. The differences between the existing and proposed front elevation were discussed. Mr. Repper said the changes will improve the exterior of this older home and explained this additional bedroom is needed because his wife is moving her political consulting business into the home, assuring the board that any required applications or permits have been obtained. Speaking for the applicant, Frank Laurich, 156 Darby Court, Dunedin, the applicant's contractor, presented simple line drawings and described the second floor addition over the garage, the balcony off the master bedroom and the stair well. In the ensuing discussion, overdevelopment of the land and harmony with the surrounding environment was questioned. There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. A motion was made by Ms. Whitney to grant variance request #1 which would serve to widen the driveway; there was no second. It was suggested the applicant might be able to add some width to the present driveway without a variance. Ms. Whitney withdrew her motion. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the request for variance #2 because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because: 1) There are not special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; and 2) the granting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and comprehensive plan and will be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Chairman Plisko, Ms. Martin and Mr. Gans voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney voted "nay"; Mr. Johnson did not vote. Motion carried. (3-1) 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 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 upon the vote being taken, Chairman Plisko, Mr. Gans, Ms. Whitney and Ms. Martin voted "aye"; Mr. Johnson did not vote. Motion carried. (4-0) The following Land Development Use code amendments were considered: D1. (cont from 01/26/95) Ordinance No. 5766-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 36.033, 36.066, 36.083, 37.21, 40.674, 43.03, 43.04, 43.21 through 43.25, 43.51, 45.02, 45.21, 45.23, 45.25, 46.03, 46.07, 46.34, 54.23 and 54.53, Code of Ordinances, to delete the requirement for receipt and referral of annexations, subdivision plats, site plans, Zoning Atlas amendments and Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendments; to provide for variance approval by the Planning and Zoning Board; to require the posting of properties which are the subject of proposed site plans and subdivision plats; to authorize the Development Code Administrator to certify site plans and subdivision plats; to authorize the City Manager to determine whether to require the conveyance of land, payment of cash, or a combination thereof to satisfy the recreation land impact fee and open space impact fee; providing an effective date. Mr. Shuford explained the amendment in considerable detail and the ensuing discussion noted p 3 item (h) will be clarified; he made special note of p 6, item (3), additional requirements for site plans; and emphasized p 11, item (3) which requires an accurate site plan, drawn to scale. The underlined change to the top of p 11, sec 45.02 was particularly noted. Staff still recommends a 25-acre cap as the size limitation for receipt and referral; the board concurred. The Frenchy's application, now under appeal, was exampled. Mr. Shuford opined that the Planning and Zoning Board (PZ) may take a broader view in considering variance applications. He said staff was instructed to streamline the development process as much as possible and reduce the amount of multiple board hearings for one request. Concern was expressed that, in the interest of expedience, "counterbalance" may be compromised. The Chairman noted the "fine line" for special exceptions for alcoholic beverage use, and the procedural delays involved. There was mention that the present procedure creates a desirable balance which results in good government. The Chairman said, in his opinion, the receipt and referral process did not need to go to the City Commission; Mr. Shuford acknowledged the extremely awkward position in which the City Commission is placed when a development meets all City code requirements, but is strongly opposed by concerned citizens. Signs were mentioned as a "special item" commanding expertise in technology and construction techniques. A separate sign board was suggested, possibly compromised of sign company representatives, realtors, or the like. There was a brief discussion estimating the amount of time it currently takes the volunteer board members for paperwork, site visits, etc, and the amount of extra time the proposed added workload would require. A motion was made by Ms. Whitney to recommend endorsement to the City Commission, with the following concerns: 1) that the Planning & Zoning Board would hear variances under this ordinance without solid experiential knowledge of the standards for approval; 2) having variances and conditional use permits heard by separate boards provides "checks and balances"; 3) fees could be adjusted to eliminate the financial "penalty" of having to go to multiple boards; 4) with recent code changes (elimination of dock regulations, revision of alcoholic beverage regulations, etc.), variances associated with conditional use permits would be infrequent; 5) if sign variances became too much of a workload for DCAB, consideration should be given for a separate board which would meet once a month to address only sign variance applications. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D2. Ordinance No. 5792-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 42.26(6)(a), Code of Ordinances, to provide for fences in waterfront setbacks up to 36 inches in height in single family zoning districts only; providing an effective date. Mr. Shuford explained the proposed amendment deals with fences and single family residential waterfront property setback areas. He noted an informal inspection revealed there are many fences which have been installed without approval and offered a display board with 30 photographs depicting various types of existing waterfront fences and walls. The Chairman expressed his opposition to chain link fences and the placement of fences directly on the sea wall; there was general agreement by the board. It was noted the proposed amendment will limit fence height to 36 inches above the grade of the ground, not the sea wall. A motion was made by Mr. Gans to recommend endorsement to the City Commission, with the following concerns: 1) that chain link fences will not be permitted; and 2) the fence or fence supports will not be affixed directly on the sea wall. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The following Chairman's items were considered: Chairman Plisko said a conflict in schedule will preclude his presentation of the annual DCAB report to the City Commission, which was scheduled for March 16, 1995, and the presentation will be rescheduled. He requested the board members consider what they would prefer for inclusion in the Chairman's presentation. The following Director's items were considered: Mr. Shuford credited the board for its efforts in the saving of three trees as mentioned in an article in Builder's Square. The following are Board and Staff comments: Mr. Shuford and the board agreed that the City Commission's efforts at sign regulation have proven extremely effective and have produced very positive results. To enable the board members to identify sites, the importance of citing the location of major arteries and/or landmarks on the maps accompanying requests was noted. Mr. Shuford said staff will ask the applicants to more clearly identify map locations. There being no further business, by motion duly seconded, the meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.