BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 - 6:30 P.M. CITY HALL CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS -1ST FLOOR

100 NORTH ANDREWS AVENUE FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA

Board Members Karl Shallenberger, Chair Roger Bond, Vice Chair Eugenia Ellis

Attendance P

Andrew Gordon Douglas Reynolds Fred Stresau S. Carey Villeneuve Alternates Birch Willey Stacey Giulianti Norman Ostrow

Staff Anthony Fajardo, Zoning Administrator Robert Dunckel, Assistant City Attorney Mohammed Malik, Chief Zoning Examiner Lynda Crase, Board Liaison

P P P P P P

A P P

Brigitte Chiappetta , Recording Secretary, Prototype Inc.

Communication to the City Commission

Cumulative Attendance 6/2015 through 5/2016 Present Absent

7 1 7 1 7 1 8 0 4 1 7 1 7 1

6 1 2

2 1 o

Motion made by Ms. Ellis, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve, to send the following communication to the City Commission : The Board wishes to inform the Commission that they were very uncomfortable having to make a decision on the height of a sea wall and were seeking guidance from the Commission and/or staff regarding what ordinance changes they may be considering . The Board has deferred consideration of application B16002 for 30 days and they were expecting a response from the Commission regarding what they felt was appropriate. In a voice vote , motion passed unanimously.

Purpose: Section 47-33.1.

Board of Adjustment February 10, 2016 Page 2

The Board of Adjustment shall receive and hear appeals in cases involving the ULDR, to hear applications for temporary nonconforming use permits, special exceptions and variances to the terms of the ULDR, and grant relief where authorized under the ULDR. The Board of Adjustment shall also hear, determine and decide appeals from reviewable interpretations, applications or determinations made by an administrative official in the enforcement of the ULDR, as provided herein.

Index

1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

Case Number 815020 816002 815006

816005 816006

Owner/Agent Holiday Park Plaza, LTD/ Security Vault Works, Inc. 321 BIRCH LLC/Stephen Tilbrook William Amlong and Karen Amlongl Stephen Tilbrook Richard & Susan Finkelsteinl Marla Neufeld W. D. Cordova LLC/Yvonne Redding Other Items and Board Discussion For the Good of the City Communication to the City Commission

District 2 2 4

4 4

Page 2 3 §

I 11 11 12 12

Board members disclosed communications they had and site visits made regarding items on the agenda.

All individuals wishing to speak on the matters listed on tonight's agenda were sworn in .

Call to Order Chair Shallenberger called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. He introduced Board members and determined a quorum was present.

Approval of Minutes - January 2016

Motion made by Mr. Stresau, seconded by Ms. Ellis, to approve the minutes of the Board 's January 2016 meeting. In a voice vote, motion passed unanimously.

1. Case Number: Owner: Agent: Legal:

Zoning:

B15020 Holiday Park Plaza, LTD Security Vault Works, Inc.

Index

PROGRESSO 2-18 0 LOTS 5,6 & N 35 OF LOT 7 & N 35 OF LOT 18 LESS W 5 THERE OF & ALSO LOTS 19 & 20, LESS THE W 5 THEREOF ALL IN BLK 171 CB (Community Business District)


Address: 1026 NE 15th Avenue Commission District: 2 Appealing: Section 47.1.15. (Uses within enclosed building.) Requesting a variance to install a stand-alone automated teller machine (ATM) where the code states except as provided in the Unified Land Development Regulations (ULDR), all permitted uses, including sales, display, preparation and storage shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed building. (DEFERRED FROM JANUARY 13, 2016)

Mr. Fajardo stated the applicant wished to withdraw the application in anticipation of resubmitting it. Mr. Dunckel confirmed that the applicant would be required to pay another fee when resubmitting the application.

Motion made by Mr. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Stresau, to withdraw the case from the agenda. In a voice vote, motion passed unanimously.

2. Case Number: Owner: Agent: Legal:

Index B16002 321 BIRCH LLC Stephen Tilbrook, Gray Robinson , P.A. LOTS 1,2,3 AND 4, BLOCK 9 LAUDER DEL MAR, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 30, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH: A Parcel of Dry Land in New River Sound adjacent to Lots, 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 9, LAUDER DEL MAR, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 30, of the Public Records of Broward County, Florida.

Zoning: lOA (Intracoastal Overlook Area) Address: 321 N. Birch Road Commission District: 2 Appealing: Section 47-19.3.f. (Boat slips, docks, boat davits, hoists and similar mooring structures.) Requesting a variance to permit a seawall at a height of seven (7) feet where the code states the top surface of a seawall shall not exceed five and one-half (5 )1:,) feet above NGVD 29, except when the adjacent property is height than five and one-half (5)1:,) feet above NGVD 29 for an overall increase in seawall cap height of eighteen (18) inches).

Stephen Tilbrook, representative of the applicant, displayed photos of the site and said Broward County had increased the minimum floor elevations by 18" but the City had not increased the sea wall heights. He said they were asking for the variance in order to preserve consistency between the structure and the sea wall.


Mr. Tilbrook referred to staff's memo to the Planning and Zoning Board for the site plan approval, part of which concerned the condition that 70% of the ground floor provide visibility from the street to the waterway. When the project was presented to the Marine Advisory Board (MAB), documentation included a report regarding sea wall heights and sea level rise in Fort Lauderdale and the MAB had recommended the Commission ask staff to revisit sea wall heights. After the City Commission discussed this, they had instructed staff to proceed with studying and revising the City's regulations regarding sea wall heights in light of sea level rise. Mr. Tilbrook stated a memo from Alan Dodd, the City's Assistant Public Works Director for Engineering, indicating this applicant's request was consistent with the direction in which staff was moving regarding sea wall heights.

Mr. Tilbrook explained that because of the increased building elevation, a handicapped ramp was needed to get from the rear building door to the dock, and a safety rail was needed along the sea wall. They were requesting this increase in the sea wall and dock height to allow a safe slope with no ramp or railings. This would create a more functional and aesthetically pleasing backyard and improve transparency.

Chair Shallenberger opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public wishing to address the Board on this item, Chair Shallenberger closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Board.

Mr. Stresau had been informed by Dr. Nancy Gassman, Assistant Director of the City's Department of Sustainable Development, that raising the sea wall height would have a domino effect on finished floor elevation, stormwater management and decking and staff was considering the implications of a change and was working on a draft, which would be vetted by the appropriate stakeholders. She said staff was reviewing data and other municipalities' ordinances and would present a draft ordinance in the near future. Mr. Stresau felt it was misleading to say the Engineering Department supported a seven-foot NGVD.

Mr. Tilbrook acknowledged that the BOA would make the determination about the variance; he had included Mr. Dodd's communication because it indicated "staff was moving in the direction that's consistent with this application."

Regarding transparency, Mr. Stresau said with the site's landscaping and solid walls that included the parking ramps , there was only approximately 23% of the building that was truly transparent. He added that the ramp could be run parallel to the sea wall . Mr. Stresau stated the problem was created by the fact that the building occupied the entire footprint of the site. Mr. Tilbrook countered that the City Commission had approved the site plan with that elevation, citing the transparency afforded by that elevation as one of the reasons for their approval. Mr. Stresau did not feel the Board should pass something that would set a precedent and they should not review it until the City Commission made a decision regarding amending the code addressing sea wall height.


Mr. Tilbrook stated this was not a precedent-setting application; it was specific to this building and this sea wall. Mr. Dunckel asked what would happen when a neighboring property requested the same relief and Mr. Tilbrook said they would need to wait for the code to be changed. Mr. Dunckel stated, "You're asking the Board to ... become the legislative body when this Board is an administrative tribunal who has a very circumscribed area of power and authority, and that is to act within the four corners of the five criteria, and when you sit down and start examining those five criteria relative to your presentation, you'll see that you lose traction in a number of those areas." Mr. Dunckel stated the variance request should explain how there were special conditions peculiar to this property, but sea level rise was affecting the entire City, so it did not meet that criterion. Regarding whether the hardship was self-created, Mr. Dunckel said one could argue that they had helped create the hardship by "taking advantage of every foot going back towards the rear." He added that the granting of the variance should not make the property incompatible with adjoining properties but this would be automatically incompatible with adjoining properties with five-foot sea walls.

Mr. Stresau suggested the applicant return in six months to a year when there might be recommendations from the staff and City Commission. Chair Shallenberger did not feel it was a good idea to make the applicant wait but he was hesitant to act as a legislative body in this case; he did not want to set a precedent.

Ms. Ellis pointed out that the site plans were being approved with the. knowledge that these problems existed. She asked for a timeline for the City to make a decision. Mr. Fajardo said the City did not want this to take nine months, but considering how controversial this was there could be setbacks. He recommended a 50-day deferral and staff could advise the Board if there was a more definitive timeline.

Mr. Tilbrook said this was a unique condition , not a precedent setting condition because their site plan had been approved by the City prior to code · changes made by Broward County. He argued this would not set a precedent for anyone else, but acknowledged there may be others needing the same relief because the City had not changed regulations to be consistent with Broward County. Mr. Tilbrook said they could live with a 30-day continuance.

Mr. Dunckel reminded the Board that they could send a communication to the City Commission stressing how important this issue was and that they needed to try to accelerate the legislative process.

Mr. Stresau acknowledged that the sea wall needed to be replaced because it was falling down. Mr. Tilbrook explained that the entire rear of the site plan was affected by the height of the sea wall . He stated the plans were in for a building permit; they needed an answer soon.

Mr. Tilbrook requested a 30-day continuance.


Motion made by Mr. Stresau, seconded by Ms. Ellis, to continue the request for 30 days. In a voice vote, motion passed unanimously.

3. Case Number: Owner: Agent: Legal: Zoning:

B15006 William Amlong and Karen Amlong Stephen Tilbrook, Gray Robinson, PA RIO VISTA ISLES UNIT 3 7-47 BLOT 35 BLK 23 RS-8 (Residential Single family/Low Medium Density District)

Address: 1343 Ponce De Leon Drive Commission District: 4

Index

Appealing: Section 47-19.1.H (Accessory Uses, Buildings & Structures -General Requirements) Requesting an after the fact variance to permit a gas generator installed five (5) feet from the north property line where the code states that no accessory use or structure shall be located on a corner lot within fifteen (15) feet of any side street property line resulting in a reduction of ten (10) feet in the required yard .

Stephen Tilbrook, representative for the applicant, displayed photos of the property and stated the lot had a unique pie shape that abutted a canal and a bridge. He explained the owners had hired a contractor to install the generator in 2014. The subcontractor and contractor pulled the building permit for the installation. The unit had been subsequently installed, passed all inspections and the permit closed out. Several months later, a City inspector cited the owners, citing code that specified the unit must have a 15-foot setback when on a corner lot. The Code Enforcement citation had been heard by a Special Magistrate, who determined a variance was required .

Mr. Tilbrook said this house was built prior to the 15-foot setback requirement; the house itself was only 12 feet from the property line and it was therefore not possible to relocate the generator 15 feet from the property line on this section of the street.

Mr. Tilbrook reported they had conducted extensive outreach and received three to five emails of support and there were people present to speak on behalf of the request. He said the application clearly met the criteria for the variance and asked the Board to approve it.

Mr. Tilbrook informed the Board that there had been a prior variance request for this property in 2006. At that time, an architect had requested a variance for a generator in the rear yard as part of a home addition project. The Amlongs were not aware of the variance request or denial. Mr. Tilbrook stressed that this was a different generator, a different location and different conditions, since the permit had been pulled and finaled .


Mr. Dunckel agreed this was a unique situation and the Board should consider the application not predicated on the argument that an error might have been made when the City issued the permit but on Mr. Tilbrook's argument.

Chair Shallenberger opened the public hearing.

George Platt, neighbor, said this property looked like a "leftover" piece and was uniquely shaped. He said this was the logical location for the generator and it was well screened behind landscaping. He believed this was a logical case for a variance. Mr. Platt also felt that generators should be treated the same as air conditioning units.

Kristie Caddy, neighbor, discussed how important an emergency generator could be. She agreed the generator was well screened from view.

There being no other members of the public wishing to address the Board on this item, Chair Shallenberger closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Board.

Mr. Stresau recalled that when the Amlong's previous variance request for another generator was discussed seven years ago, he had suggested installing the generator downhill, below the level of the headwall for the bridge and he had the same opinion this evening. He added that this alternative would require a variance as well. Mr. Stresau believed the Board had an obligation to consider other locations for the generator.

Mr. Tilbrook said there was a lot of flooding in this area and installing the generator in the location Mr. Stresau described would require it to be elevated substantially.

Motion made by Mr. Gordon, seconded by Ms. Ellis, to approve. In a roll call vote, motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Stresau opposed.

4. Case Number: Owner: Agent: Legal: Zoning:

Index B16005 Richard & Susan Finkelstein Marla Neufeld, Esq., Greenspoon Marder, PA LAGUNA ISLE RESUB LOT 23 49-46 B PARCEL C RS-4.4 (Residential Single Family Low Medium Density District)

Address: 2520 Laguna Terrace Commission District: 4 Appealing: Section 47-5.30. Table of Dimensional Requirements for the RS-4.4 District. Requesting a variance to construct an awning (carport) within the front and side yards at a distance between ten (10) feet and four point one (4.1) feet from the front property line to the north (front yard setback) and at a distance between five point forty five (5 .45) feet and two and one half (2 .5) feet from the side property line to the


west (side yard setback) where the code states the RS-4.4 zoning district minimum front yard requirement is twenty five (25) feet and the minimum side yard requirement is ten (10) feet resulting in a front yard reduction of between twenty point nine (20.9) feet and fifteen (15) feet and a side yard reduction of between seven and one half (7.5) feet and four point fifty five (4.55) feet as indicated on the submitted plans.

Steve Wherry, representative for the applicant, distributed letters of support they had received from neighbors and the homeowners association. He displayed photos of the property and drew the Board's attention to the carport. He explained the carport would be in front of the guesthouse where the owner's elderly mother resided and would be used to protect her when transferring her to the car.

Mr. Wherry displayed a schematic and a rendering of the proposed carport. He explained that the property had a range of setbacks: it was 2.5 feet in the side yard and 4.1 feet in the front yard . Mr. Wherry said the carport would encroach in both the front and side yards. He said all nearby property owners and the Harbor Beach Homeowner's Association supported the variance request.

Mr. Wherry discussed the variance criteria:

That special conditions and circumstances affect the property at issue which prevent the reasonable use of such property.

Mr. Wherry stated the triangular shape limited the development scheme.

That the unique hardship is not self-created by the applicant or his predecessors, nor is it the result of mere disregard for, or ignorance of, the provisions of the ULDR or antecedent zoning regulations.

Mr. Wherry said the lot was designed as a triangle and there was no other configuration that would accommodate a more conventional layout of the carport and not violate the setbacks.

That the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible a reasonable use of the property and that the variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ULDR and the use as varied will not be incompatible with adjoining properties or the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.

Mr. Wherry said moving the carport to a less intrusive place would impair its effectiveness as a protective cover for the owner's elderly mother.

Mr. Wherry confirmed for Mr. Gordon that the homeowners association board, not the general membership, had voted to support the request.

Mr. Dunckel stated hardships were supposed to relate to a unique feature of the real property, but he believed the owner was also seeking the variance because of his


mother's physical hardship. Mr. Dunckel said the Board needed to ensure that the variance would not be used to accommodate someone other than the owner's mother. They typically included a provision that the variance would expire when the mother was no longer a resident or she died.

Ms. Ellis noted that Harbor Beach did not lend itself to rental guest cottages . Mr. Fajardo said it was possible that this accessory dwelling predated limitations that might have precluded rentals. Ms. Ellis said if the Board acknowledged the cottage's use as in-law quarters, it made sense to tie the use to that purpose only. Mr. Dunckel thought it would better protect the purpose of the zoning to tie it to this individual ; if another elderly parent moved in later, that could be considered then.

Chair Shallenberger said he was not willing to grant a variance for "ease of staging." He remarked this was a serious encroachment and asked if a smaller carport had been considered . Mr. Wherry explained that the vehicle needed to be large enough to accommodate the elderly mother's wheelchair. He remarked on how difficult it would be for the City to verify that the occupant of the cottage was infirm and suggested tying the variance to his client's ownership of the property.

Mr. Wherry said there were other properties in the neighborhood with similar awnings and displayed two photos. Ms. Ellis agreed this was common in that neighborhood.

Mr. Villeneuve asked why the owner did pull the car into the garage to transport his mother and Mr. Wherry stated the vehicle and wheelchair would not fit in the garage.

Mr. Stresau said he had driven all over Harbor Beach recently and he had seen just two canopies that were constructed in the front yard . He therefore did not feel this was 'consistent with the look of the neighborhood. Mr. Stresau asked about the presentation to the neighborhood association board . He asked if they had seen a site plan and Mr. Wherry reported four members of the board had been present and they had seen a site plan. Mr. Stresau said this proposal was inappropriate and incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood.

Chair Shallenberger opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public wishing to address the Board on this item, Chair Shallenberger closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Board.

Chair Shallenberger was sympathetic, but felt there was no hardship.

Ms. Ellis stated she could support the application, provided it would expire.

Mr. Bond said he objected to the location of the carport and felt it could be located elsewhere.


Motion made by Mr. Stresau, seconded by Ms. Ellis, to approve. In a roll call vote, motion failed 0-7.

Motion made by Ms. Ellis, seconded by Mr. Reynolds, to reconsider. In a roll call vote, motion passed 6-1 with Chair Shallenberger opposed .

Motion made by Ms. Ellis, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve to approve, with the condition that the variance would be limited to the Finkelstein's ownership of the property.

Mr. Villeneuve said he was sympathetic to the situation but wished to time limit the variance. Mr. Wherry said his client suggested limiting the variance to 20 years. Chair Shallenberger said variances should not be granted for short-term situations, they should be granted on a particular piece of property. Mr. Wherry asked if they could limit the variance to the owner's mother's lifetime; this would satisfy his client's concern that the variance would not expire while his mother was still alive and Board members' concerns that the variance would exist longer than necessary.

Mr. Wherry returned to the question of compatibility and reiterated that the nearest neighbors had expressed no objection to the proposal. Ms. Ellis informed the Board that the board of directors of Harbor Beach homeowners association also acted as the aesthetics committee, which had its own set of guidelines for the neighborhood , so their approval carried a little more weight.

Mr. Reynolds suggested they could extend the variance for five years and if the owner's mother was still alive, they could apply again.

Mr. Villeneuve withdrew his second of Ms. Ellis's motion and Ms. Elis withdrew her motion .

Motion made by Ms. Ellis to grant the variance for the duration of the existing occupant's life. Motion died for lack of a second.

Motion made by Ms. Ellis to grant the variance for 10 years. Motion died for lack of a second.

Motion made by Mr. Reynolds, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve to grant the variance for a period of five years, after which time the owner could return to seek additional time. In a roll call vote, motion failed 3-4 with Mr. Bond , Mr. Gordon, Mr. Stresau and Chair Shallenberger opposed.


5. Case Number: Owner: Agent:

Index B16006 W. D. Cordova LLC. Yvonne Redding , Tripp Scott

Legal : HERZFELDS ADD TO LAUDERDALE HARBORS 35-22 B BLK 5 W 175 OF E 325 OF S 250

Zoning: B-1 (Boulevard Business) Address: 1207 SE 1yth Street Commission District: 4 Appealing: Section 5-26(b) (Distance between establishments) Requesting a Special Exception to allow the sale of alcohol by a restaurant at a distance of 266 feet from other establishments that sell alcohol where the code states that a restaurant bar is prohibited in any place of business located within three hundred (300) feet of another place of business in which there is already in existence a retail vendor's license to sell alcoholic or intoxicating beverages for consumption on or off premises.

Mr. Reynolds recused himself from this case due to a conflict and Mr. Ostrow took his place on the dais.

Mr. Dunckel reminded the Board that the variance criteria did not apply; the burden was upon the applicant to show the request was not contrary to the public interest.

Yvonne Redding , representative for the applicant, explained this was a PDQ restaurant located near Port Everglades, the Broward Convention Center and many mixed-use projects. She noted many other businesses along this corridor had come before the Board for special exceptions. Ms. Redding stated this was a family restaurant that would close at 10 p.m. and they felt it would not be contrary to the public interest in this area. Ms. Redding stated they wished to serve only beer and wine .

Chair Shallenberger opened the public hearing.

David Reed, representing two properties behind the PDQ, asked the Board to approve the request.

There being no other members of the public wishing to address the Board on this item, Chair Shallenberger closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Board .

Motion made by Mr. Stresau, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve to approve. In a roll call vote, motion passed 7-0.

Other Items and Board Discussion No discussion.

Index

Board of Adjustment February 10,2016 Page 12

Report and for the Good of the City No discussion.

Index

Communication to the City Commission Index Regarding the issues raised this evening in case B16002, Mr. Stresau said he had forwarded all of his email communication to every City Commission member. He wanted to inform the Commission that the Board was very uncomfortable having to make a decision on the height of the sea wall and were seeking guidance from the Commission and/or staff regarding what ordinance changes they may be considering . The Board had deferred consideration of the application for 30 days and they were expecting a response from the Commission regarding what they felt was appropriate.

Mr. Stresau had asked the City Manager to ask Dr. Gassman to attend their last meeting but he had only received two emails from Dr. Gassman in response.

Mr. Stresau did not feel the City would make a decision in less than six or eight months because they would need to consider how to reconstruct City-owned sea walls. He pointed out this would seriously affect waterway views.

Motion made by Ms. Ellis, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve, to send the following communication to the City Commission: The Board wishes to inform the Commission that they were very uncomfortable having to make a decision on the height of a sea wall and were seeking guidance from the Commission and/or staff regarding what ordinance changes they may be considering. The Board has deferred consideration of application B16002 for 30 days and they were expecting a response from the Commission regarding what they felt was appropriate. In a voice vote, motion passed unanimously.

Regarding the site survey for the awning discussed in case B16005, Mr. Stresau said site surveys were difficult to understand. The code stated a site plan or site survey must be included in an application and he wanted the code to be changed to require a site plan to be part of the application that would be available to anyone who reviewed it. Mr. Fajardo said staff tried to be mindful of costs and for some applicants, a site plan could be cost prohibitive. Staff considered whether they felt a site survey contained information that needed to be conveyed to the Board. The Board could decide the survey was not sufficient and ask the applicant to come back with additional information. He recommended this flexibility be allowed to continue. Mr. Stresau was concerned that the homeowners association had not understood the site survey presented for case B16005.

Mr. Wherry requested the Board reconsider its previous decision on case B16005 and defer for 30 days to allow him time to return to the homeowners association with a site plan. His client also felt they may be able to adjust the position of the carport to make it


less intrusive. Mr. Dunckel advised Mr. Reynolds to return to the dais, since he had made the motion on that case and Mr. Reynolds replaced Mr. Ostrow on the dais. Mr. Wherry requested a 60-day deferral.

Motion made by Ms. Ellis, seconded by Mr. Reynolds, to reconsider their decision on case B16005 and to defer the case for 60 days. In a roll call vote, motion passed 4-3 Mr. Gordon, Mr. Stresau and Chair Shallenberger opposed.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:13 pm.

Chair:

fQarl Shallenberger V

Minutes prepared by: J. Opperlee, Prototype Inc.

Any written public comments made 48 hours prior to the meeting regarding items discussed during the proceedings have been attached hereto.

Documents

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE