06/15/1988 PUBLIC HEARING
June 15, 1988
10:00 A.M.
*Present:*
K. N. Ayers, Hearing Officer
*Also present:*
John Richter, Planning Official
Susan Stephenson, representing City Clerk
*Issue:*
George Karas for variances 1) of 11 feet to permit deck 4 feet from rear property line, 2) of 14.7% open space for lot to provide 30.3%, 3) of 11.1% open space for front yard to provide
38.9%, and 4) to permit construction of wall in setback adjoining waterfront, at 660 Snug Island, Island Estates Unit 7B, Lot 63, zoned RS 6 (single family residential).
*Case No. 88 2367*
*Appearances:*
George Karas, representing himself Maria Karas, representing the appellant
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney, representing the City of
Clearwater
*Appellant's Exhibits Submitted*
Exhibit #1 Sketch of deck and pool showing dimensions Exhibit #2 Letter of no objection from neighbor
Exhibit
a) Facing South
b) Taken from patio facing South
c) Facing North
d) Facing North
Exhibit #4 Artist drawing showing type of railing proposed around
deck
Exhibit #5 Six photographs (marked E J)
e) Neighbor to South of house
f) Neighbor to South of house
g) 2 houses to the North
h) 2 houses to the North
i) 2 houses to the South
j) Showing proximity of a wall to seawall
Miles Lance stated the requested variances were denied by the Development Code Adjustment Board because no hardship was found. The appellant had not applied for the minimum variances,
and the Board suggested he return with a new design for the minimum variance.
Maria Karas stated that the improvements are to benefit her parents, who are both in poor health. She further stated that they were not adequately represented by the builder. The builder
asked for a variance of 14.7% open space for the lot and this is not correct. They are only asking for 3.55%. Most of Island Estates has 35% open space and they do not want to deviate
from the norm. Instead of the 11.1% open space requested for the front yard, they only need a variance of 2.2%.
Mr. Lance stated if the information supplied by the builder to the Board was incorrect, then the Karas' should have an opportunity to go to the Board again.
Ms. Karas appealed variances 1 and 4 stating her father is on an exercise program. The house is small and they would like a large deck for entertaining, similar to that of their neighbors.
The neighbors have tall landscaping which limits visibility of the water. Many of the homes in the area have walls, and the neighbors have no objections.
Mr. Karas is asking for a 48 inch elevation on the deck and a 3 foot railing. A 7 square foot jacuzzi is missing from the drawing; and the small circle is for tables for entertaining.
Mr. Lance asked if the requested variances could be smaller with the elimination of the circle. Ms. Karas stated they were advised by the builder to appeal rather than ask for a lesser
variance. They wish to proceed as it is presently proposed.
Mr. Lance stated that the Development Code Adjustment Board had competent substantial evidence to deny any and all variances that are more than the minimum. The Board requested the
variances be minimized, but the Karas' have refused to do so. Mr. Lance requested dismissal of the appeal.
John Richer stated the variances for open space for the lot and the front yard are affected by the circular driveway. Fences and walls are not permitted in waterfront setbacks to protect
vistas and all standards must be met to grant variances. The Board suggested the representative come back with a scaled down deck. He feels the rear setback variance is not the minimum
and that a 17 foot wide pool is excessive as is the size deck requested. If the pool and deck were scaled back, the open space for the lot could be reduced. He questioned the need for
a circular drive. Mr. Karas asked Mr. Richter for the purpose of variances and Mr. Richter cited the code in explaining.
The Hearing Officer advised that any proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and proposed orders should be submitted within fifteen days.
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.