Loading...
02/26/1998 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER February 26, 1998 Present: William Schwob Vice Chair William Johnson Board Member Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter The Vice-Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, review of meeting procedures, and explanation of appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #A - Time Extension Requests - None. ITEM #B - Continued Variance Requests - None. ITEM #C - New Variance Requests C1) Samir & Marie Armanious for the following variances (1) a building coverage variance of 0.7 percent to allow 40.7 percent where a minimum of 40 percent is required; and (2) an open space variance for the lot of 7.5 percent to allow 37.5 percent where a minimum of 45 percent is required at 807 Harbor Island, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 7C, Lot 37, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 98-18 The applicants plan to raze the current single family home and construct a new one on this property. In this zone, 40% is the maximum building coverage allowed. The 0.7% variance is requested to allow 40.7% coverage. While a minimum of 45% open space is required, a variance of 7.5% is requested to allow 37.5% open space. The character of homes on the West side of Harbor Island is changing, with multi-story elevated homes replacing some single story homes. Although large, the new homes have not been constructed pursuant to variances. Staff reported 10 variances have been approved for Harbor Island since January 1986, none for building coverage or open space. Staff feels approval of the open space variance will redefine open space requirements and establish a precedent in this neighborhood. Staff feels the variance requested for building coverage is not significant as it relates to a 2nd floor wall that extends 2 to 2.5 feet. Senior Planner John Richter said a 20-square foot storage area, minimal in size, also is requested. He felt the requested building coverage would add architectural interest. The open space variance would allow a rear concrete deck within 18 feet of the sea wall. Mr. Richter felt that requested variance is too large. He reported the upper level of deck could be built without a variance. In response to a question, he said variances approved for nearby properties to which the applicants referred do not relate to this request. In response to a question, he stated the applicants had changed their plans after submitting their original request. Samir Armanious, Applicant, said the house will be raised according to code. The slab and downstairs walls also will be constructed according to code. The next floor extends slightly. He said the proposed decking would provide access to the sea wall. He said the house under construction at 739 Harbor Island has less open space than he is requesting. Mr. Richter indicated that is not the case. It was noted 2 of the 5 letters of support submitted by the applicant are from residents who live more than 500-feet from the subject property. It was noted the applicant had not submitted letters from neighbors to the North or from across the street. In response to a question, Mr. Armanious said he planned to place his garbage can on the side of the house. Concern was expressed not all concrete uses were shown on the site plan, such as the garbage can slab or a walkway from the rear deck to the dock. Nicholas Matsis spoke in support of the request. Five letters of support were submitted with the application. No other support or opposition was expressed. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said other new homes in the neighborhood had been built without variances for open space or building coverage. Concern was expressed a precedent not be established in this area. Neighboring homes were built within code. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said a swimming pool would be counted against open space requirements. Concern was expressed open space shown on the site plan is overstated. Member Jonnatti moved to deny the variances as requested for 807 Harbor Island because the applicant has failed to substantially meet all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was requested staff check the new home construction at 739 Harbor Island for adherence to code. C2) David A. & Charlotte J. Korba for a setback variance of 9 ft to allow a room addition 16 ft from the Trent Court right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at 1960 Trent Court, Willow Ridge Replat, Lot 91, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-19 The applicant proposes to construct a bedroom addition to the front of the home on this property. A setback of 25-feet from the Trent Court right-of-way is required. A 9-foot variance is requested to construct the addition 16-feet from the right-of-way. Staff feels conditions support approval. Due to the lot’s irregular shape, it is difficult to enlarge this home without encroaching into a setback. None of the property lines is parallel. Some lines are curvilinear. Constructing an addition on the home’s North side would not require a variance but a large tree would have to be removed. After being contacted by the applicant regarding the addition, the other 4 property owners on Trent Court signed a document of no objection. Approval will not adversely affect this neighborhood. Charlotte Korba, Applicant, reviewed her request and distributed photographs of the property. She indicated building the addition on the North side of the property would ruin her backyard and locate the addition closer to the neighbor’s house. In response to a question, Ms. Korba reviewed plans to replace the current fence as part of the project. In response to a question, David Korba indicated they will try to save the tree in the front yard. No other support was expressed. Gemirani Kara spoke against the request, stating the addition will impede his view and block his air flow. It was noted the addition will not extend farther than the current garage. No documents in opposition were received. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicants have substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) prior to approval of final inspection for addition, applicant shall plant shrubs along front and North side of addition to soften encroachment into setback; and 4) current fence to be repaired or replaced. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3) Instrument Transformers, Inc. for a setback variance of 4 ft to allow a proposed carport 16 ft from the Calumet Street right-of-way where 20 ft is required at 1925 Calumet Street, Sec 01-29-15, M&B 34.15, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). V 98-20 In response to the applicant’s request, Member Stuart moved to continue Item #C3 to March 12, 1998. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4) Charles & Tracey Scalisi (Clearwater Funeral Home) for a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the Sunset Point Road right-of-way where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is required at 2510 Sunset Point Road, Blackburn’s Sub, part of Lot 12, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 98-21 The applicant lives upstairs of the funeral home in the 2-story building on the property. The applicant proposes to erect a 6-foot wood fence along the East property line, extending into the front setback from Sunset Point Road where the maximum allowable height is 2.5 feet. The applicant requests a 3.5-foot height variance. Staff supports approval. The fence will separate the property from a liquor store and increase the privacy of the funeral home. The proposed fence will not affect adversely other nearby properties. To provide motorists adequate visibility of the sidewalk, the Traffic Engineer recommends the fence be no higher than 2.5-feet within 10-feet of the front property line. Charles Scalisi, Applicant, reviewed the request. He opposed the recommendation to lower the fence to 2.5-feet near the front property line. He stated the fence is needed full height to the Sunset Point Road setback due to security concerns related to activities at the liquor store next door. He said it is important to maintain a dignified atmosphere until his funeral home patrons exit the property. Concern was expressed a tall fence would block the site lines of vehicles departing the property. A letter of support from nearby property owners was submitted with the application. No other support or opposition was expressed. It was felt the City Engineer’s recommendation should be enforced. It was stated there is enough room beyond the fence for visitors to adequately view Sunset Point Road traffic. It was noted that space is only 4-feet longer than a typical parking space. It was felt patrons departing the funeral home will drive slowly. In response to a suggestion, Mr. Scalisi opposed installing chain link fencing at the end of the driveway. It was noted by its nature, the business needs privacy. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on variance application and documents submitted by applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding work to be done to the site or to any physical structure on the site will result in this variance being null and of no effect and 2) requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded. Members Schwob, Johnson, Stuart, and Moran voted “Aye”; Member Jonnatti voted “Nay.” Motion carried. ITEM #D - Land Development Code Amendments - None ITEM #E - Approval of Minutes Member Stuart referred to page 6, paragraph 2, sentence 4 and noted the word “meeting” should read “case.” Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 12, 1998, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #F - Election of Officers Member Stuart moved to close the nominations and to appoint Vice-Chair Schwob as Chair and Member Johnson as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #G - Board & Staff Comments Member Moran expressed concern testimony regarding the current location of a pawn shop discussed at the February 12, 1998, meeting was not clear. The majority agreed their votes had not been affected by this mix-up. It was recommended future applicants be required to provide exact addresses during presentations. G1) Proposed Procedural Changes Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said it is not required to read the procedures prior to each meeting. It was noted most citizens who appear before the board are unfamiliar with proceedings and need help. It was suggested the procedures could be provided in written form. The majority agreed the Chair should read a shortened opening statement as Vice-Chair Schwob had suggested. Ms. Dougall-Sides said when an item is introduced, reading the legal description aloud is not required. Consensus was to read the property address only when an item is introduced. Concern was expressed the invocation may be offensive to non-Christians. It was noted the City Commission offers an invocation. In response to a question, Mr. Richter reported no complaints had been received regarding the invocation. The majority agreed to retain the invocation. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides recommended retaining the formality of the approval process. In case of appeal, a record of the approval process is necessary. Staff provides DCAB (Development Code Adjustment Board) with an annual list of variances approved administratively. Last year, staff approved approximately 20 variances. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:44 p.m.