Loading...
04/13/2005 . . . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL ON BUilDING/FLOOD CONTROL MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER April 13, 2005 Present: John H. Logan, Jr. Edward H. Walker, Jr. Gary Richter Chair Board Member Board Member Absent: Arthur Shand Pankaj Shah Board Member Board Member Also Present: Kevin Garriott Leslie Dougall-Sides Bill Wright Brenda Moses Building Officiai Assistant City Attorney Building Construction Inspector II Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at the Municipal Services Building. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. A ~ Approval of Minutes: March 9. 2005 Member Richter mO'v'ed to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2005, meeting, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B - Continued Requests - None. C - New Requests 1) Case #BAA05-04 - 921 Lakeview Road. Clearwater. Owner: Sadlon Properties, Inc.. 411 Cleveland Street. Unit 204. Clearwater. FL 33755. Representative: Steven A. Williamson. ESQ. For Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & Burns. LLP. 911 Chestnut Street. Clearwater. FL 33756. Request: 90-dav Extension in which to brinQ subiect property into compliance. Location: Lake BelleviewAdd Blk 1, Lots 13.14.15, and 16lessst. Parcel #21-29-15-47466-001-0130. Roger Larson, applicant's representative, said the applicant's 90-day extension expired January 11, 2005. He said his client misunderstood what should have been accomplished first. The applicant addressed the life safety concerns of the building by removing the tenants. The last tenant was removed in March 2005. The applicant has acquired an architect and obtained an after-the-fact demolition permit, and applied for a building permit this morning. A number of items regarding a building permit were not accomplished. Mr. Larson said Building Department staff had indicated that building permits could not be issued because the project could no longer be grandfathered in, site plan approval was required, there was no current occupational license, and the property had been abandoned. Mr. Larson said the property was not abandoned, the utilities are being paid regularly, the grounds are being maintained, the property is properly secured and there are no tenants occupying the building, and Sadlon Properties, Inc. has a valid occupational license valid until September 2005. He requested a 90-day extension to Building-Flood Control 2005-04-13 1 . bring the property into compliance, and requested a directive to the Building Department to allow the applicant to complete the work. He said plans have been drawn and submitted to the City. He said there was a misunderstanding with the City. Building Construction Inspector Bill Wright said upon inspection of the property yesterday, he found open wiring issues, an electric meter was operational in one of the units, the interior elements have been removed which requires an after-the-fact permit, and the corner of one end of the building has open wiring. He said the property was inspected by the Fire Department on August 10, 2004. then came to this board on October 13, 2004, at which time the applicant was granted 90 days to come into compliance. On January 11, 2005, the extension expired without any work done. On March 11, 2005, the applicant applied for another 90-day extension. The stored materials have been removed. Staff requests the request be denied. Mr. Larson said if the request is denied, the building would have to be demolished. He said demolition is a harsh remedy for a running meter in one unit, some vacant light bulbs, and a cord running through stucco. He said he appreciates the concern with the length of time that has elapsed, but felt his client made a diligent effort to go forward in January 2005. Mr. Wright said staffs recommendation for denial is not what is wrong with the building today, but because the applicant has had eight months to come into compliance. In response to a question, Mr. Larson said the proposed uses would be consistent with the commercial land use and zoning. . In response to a question, Building Official Kevin Garriott said the Building Department did not delay the project, as there has been no activity on the property. He said the applicant has written letters and made telephone calls to City officials, and recently hired an architect. This board and staff have given the applicant sufficient time extensions to complete the work. He said this board is not obligated to rehear the case. Mr. Larson said he did not mean to imply the City delayed the project, but that there were delays due to the applicant's understanding that the tenants be removed first, and that some staff members claimed the property was abandoned and not eligible to be grandfathered in with respect to current Code. Mr. Garriott said the City's priority is to ensure compliance. In response to a question as to why the board's original order was not met, Judy Weigand, property owner, said she had planned to credit the new owner for any repairs needed when the property was sold. She said all but one tenant was removed from the property except one who was recently removed. Mr. Garriott said when this case went before the board in October 2004, it had been determined that 90 days was sufficient tirnt; to respond to any questions and bring the property into compliance. Mr. Wright said the previous order of the board included a motion that if the structure was not brought into compliance, the City would demolish the building. Ms. Weigand said she did not realize the severity of the situation and hopes she has the opportunity to save the building. In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said there was no prior appeal from the previous order. Mr. Larson said the City Inspector said the demolition process would be stopped if the applicant filed a permit and secured a contractor. He said he was hired January 11, 2005, after the extension expired. Discussion ensued regarding the lack of cooperation by the applicant and the staff time involved regarding this CaSSo It was remarked that the board does not want people repeatedly . Building-Flood Control 2005-04-13 2 . . . asking for extensions with no effort to come into compliance. The Chair stated that if this board grants another extension, it would be with the understanding this case would not come back to this board. Ms. Weigand said she understood the situation. Ms. Dougall-Sides read the applicable Code sections regarding abandonment. Mr. larson said none of the criteria applies to this building. Mr. Garriott said staff provides applicants every opportunity to achieve compliance. Mr. larson said the architect feels under normal circumstances 90 days for compliance is sufficient. Member Walker moved to grant a 90-day extension to make the necessary repairs to the building at 921 lakeview Road, Clearwater, and that the building remain unoccupied during the construction period, and if repairs are not completed within the timeframe specified the City will demolish the building. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Wright said if permits are in place prior to expiration of the extension, staff will work with the applicant so they will bring the property into compliance. Adiourn The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. .. ~ cha~e4f~pea' On Building/Flood Control Building-Flood Control 2005-04-13 3