Loading...
08/28/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER August 28, 1997 Present: Otto Gans Chair William Schwob Vice Chair William Johnson Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter Absent: Mark Jonnatti Board Member The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, meeting procedures and explanation of the appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. New Variance Requests C1. Raymond E. & Mickey L. Watts for a fence height variance within the structural setback from a secondary street right-of-way at 1897 Murray Ave., Blackshire Estates, Lot 18, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 97-50 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to replace a deteriorated six foot wood fence with a new six foot fence in the same location, enclosing the back yard. He detailed the property location, site conditions, and setback requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Ray Watts, the owner/applicant, expressed concern he was not aware of the need for a fence permit to replace the fence in the same location. The fence is needed to enclose the rear yard and pool. The new fence is white PVC material, is more attractive than the old fence, and will last a very long time. The new fence would help buffer the significant noise from adjacent Sunset Point Road and protect his two small dogs. Mr. Watts corrected a notation in the staff report, stating the fence is 14.5 feet from the property line, not 16 feet as stated on the site plan. This fact will not change the requested variance, to fence height. Mr. Watts was advised he will not need a new fence permit reflecting the six foot height, but he will need to inform the Central Permitting Department of the change for their records. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Schwob moved to grant the variance 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 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 this variance 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. Lawrence D. & Rose S. Wellman for a driveway buffer setback variance to permit a driveway within the side setback area at 1631 Turner St., High Point Sub, Blk B, Lot 3 and part of Lot 2, zoned RM 8 (Multi Family Residential). V 97-51 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicants have enlarged their driveway, extending it to the side property line where a three foot minimum setback is required. Staff felt conditions support approval of the wider driveway to accommodate additional parking for the applicants’ vehicles, to avoid having them parked in the street or front yard. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Rose Wellman, the owner/applicant, stated she was unaware of the need for a permit prior to pouring the driveway. Her family needs space for parking a variety of vehicles in one location, to avoid having them parked all over the property. She recently lost a large tree in the front yard due to parking under it. The property owner adjacent to the new driveway spoke in support of allowing the applicants to keep their new driveway in its present location. She was pleased with the way the work turned out. Her letter in support was copied in the board packets. No verbal or written opposition was expressed. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance 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 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 this variance being null and of no effect; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within 30 days from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3. Fountain Square Condominium Association, Inc. for a fence height variance within the structural setback from a secondary street right-of-way at 1799 N. Highland Ave., Fountain Square Condo, Common Area, zoned RM 24 (Multi Family Residential). V 9752 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to replace a deteriorated six foot wood fence along the east property line, separating the subject property from the parking area of the adjacent property. Paul Lally, association president, stated six foot fencing has existed 25 years at this location. The association proposes an exact replacement. Questions were raised why parts of the fence are chain link. Mr. Lally responded the wooden portions belong to the adjacent property, although they were built on the subject property. He stated the chain link belongs to the applicant and needs repair. He did not object to the wooden portions in their present configuration. Lengthy discussion ensued while board members attempted clarification of the proposal. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Schwob moved to grant the variance 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 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 this variance 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval – August 14, 1997 Member Schwob 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 Referring to the first two cases on today’s agenda, Mr. Gans reiterated again the board’s concern that responsibility for obtaining building permits rests with property owners, instead of contractors. It was felt contractors should be held responsible for any penalties imposed as a result of failure to obtain permits because of contractors’ and more frequent exposure to code requirements. Mr. Richter will forward the concern to the Building Official again. 1. Election of Officers -- Consensus was to postpone this item until a full board is present. 2. Britt’s Café – Scott Shuford. Central Permitting Director Mr. Shuford reviewed history of construction on the property, addressing board concerns regarding: 1) the applicants having built beyond the scope of their variance; 2) the applicants not having built according to drawings submitted in support of the variance application; and 3) encroachment into public right-of-way. He explained staff issued a building permit in error, based on plans not included in the variance approval. He agreed the design is not a good example of an outdoor café, but once construction was approved and completed, options were limited. Staff attempted to mitigate the adverse effects by recommending canopy approval. The board denied the canopy request, but upon appeal, a Hearing Officer having overturned the board’s decision. Mr. Shuford stressed Florida legislature supports private property rights. Case law does not support, nor is it in line with the City’s direction, to require an applicant to correct a City mistake. He explained in detail a new computer software system designed to help eliminate mistakes in processing the 8,000 to 10,000 permits the City issues annually. The direction being taken by the new City Manager will encourage focus on design issues, and design guidelines will soon be in place for Clearwater beach. Mr. Gans stressed concern the applicant had deliberately and dishonestly submitted plans for a deck that encroached into the right-of-way, after testifying he understood he must submit for permit approval the same plans submitted for variance consideration. In response, Mr. Shuford reiterated his department failed to thoroughly review the permit application and issued a permit contrary to the variance approval. He noted such a mistake does not happen often. He reiterated the mistake cannot be corrected, and staff is instituting changes to avoid allowing it to happen in the future. In response to questions, Mr. Shuford will investigate whether a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for Britt’s Café, whether recently added fans and electric roof signage are legal; and whether the finished deck height is in compliance with the building permit. Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides distributed copies of the Final Order in the appeal by a third party of Ken Marks’ variance approval. The Administrative Law Judge overturned the board’s approval based on testimony regarding bluff protection mandated by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Discussion ensued regarding the appeal process, selection of impartial Administrative Law Judges (formerly known as Hearing Officers), and introduction of new evidence at appeal hearings. Board members expressed concern with the basis for the decision, stating the “bluff” in the Comprehensive Plan refers to a specific area below City Hall, not the Harbor Oaks waterfront. Ms. Dougall-Sides affirmed the case has a number of valid points for appeal, if the City decides to pursue the matter through the circuit court. Discussion ensued regarding issues associated with the site and the appeal process. Board consensus was to recommend the City appeal the decision to the circuit court. Mr. Shuford responded to questions regarding anticipated advisory board consolidation associated with the Land Development Code rewrite. The new code will focus on raising quality of development, establishing minimum property maintenance standards in line with Southern Building Code requirements, and creating development standards that more effectively promote the City’s goals and vision. Mr. Schwob expressed concern with changing the advisory board system when it appears to work well. He mentioned several areas where he felt DCAB recommendations had improved development quality. Mr. Shuford responded board consolidation is one aspect of the overall emphasis on quality improvement. The focus of the Land Development Code rewrite is on the end product, not the process. He assured the board he will present the new Land Development Code for formal board review as a normal part of the public hearing process. He hopes to have a status report ready next month. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:21 p.m.