10/26/1995DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 26, 1995
Present:
Otto Gans, Vice Chair
Joyce Martin
William Johnson
William Schwob
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney
John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department
Gwen Legters, Board Reporter
Absent:
Alex Plisko, Chair
The meeting was called to order by the Vice 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.
Variance Requests
1. Jacqueline S. Latimer for variances of (1) 13 ft to permit a swimming pool 12 ft from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; and (2) 10 ft to permit a garage addition 15 ft
from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1050 Bay Esplanade, Man dalay Sub, Blk 68, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 95-53
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, requested a continuance so the case can be heard by a full board.
Deborah Kynes spoke in opposition to the request, stating she represents neighbors and adjoining property owners who oppose the request. She read and submitted for the record a letter
detailing the names of area property owners and their objections. They felt by diminishing setbacks and building a pool in the front yard, the proposal would negatively impact their
property values.
Ms. Kynes requested clarification of the amount of the first variance. It was indicated the staff report was changed from 13 feet to 8 feet. She also requested written confirmation,
if the request is approved, that landscaping on the proposed berm will not obstruct visibil ity for the two intersecting roadways bordering the property.
Mr. Richter said he will provide clarification of the request and a copy of the site plan to Ms. Kynes. Ms. Kynes was requested to provide addresses of the objecting property owners
at the next meeting.
Member Johnson moved to continue V 95-53 to the meeting of November 9, 1995. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. City of Dearborn/Dept of Housing for variances of (1) 15 ft to permit carport structure 25 ft from a street right-of-way where 40 ft is required; (2) 75 ft to permit carport structure
5 ft from a side property line where 80 ft is required; and (3) 14% clear space requirement to permit 6% clear space where 20% is required at 223 Island Way, Island Estates, Unit 2,
Lots 6, 7, 8 & 9, zoned RM 28 (Multi Family Residential). V 95-54
Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented in writing, the staff recom mendation. He stated the applicants wish to reconstruct the Dearborn Towers carports that were
storm damaged in 1992. The carports are to be restored to their original condi tion. He detailed the setback and open space requirements and noted these variances were previously approved
about a year ago. Staff recommended approval with three conditions.
Rocco Capabianco, representing the applicant, explained the extenuating circumstances associated with this second request. He said the bid for this project was submitted and awarded
on time, but the variances expired because the contractor did not receive bonding until after the time limit for obtaining the building permit. He said the applicant will sustain substantial
financial loss if the variances are not approved because the contractor has already begun construction. He said he will pull the building permit tomorrow if the vari ances are approved.
Mr. Capabianco questioned correspondence he received stating the carports may not be within 18 feet of the seawall. Mr. Richter indicated the letter was likely for informational purposes
as it did not appear to apply to the current application. Mr. Capabianco indicated he will physically check the site to ensure the construction is not within 18 feet of the seawall.
He stressed the reconstruction will be exactly the same size and location as the original.
In response to questions, Mr. Capabianco explained the condominiums were purchased by a former administration for recreational use by the employees and residents of the City of Dearborn.
He said the operation and maintenance of the property is funded by the rental income. Rents are monitored by a local realtor and set 20 percent less than prevailing rates on the beach.
He said the property is always at 100 percent occupancy and has a long waiting list.
One letter was submitted in opposition to the application. Two residents of 301 Island Way felt the proposal would degrade their property value.
Member Schwob moved to grant the variances 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, 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; 2) the requisite build ing permit(s)
shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The reconstruction work shall be limited to the location and size of the two existing carports. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Minutes Approval - October 12, 1995
Member Schwob moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing by the Board Reporter to each member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously
Director's Items
1. Central Permitting Operations and Accomplishments
Mr. Shuford distributed and discussed copies of the City Commission's Principles of Operation. Giving an overview of the many projects in which his department is involved, he stated
about 8,000 building permits, 22,000 inspections and 400 agenda items are accomplished each year. He displayed presentation charts listing departmental goals, current staff members and
their duties and a detail of work in progress. He said, through process and organization changes, his department has streamlined procedures. Additional handouts were discussed relating
to Central Permitting's efforts to streamline Code requirements, promote and direct redevelop ment and improve City appearance and beautification.
2. Proposed 1996 Meeting Schedule
In response to a question, it was indicated the 2:00 p.m. meeting time listed on the proposed schedule is a typographical error. It was not intended to change from the current 1:00
p.m. meeting time. Consensus of the board was to approve the schedule as corrected to reflect a 1:00 p.m. meeting time.
Board and Staff Comments
Member Schwob praised Mr. Richter's staff reports on the variance applications. The Board agreed they are extremely thorough and informative.
Member Schwob questioned the status of returning sign variance hearings to the Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB.) Mr. Shuford responded the City Commission indicated they wish
to continue hearing sign variances through the end of the amortization period as the last of the non-conforming signs are being brought into compliance. He said the reasoning is that
the Commission is looking at having DCAB hear only initial sign variance requests. The exact time frame was not known. Staff will provide updates as new information becomes available.
Member Gans questioned the 1996 sign code revision. Mr. Shuford said the amendment is being prepared to fine tune language and simplify application of the Code. It was indi cated
there are no provisions to change the square footage requirements.
Member Gans questioned if sign code enforcement by the Community Response Team has diminished. Mr. Shuford indicated the team was allowing more time for alleged violators to exhaust
their administrative relief efforts before proceeding with strong enforcement.
Member Martin questioned if a follow-up procedure is in place with the Community Response Team to ensure Board imposed conditions are met. Mr. Shuford explained, as the conditions
are often tied into the building permit process, they are usually tracked within the
Central Permitting Department. He said builders and inspectors are informed when a special code requirement exists. As no specific violations were noted, Mr. Shuford encouraged the
Board and public to report violations to the Community Response Team or the Central Permitting Customer Service Representative. Member Schwob noted con cerned citizens are one of the
best resources for observing and reporting activities in the community.
In response to a question from Mr. Gans, Mr. Shuford stated he was looking forward to the Design Review Board implementing design standards and beginning to hear cases after the first
of the year. Discussion ensued regarding the City Building division.
A question was raised regarding construction of a roof over outdoor seating at a local pub. Staff is to investigate.
Member Gans questioned why DCAB did not hear a variance request for an applicant building across the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL.) Mr. Shuford indicated the Board only
hears requests for setbacks from the CCCL.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 1:41 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
Board Reporter