06/27/1996 (2)
, .
';.. .' . , . . ,
'tt: :", ,..' - \. .
> .'. ,
+ '.,'
t '..- ""~"/'~.;~::'.~;'i'
-,-
,
"
" -
,e
,
- , e
.' : ~ .
:-/' .
~ < .
'~i ~,~ ....
r~, .:):.. '.' .
.', ."
'11. .
,\:" _ , e
""";""""r. .........~.....,...... ,to";'.-" .,... ., , ~. ,.
. , '," ...' .,".. L
. "'C .. ." . ..... ~. -.. .. '.', T "H:~ . ,,'- ......'1".01,;
i
I -
,eO
DCAB
_ Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
-Date
J~ g~' 89fg
--(~
j~ S>so
u
.'.. ',' , . . .~ ~ " .. J ," .' + .
f~
( '.,e"
iT..4'1
'-.I
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD - ACTION AGENDA
Thursday, June 27,1996
Call to Order, Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance
B. Continued Variance Requests
81. (Cant. from 5/23/96) Cltv of Clearwater/MunlciDnl Marina (Daisy Mae Charters) for a
variance of 4 parking spaces to permit zero additional spaces where 4 additional
parking spaces are required at 25 Causeway Blvd, City Park Sub, Lots 10 thru 13 and
Water Lot 1, zoned P/SP (Public/SemiPublic) and P (Preservation). VR 96-35
ACTION: Denied
B1. (Cant. from 5/9/96) John G. Powell/PPS Interests (Computer City) for variances of
(1) 5 percent to allow 20 percent open space for the lot where 25 percent is required;
(2) 20 percent to allow 30 percent front yard open space where 50 percent is
required; and (3) 6 parking spaces to permit 84 parking spaces where 90 spaces are
required at 25000 US 19 N, Sec. 31-28-16, M&8 44.03, zoned CH (Highway
Commercia!). VR 96-32
ACTION: Continued to July 11, 1996 due to readvertising requirements
C. New Variance Requests
C 1 . Wilfred Besler (The Viking Resort) for the following variances; (1) a lot width variance
of 86.8 ft to allow a lot width of 63.2 ft where a minimum of 150 ft is required; (2) a
setback variance of 6.87 ft to allow a structure 5.53 ft from the East side property
line where a minimum setback of 12.4 ft is required; (3) a setback variance of 7.36 ft
to allow a structure 5.04 ft from the West side property Hne where a minimum
setback of 12.4 ft is required: (41 a clear space variance of 6.87 ft to allow a clear
space of 5.53 ft where 12.4 ft is required; and (5) a waterfront setback variance of
11.25 ft to allow a wooden balcony 13.75 ft from Clearwater Harbor where a
minimum of 25 ft is required at 124 Brightwater Drive, Bayside Sub No.2, Lot 52,
zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). VR 96-43
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions:, 1) These variances are based
on the variance application and documents submitted by the 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 the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing; 3) The applicant shall either design the addition in a manner that forecloses the
opportunity to use it as a separate unit, or impact fee and parking requirements shall be
satisfied for the new unit; 4) The applicant shall coordinate design of the deck with the
Building Official to ensure compliance with Chapter 39 of the Building Code; and 5) Plans
for the second story addition shall be subject to the review of the Design Rev1ew' Board.
C2. Wayne E. & Fran G. BarnhiseL for the following variances: {1} a setback variance of 5
ft to allow a new detached single family home 30 ft from a street Oak Ridge Court
right-of-way where a minimum setback of 35 ft 1s required; and (2) a setback of 5 ft
to permit a swimming pool 30 ft from a street Abbey Lake Road right-of-way where a
minimum setback of 35 ft is required 1943 Oak Ridge Ct, Oak Ridge Court Estates,
Lot 3, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-45
DCAB ACTION
1
06/27/96
. . ", 'l I 1 . . .," I ~ ~, . . , .' \. :" .
.rr-",
n
r';~')
"'~.
........,;
AGTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1 ~ These variances are based
on the variance application and documents submitted by the 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 the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing; and 3} Every reasonable attempt shall be mude to preserve the 34 inch diameter
oak tree located directly in front of the home near the front door and the 48 inch diameter
oak tree located where the pool is proposed, and no tree shall be removed without prior
approval of the Environmental Official.
C3. Donna E. D. Swartz for a setback variance of 14 ft to allow a room addition 16 ft from
Monterey Avenue right-at-way where a minimum setback of 30 ft is required at
700 Monterey Ave, DelOra Estates, Lot 48, zoned RS 4 (Single Family Residential).
VR 96-46
ACTION: Approved subject to the fonowing conditions: 1} These variances are based
on the variance application and documents submitted by the 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 the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; and 2) The
requisite building permit(s) shall e be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing.
C4. LaMar A. & Janet MacNut~ for the following variances: (1) a setback variance of 7.0 ft
to allow replacement of an existing screened pool enclosure 1 8.0 ft from the Magnolia
Drive right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; and (2) a setback
variance of 7. 1 f~ to allow replacement of an existing screened pool enclosure 17.9 ft
from the Bay Avenue right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at
322 Magnolia Dr, Harbor Oaks Sub, Lots 87 & 89 zoned RS 6 (Single Family
Residential). VR 96-47
ACTlON: Approved subject to the following conditions~ 1) These variances are based
on the variance application and documents submitted by the 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 the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; and 2} The
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing.
Minutes Approval -- June 13, 1996 n Approved as submitted
Board and Staff Comments u Discussion
Adjournment -- 3:30 p.m.
DCAB ACTION
2
06/27/96
, ' , " , ,) " " J ,', \ 'i .' . '
...u.--1- "
~
,
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
June 27, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwob
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Gwen Legters
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
Absent:
5th Seat Vacant
Board Member
. The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1 :00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the
,-Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process.
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
B. Continued Variance Requests
c,}
B1. (Cont. from 5/23/96) City of Clearwater/MuniciDal Marina (Daisy Mae Charters) for a
variance of 4 parking spaces to permit zero additional spaces where 4 additional
parking spaces are required at 25 Causeway Blvd, City Park Sub, Lots 10 thru 13 and
Water Lot 1, zoned P/SP (Public/SemiPublic) and P (Preservation). VR 96-35
,
This item was continued from the meeting of May 23 for further study by staff
regarding whether or not a parking problem exists at the marina. Mr. Richter presented
background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant
wishes to increase the number of passengers he is authorized to carry aboard his charter
fishing boat from six to eighteen. This would require four more parking spaces at the
marina where none are available. According to a recent City staff study, 318 parking
spaces exist at the marina and 50 spaces are at the Memorial Civic Center. 627 spaces
are necessary to serve the existing marina uses, This indicates a parking deficiency of
259 spaces. It was indicated the application does not appear to comply with the standards
for approval. While acknowledging the applicant's position. staff felt increasing the
deficiency was not in the public's best interest.
AI Galbraith, attorney representing the applicant, said because of more stringent Coast
Guard rules, Capt. Hood has reduced his capacity request from 18 to 15 passengers.
Mr. Galbraith summarized his June 21 letter to the board and staff stating that no real
parking problem exists at the Clearwater marina and Capt. Hood's request should have
been approved administratively, and if a parking problem exists at the marina, the City
created it. He indicated Capt. Hood should not pay the penalty for a perceived problem
which may not exist.
l '
J
mdc06b.96
06/27/96
. ~ > ~.t' -," ' .
. ..'"". "'
. ,
. . ,
",~.r; " .
f~
Mr. Galbraith distributed copies of Exhibits A through F relating to: A) a map of parking
lots showing the marina lot (U30) and the Memorial Civic Center lot (#33); B) results of a
marina parking study by Kimley-Horn and Associates; and F) a list of questions directed to
the City regarding whether the City issued a building permit, did a parking study, or
performed variance analysis for construction of new office spaces at the marina. He
reiterated discussion from the May 23 meeting regarding Exhibits: C~ November 14, 1995
staff report regarding the sky tower application; D) a list of new or upgraded vessels
approved at Clearwater marina between November 1991 and March 1996; and E) May 8,
1996 Marine Advisory Board minutes. Mr. Galbraith discussed bar graphs of the Kimley-
Horn results, questioning why employees park in lot 30 on weekends. It was indicated the
referenced employees work in the businesses on the marina property. not for the City. He
reiterated his request for fairness, stating Capt. Hood's request is nominal and has no
measurable impact on marina parking. He said Capt. Hood has been logging the sequential
numbers of parking passes he issues per trip and has offered to guarantee he will use no
more than the spaces he is currently allowed, producing the log upon demand as proof.
In response to a question, it was indicated a 3 passenger reduction would reduce the
parking variance from 4 to 3 spaces.
Edward Dorman spoke in support of the request, stating he ran a charter board for 10
years. He feels Capt. Hood has a fine boat and offers the best service of all the
commercial boats in the Clearwater marina. He strongly opposed the City stifling business
on the pretext of insufficient parking, when Capt. Hood will give written assurances he
does not need or want additional parking spaces. He spoke at length regarding a number
(:) of related issues and complained that special interests receive government favors.
Six commercial charter boat owners and/or operators spoke in opposition to the
request. John Topics, Suzanne Foster, Richard Howard, Brad Gorst, Alan L. Williamson,
and Greg Corder cited similar experiences regarding: 1) competition with the beach crowd
for parking spaces on most afternoons and weekends during good weather; 2) desire to
protect and expand their businesses; 3) the Harbormaster having denied their requests for
increased passenger capacity; 4) loss of business due to lack of parking spaces; and 5) the
renewed desire to increase their passenger capacitif3s if this variance is granted to
Capt. Hood. Ms. Foster submitted written remarks and copies of two letters from the
Harbormaster in verification of her statement.
Mr. Dorman offered no rebuttal to the opposition.
Ms. Dougall-Sides noted Harbormaster Bill Held had been sworn in along with those
wishing to speak in opposition. She suggested he make his statement before final rebuttal
by the applicant.
Mr. Held reiterated his remarks from the May 23 hearing with regard to many charter
boat owners' requests to increase their passenger capacity, the Central Permitting
Department study of marina parking requirements, and his letter informing all marina
tenants he would no longer consider requests to increase passenger capacity. He
discussed times of peak demand, and said he would like to increase passenger capacity
1--.J and slips rents proportionately, but he will support the code parking requirements.
mdc06b.96
2
06/27/96
, \ . .
j .. . . ,. '.-
.. ..... ~ .
~
Regarding employee parking in lot 30, Mr. Held said boat employees and captains
frequently pa'rk in spaces directly in front of their boats to prevent beachgoers from parking
there. He did not feel it was possible for staff to monitor parking passes accurately,
because the passes are sold in large blocks. He noted Capt. Hood's last purchase was a
block of 100 passes. Mr. Held said the City Legal Department is drafting a policy to
provide, subject to approval, that variances will not be processed for spaces in the marina
parking lot.
Mr. Held responded to questions, stating most of the new or upgraded vessels listed in
the handout were approved at Clearwater marina before he received the results of the
parking study. He did not feel they seriously impact parking because their business is
primarily walk up. He said two vessels added since the parking study were, replacements
of existing vessels and he was careful to ensure they did not add capacity. In response to
a Question, he indicated the assertion these vessels are additional to what previously
existed is not correct. He agreed parking lot occupancy depends on the weather. He will
recommend to the City Commission to provide a cross walk and begin asking marina
business employees, upon lease renewal, to park in lot 33 at the Memorial Civic Center.
~;~.'~}
Captain Dan Hood and Mr. Galbraith made their final statements. Capt. Hood
expressed concern big money interests receive special favors and reiterated the sky tower
proposal received favorable staff recommendation. He reiterated lot 33 is practically
vacant at all times, and he has never experienced a problem parking at the marina.
Mr. Galbraith suggested, as the Kimley-Horn study indicates usage is heavier at midday, a
condition to preclude Capt. Hood from taking noontime trips could help alleviate staff
concerns. He offered this with reservations, because he did not feel it was really
necessary. He maintained the perceived parking problem is nothing more than an urban
legend, like alligators in the sewers, that is not borne out by facts.
Public discussion was closed and board discussion ensued. Board members made the
following points: 1} the City's master plan calls for a different use for lot 33 in the near
future; 2) the formula for calculating parking space needs is mandated in the code, and is
based on facts regarding occupancy and usage; and 3) the code standards for variance
approval must be followed by the board; 4) the applicant has not demonstrated special
circumstances that do not apply to everyone else; 5) reasonable use of the land exists;
6) the application appears to be for the purpose of increasing the applicant's material gain;
and 7) the request is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Land
Development Code. The applicant was encouraged to petition the City Commission to
change the code if he felt the laws are not fair, but testimony from staff and the public
supports the belief a parking shortage exists. It was pointed out the staff recommendation
on the sky tower proposal is not persuasive evidence, because the City Commission denied
that proposal. While it was agreed the parking situation is complex and staff is looking at
solutions to ease the situation in the future, the board found no evidence to support a
parking variance at this time. Board members encouraged the City Commission to look at
the parking situation to enable more boaters, beachgoers and tourists to visit the beach.
~
Member Schwob moved to deny the variance requested in Item B1 because the
applicant has not substantially met any of the standards for approval as listed in Section
45.24 of the Land Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
mdc06b.96
J
06/27/96
""... .,"
n
B2. (Cont. from 5/9/96) John G. PowellJPPS Interests (Computer City) for variances of
(1) 5 percent to allow 20 percent open space for the lot where 25 percent is required;
(2) 20 percent to allow 30 percent front yard open space where 50 percent is
required; and (3) 6 parking spaces to permit 84 parking spaces where 90 spaces are
required at 25000 US 19 N. Sec. 31-28-16. M&B 44.03. zoned CH (Highway
Commercial). VR 96-32
In a June 17 memo to the board. Mr. Richter explained this item is to be continued due
to readvertising requirements.
Member Schwab moved to continue Item 62 to the meeting of July 11, 1996. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. New Variance Requf.lsts
\',....,,)
\'j'-f"i'!'t.'l
C 1. Wilfred Bester (The Viking Resort} for the following variances; (1) a lot width variance
of 86.8 ft to aHow a lot width of 63.2 ft where a minimum of 150 ft is required; (2) a
setback variance of 6.87 ft to allow a structure 5.53 ft from the East side property
line where a minimum setback of 12.4 ft Is required; (3) a setback variance of 7.36 ft
to allow a structure 5.04 ft from the West side property line where a minimum
setback of 12.4 ft is required; (4) a clear space variance of 6.87 ft to allow a clear
space of 5.53 ft where 12.4 ft is required; and (5) a waterfront setback variance of
11.25 ft to allow a wooden balcony 13.75 ft from Clearwater Harbor where a
minimum of. 25 ft is required at 124 Brightwater Drive. Bayside Sub No.2, Lot 52,
zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). VR 96.43
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to construct a second story addition to expand the owner's
living area in an existing motel building. He explained proposed square footage and
location in relation to setbacks and clear space. The development will not extend the
footprint, or alter the developed character of the area. Staff recommended designing the
addition to preclude its use as a separate dwelling unit, to avoid Traffic Engineering
Department impact fees that would result. Staff felt conditions support the request and
recommended approval with five conditions.
In response to a question. Mr. Richter said the Land Development Code does not
supersede the standard building code with regard to construction near seawalls. A
separate City board considers building code variances.
Patrick Macguire, attorney representing the applicant, submitted the application and
attachments, staff report, recommendations, and comments into evidence. He explained
the applicant's proposal to build the second story addition with a rear balcony and spiral
staircase to access a front balcony. The request will not impact traffic and will be strictly
for use as the owner's personal residence.
J
Wilfred Besler, the owner/applicant, responded to a question. stating he could build a
smaller covered patio if he does not get the variances requested for the deck.
Mr. Macguire agreed other alternatives exist, but asked to board to consider the
mdc06b.96
..
06/27/96
. '. . . I;' . ~ ~. ; . '. . . '
..,......,...0>. +
n
documents of record and the request before them. One member pointed out the board
grants or denies variances based on the documents submitted with the application. He
questioned the front elevation drawing showing the proposed staircase outside the side
property line. Mr. Macguire agreed the front elevat.ion drawing is incorrect. He said the
floor plan drawing contains a more accurate representation of the staircase location near
the center of the property.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
l'<t;~~
.(~~;;
Member Schwab moved to grant the variances as requested in Item C 1 becaUS9 the
applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24
of the land Development Cods, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances
are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicanfs
variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support ot the
variance request regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical
structure located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect;
2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing; 3) The applicant shall either design the addition in a manner that forecloses
the opportunity to use it as a separate unit, or impact fee and parking requirements shall
be satisfied for the new unit; 41 The applicant shall coordinate design of the deck with the
Building Official to ensure compliance with Chapter 39 of the Building Code; and 5) Plans
for t~e second story addition shall be subject to the review of the Design Review Board.
The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Schwab and Jonnatti voted "Aye";
Member Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried.
C2. Wayne E. & Fran G. Barnhisel. for the following variances: (11 a setback variance of 5
ft to allow a new detached single family home 30 ft from a street Oak Ridge Court
right-at-way where a minimum setback of 35 ft is required; and (2) a setback of 5 ft
to permit a swimming pool 30 ft from a street Abbey lake Road right-of-way where a
minimum setback of 35 ft is required 1943 Oak Ridge Ct, Oak Ridge Court Estates.
lot 3, zoned RS 2 (Single Family, Residential). VR 96-45
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to construct a single family home and pool on a lot with
35-foot street setbacks in the front and rear of the property. The applicants have been
working with City environmental stnff to preserve two sizable oak trees affected by the
proposal. but it appears a healthy but structurally unsound 48-inch oak may have to be
sacrificed. Mr. Richter said the applicant will meet or exceed tree replacement
requirements and many other trees exist on the lot. Staff felt conditions support the
request and recommended approval with three conditions.
Wayne and Fran Barnhisel. the owner/applicants. stated they wish to build a nice
home tor themselves and their four children. It was indicated Mrs. Barnhisel has worked
wlth staff extensively and they are satisfied this is the best of the four house plans they
considered for the lot. Board members agreed the variances were reasonable in view of
the lot constraints.
\J
mdc06b.96
5
06/27/96
..,. ~. ':' " .
~
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Johnson moved to grant the variances as requested in Item C2 because
the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section
45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) These
variances are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the
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 the work to be done with regard
to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in these variances
being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within
one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) Every reasonable attempt shall be
made to preserve the 34 inch diameter oak tree located directly in front of the home
near the front door and the 4S inch diameter oak tree located where the pool is
proposed, and no tree shall be removed without prior approval of the Environmental
Official. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C3. Donna E. D. Swartz for a setback variance of 14 ft to allow a room addition 16 ft
from Monterey Avenue right-of-way where a minimum setback of 30 ft is required
at 700 Monterev Ave, Del Oro Estates, Lot' 48, zoned RS 4 (Single Family
Residential). VR 96~46
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations.
.....,.,'\ He stated the applicant wishes to construct a 565 square foot addition to the front of
\,.,.".,1 their existing single family home. The addition will provide needed living space for the
family of five, and another to be born at the end of July. Staff felt conditions favor
the request because of the SO-foot wide street right-of-way in the subdivision. Staff
recommended approval with two standard conditions.
William and Donna Swartz, the owner/applicants, said they need additional space
for themselves and their four children. The existing home has three bedrooms and two
baths. Building in front is the only option because of the way the house is laid out.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Schwab moved to grant the variance as requested in Item C3 because the
applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section
45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) These
variances are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the
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 the work to be done with regard
to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in these variances
being null and of no effect; and 2) The requisite building permit(s) shal.1 be obtained
within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
, ........;
mdc06b.96
6
06/27/96
~ " . ,.' , . " > " T.~' " '\' .' . .." '" Ii. _
"
C4. laMar A. & Janet MacNutt for the following variances: (1) a setback variance of 7.0 ft
to allow replacement of an existing screened pool enclosure 1 8.0 ft from the Magnolia
Drive right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; and (2) a setback
variance of 7.1 ft to allow replacement of an existing screened pool enclosure 17.9 ft
from the Bay Avenue right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at
322 Magnolia Dr, Harbor Oaks Sub; Lots 87 & 89 zoned RS 6 (Single Family
Residential). VR 96-47
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
stated the applicant wishes to replace a storm-damaged screen pool enclosure to the east
of their single family home. The applicants indicate the pool and enclosure have existed
since 1954 and are well screened from view by landscaping. Staff felt conditions support
the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
Janet MacNutt. the owner/applicant. responded to questions, stating a pump and filter
enclosure will remain as it exists and is not part of the application. She said a recent
storm blew a 20-inch limb through the enclosure. She wishes to rebuild the enclosure as it
was before the storm, with a peaked roof and raised area over the diving board.
One letter from a nearby property owner was submitted in support of the application.
No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request.
..~..v)
t~,
Member Jonnatti moved to grant the variances as requested in Item C4 because the
applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24
of the land Development Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances
are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the 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 the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical
structure located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no affect; and
2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this
public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Minutes Approval -- June 13, 1996
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each
member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
.....J
Member Johnson expressed concern with recent Commission discussion relating to
changing the qualifications required of advisory board members. Members agreed
development industry experience is a valuable asset to the boards, but not to the exclusion
of other characteristics that provide balance and diversity. Discussion ensued regarding
DCAB's approach to making decisions based on Code requirements, standards for
approval, personal observation, and practical experience in the community. It was felt the
main qualifications should be for people interested in the local community who are willing
to spend time learning about the land Development Code.
mdc06b.96
7
06/27/96
, ~ ." . , . , . " .. '.
, , ,
;.~.:" ,
". '. ,...
" ~-I;-
~':. . '
.e,
.~" ~
t..' .
'L. .
\-, ~,
"
. . . ~ .
i,;''':~:;':>:, ,,' .
.',' .
~.}: -. ' ..
:~' " ,> '.>"
..,; ....
'"
.'
, . .
-".: ,. .
~I;JIJ..t~t~~-t>:~~! ''''(q'~~~l J'.\.~,. ':I,:!:~'! ~.. ,,:,.~, ll~"..";[;:,~:: 'E'> ~." .,+: ~ p.' 'r~.' ".. .
,".,:,',
" ~l' .'
~" " -. :"
, 'I,'
....." 1:'.:'.'
"c'l~'I. ~I,~~...~
~
l":.
,
In response to a question. Ms. Dougall-Sides said City Attorney Akin is contacting
regulatory board staff liaisons and preparing a report to the City Commission. She
indicated Mr. Shuford will be reviewing board member distribution characteristics. Concern
was expressed timing for seating the fifth member is important because of summer
vacation schedules.
Member Johnson moved to advise. the City Commission the Development Code
Adjustment Board does not think the limitation discussed by the City Commission is
practical or would result in any efficiencies the present advisory boards do not have. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Chair~ f!;fl
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
o B
.~
mdc06b.96
8
06/27/96