05/13/1993 (2)
L""
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE AD..JUSTMENT BOARD
DATE
05//3/93
, .
.
.~7-
//c
..:",\
,)
..
--.
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, May 13, 1993 - 1:00 p.m. - Commission Meeting Roomt
city Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, Florida
To consider requests for variances of the Land Development Code:
I. Time Extension
1. (continued from 4/22/93 - 1st request for a time extension)
L M Loken (Imperial square Shopping center) for a variance of 58
parking spaces to permit a shopping center with 293 parking spaces
at 1440-1494 S Belcher Rd, See 24-29-15, M&B 41.02, 41.03, 41.04
and 41.05t zoned CC (commercial center) and CG (general commer-
cial). V 92-35
Action:
To be withdrawn. Variance was expired; no action taken.
2. (1st request for a time extension) Howard R Jimmie (Howard
Jimmie's Truck parts) for variances of (1) 15 ft to permit a zero
ft wide landscape buffer between an industrial use and residential
zoning district; (2) 43 ft to permit development on a lot with a
width of 57 ft at setback line; and (3) 15 ft to permit a building
zero ft from a side property line abutting a residential zone at
609 Seminole st, J.H. Rouse's Sub, Blk 3, Lots 19 thru 21, zoned IL
(Limited Industrial). V 92-56
Action:
Granted a time extension to November 12, 1993.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 4/8/93) Everybody's Tabernacle, Inc
(Homeless Emergency project, Ine) for variances (1) to permit
office and storage trailers to remain as permanent structures; (2)
of 33 ft to permit office structure 2 ft from street right-of-way
and of 30 ft to permit storage structure 5 ft from street right-of-
way lines where 35 ft is required; (3) of 10 ft to allow structural
addition 25 ft from street right-of-way line where 35 ft is
required; (4) of 61 inches in height to allow a fence height of 91
inches where 48 inches in height is permitted; (5) of 43 inches in
height to allow a fence height of 91 inches where 48 inches in
height is permitted; (6) 5 ft to allow a zero ft setback where a 5
ft setback is required and (7) to allow zero landscaping on right-
of-way side of fence at 1120 N Betty Lane, Fairburn Addn, Blk F,
Lots 1-14, zoned P/SP (pUblic/semi-public). V 93-24
Action: Granted as requested subject to the following conditions:
This variance is based on the applicat.ion for a variance and
documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans,
DCAB Action
05/13/93
1
"..-..,
'--
~,'
surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the
applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the
above documents submi tted in support of the request for a variance
regarding the work to be done wi th regard to the si te or any
physical structure located on the site, will result in this
variance being null and of no effect; 2) the trailer facing Cedar
street shall be painted and underpinned within two months of this
public hearing and 3) all certificates of occupancy shall be
obtained within three months of this public hearing.
Item B - (continued from 4/22/93) Sunset Associates (Joel n'
Jerry's) for variances (1) of 10 ft to allow zero ft landscape
buffer where 10 ft is required; (2) of 2% to allow 27% building
coverage where 25% is permitted; (3) of 12.51% to allow 12.49% open
space where 25% is required and (4) of 179 parking spaces to allow
1,180 spaces where 1,359 are required at 23654 U.8. Hwy 19 N, Sec
6-29-16, M&Bs 41.01, 41.02, 41.04, 41.05 and 41.06 together with
Blackburn sub, parts of Lots 1 and 12, zoned CC (commercial
center). V 93-26
Action: Denied variance #1.
Variances 12, #3 and 14 were granted on May 14, 1992 and
are still in effect; therefore, no action was taken. NOTE: The
pmpose of this request JVas to recollsider the pl'e~'iOlls comlitiOlI of approl'al relatillg to
providing tlte lO-foot landscape buffe,..
1. James L. and Matta Panoutsos for a variance of 3 ft to allow
a parking space zero ft from a side property line where 3 ft is
required at 205 S cirus Ave, Skycrest Sub, Unit 9, Blk E. Lot 10
and one-half of vacated alley on E, zoned RS 8 (single family
residential). V 93-29
Action:
Granted as requested.
2. Clayton E Haskins and wannie L Taylor for a variance of 6.3 ft
to permit alterations to a structure having a rear setback of 3.7
ft where 10.0 ft is required at 1450 Pine st, Breeze Hill, Blk C,
Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 93-30
Action:
withdrawn by the applicant. No action taken.
3. Family Resources, Inc for variances of 4 ft to allow a fence
8 ft in height where 4 ft in height is permitted and 2 ft in height
to allow a fence 8 ft in height where 6 ft in height is permitted
at 1622 Turner st, Longview sub, Lot 32 and part of Lot 33, zoned
RM 8 (mUlti-family residential). V 93-31
Action: Granted a variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft in
height where 4 ft is permitted subject to the follo'lfing conditions:
I) 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
DCAB Action
2
05/13/93
w " ~' I....',. +.0 " I I ". .. . . !. ., :, t.. I ... _ ~..
.'/....,
,-,-
"'-.-
surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the
applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the
above documents submi tted in support of the request for a variance
regarding the work to be done wi th regard to the si te or any
physical structure located on the site, will result in this
variance being null and of no effect; 2) the fence shall be
located according to the si te plan as submi tted and 3) the
requisite permits shall be obtained within six (6) months from the
date of this public hearing.
4. James E ~urnet III for a variance of 95 ft to allow a dock 120
ft in length where 25 ft is permitted at 1748 Sunset Dr, North
Shore Park Sub, Blk 11, Lot 5 and submerged land, zoned RS 8
(single family residential). V 93-32
Action: Granted as requested 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 and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of
this public hearing.
5. Leopoldo A Donati and Lucia A Grimaldi for a variance of 2 ft
in height to allow a fence 6 ft in height where 4 ft in height is
permitted at 941 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 60, Lot 1, zoned
RS 8 (single family residential). V 93-33
Action: Granted as requested subject to the following condi tions:
~) 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 fence shall be
constructed according to the site plan as submitted with this
application and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained
withi,n six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
6. Gerald R and Wendy M Santa Maria for a variance of 2 parking
spaces to allow 8 parking spaces where 10 spaces are required at
2530 sunset pt Rd, Blackburn sub, part of Lot 12, zoned CG (general
commercial). V 93-34
Action: Granted as requested subject to the following conditions:
1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and
documents submi tted by the applicant, including maps, plans,
DCAB Action
3
05/13/93
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 wi tl1 regard to the si te or any
physical structure located on the site, will l:esult in this
variance being null and of no effect; 2) the second floor shall
never be used for retail and 3) the requisite building permit shall
be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing.
7. Emmanuel J and Yvette S Lakis for a variance of 5 ft to allow
a structural addition 20 feet from a street right-of-way where 25
ft is required at 1228 Bell Dr, canterbury Heights, Lot 14, zoned
RS 6 (single family residential). V 93-35
Action: Granted as requested 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 wi th regard to the si te or any
physical structure located on the site, will resul t in this
variance being null and of no effect; 2) the addition shall be
constructed according to the site plan as submitted with this
application and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
8. B J E Inc and Pelican Two, Inc (Pelican Walk Shopping ctr) for
variances of (1) 10 ft to allow a structure zero ft from a street
right-of-way where 10 ft is required and (2) 25% to allow 100% palm
tree plantings where 75% is permitted at 483 Mandalay Ave,
Clearwater Beach Park, 1st Addn, Blk A, Lots 2-8 and Blk B, Lots
32-43 and adjacent vacated alley and Clearwater Beach Park, Lots
43-48, part of Lot 64 and Lots 65-71, zoned CB (beach commercial)
and CR 28 (resort Commercial). V 93-36
Action: Granted as requested 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 wi th regard to the site or any
physical structure located on the site, will result in this
variance being null and o,f no effect; 2) an immediate physical
inspection shall be made for the Jamminz Restaurant in order to
determine whether or not the legal requirements for adequate
parking are available upon the si te and to have this verified prior
to final site plan approval; 3) there shall be a 20 percent excess
of palm trees installed (120 percent of the troe planting require-
DCAB Action
4
05/13/93
r"
! -',
ments); 4) close attention shall be paid to all site and building
plans to assure the tropical seascape design 111eets the requirements
of the Beach Task Force; and 5) the requisite site plan shall be
certified within one year from the date of this public hearing.
9. Imperial Gardens Co/Rondenan Realty Inc,for variances of (1)
56 inches in height to allow a wall 86 inches in height where 30
inches in height is permitted and (2) 3.5 ft to allow a wall 1.5 ft
from property line where 5.0 ft is r~quir~d at 2100 Nursery Rd, Sec
24-29-15, M&B 41.01, zoned RM-20 (multi-family residential). V 93-
37
Action: Granted as requested subject to the following conditions:
~) This variance is based on the applicaLion 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 wi th 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 landscaping between
the fence and the Nursery Road right-of-way shall be provided in
accordance with Section 42.27; 3) the signs to be mounted on the
fence shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the Nursery
Road right-of-way to comply with the sign regulations Section
44 .4~ (4) (a) ~.d. and 4) the requisite building permit shall be
{ obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
"'-.."'. ' hearing.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also consid-
ered:
1. ORDINANCE NO. 5392-93 an ordinance of the City of Clearwater,
Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; readopting,
ratifying, and confirming subsection (1) of section 44.31, Code of
Ordinances, relating to sign permits; providing an effective date.
Action:
Recommended adoption.
2. ORDINANCE NO. 5399-93 an ordinance of the City of Clearwater,
Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending section
42.24 Code of Ordinances, to permit elevated air conditioning and
like mechanical equipment and associated decking and structural
components to be located in side setback areas; providing an
effective date.
Action:
Recommended adoption.
III. Approval of Minutes of April 22, 1993
Action:
Approved as amended.
~,.
OCAB Action
5
05/13/93
, "
, > ,.
".........,
I' ,
.J~' \
I, ,
',-".J
w
J'
\ '
"
.. ~ >
t I"",
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
V. ' Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m.
"
"
DCAB Action
6
05/13/93
~
'I......~
, /
,.....
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
May 13, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the
Commission Chambers of city Hall. He outlined the procedures and
advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision of the
Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an
Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. He noted Florida law
requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have
a record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda
order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Time Extensions
1. (continued from 4/22/93 - 1st request for a time
extension) L M Loken (Imperial Square Shopping center)
for a variance of 58 parking spaces to permit a shopping
center with 293 parking spaces at 1440-1494 S Belcher Rd,
Sec 24-29-15, M&B 41.02, 41.03, 41.04 and 41.05, zoned CC
(commercial center) and CG (general commercial). V 92-35
Senior Planner Glatthorn stated approval for this variance was
conditioned upon certification of the final site plan. This was
not done and the variance expired. No action was taken.
2. (1st request for a time extension) Howard R Jimmie
(Howard Jimmie's Truck Parts) for variances of (1) 15 ft
to permit a zero ft wide landscape buffer between an
industrial use and residential zoning district; (2) 43 ft
to permit development on a lot with a width of 57 ft at
setback line; and (3) 15 ft to permit a building zero ft
from a side property line abutting a residential zone at
609 Seminole st, J.H. Rouse's Sub, Blk 3, Lots 19 thru
21, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). V 92-56
DCAB Minutes
05/13/93
1
/',., ,
The applicant requested a time extension due to being in negotia-
tions with potential buyers of the property.
Ms. Whitney moved to grant a six-month time extension to November
12, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 4/8/93) Everybody's Tabernacle,
Inc (Homeless Emergency project, Inc) for variances (1)
to permit office and storage trailers to remain as
permanent structures; (2) of 33 ft to permit office
structure 2 ft from street right-of-way and of 30 ft to
permit storage structure 5 ft from street right-of-way
I ines where 35ft is required; (3) of 10ft to allow
structural addition 25 ft from street right-of-way line
where 35 ft is required; (4) of 61 inches in height to
allow a fence height of 91 inches where 48 inches in
height is permitted; (5) of 43 inches in height to allow
a fence height of 91 inches where 48 inches in height is
permitted; (6) 5 ft to allow a zero ft setback wh~re a 5
ft setback is required and (7) to allow zero landscaping
on right-of-way side of fence at 1120 N Betty Lane,
Fairburn Addn, Blk F, Lots 1-14, zoned P/SP (public/semi-
public). V 93-24
senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail,
"-_ stating the applicant is requesting the variances to validate
various nonconforming uses, some of which have existed for 15
years. Staff has worked closely with the applicant to identify all
the existing nonconformitias and rectify all violations on the
site.
Ms. Glatthorn stated variances #1 and #2 are to allow two existing
mobile home trailers to remain as office/storage units; #3 is to
permit the construction of a building addition between two existing
apartment buildings. The remaining variances are to bring an
existing wrought iron fence into compliance. Variances relating to
this fence were previously granted (V 92-68: 10/10/91). The
applicant is asking the Board to reconsider and delete certain
conditions which were imposed upon the granting of the previous
fence variances.
Barbara Green, representing the applicant, reviewed the requests,
stating she has been working with City staff and wants to take care
of these issues.
Ms. Green responded to questions relating to signage, a tool shed
against a fence, the proposed addition, and the possibility of
locating the storage trailer elsewhere on the site. It was
indicated there are mature trees and heavy landscaping on the site,
...'-*'..... .
DCAB Minutes
2
05/13/93
. . .... .':.. , . '" ' . . .. .. ~ I ~ . ..
~
making it difficult to relocate any of the existing structures.
She stated she is having to turn away single parents seeking
shelter due to lack of space and the proposed connecting structure
will contain four bedrooms and a bath.
Concerns were expressed the addition will be overdeveloping the
property and ground-level landscaping will be needed if it is
allowed.
Opposition toward making trailers permanent structures and lifting
the conditions relating to the fence variances was expressed.
However, it was felt the applicants should be encouraged and aided
in their efforts to help the homeless.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson
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 more specifically
because, the variances arise from conditions which are unique to
the property; a lot of people are coming in and this is not a huge
area; the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical
conditions of the property involved and the strict application of
the provisions of this development code would result in an
unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and the variances are the
minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created 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 trailer facing Cedar
street shall be painted and underpinned within two months of this
public hearing and 3) all certificates of occupancy shall be
obtained within three months of this public hearing. The motion
was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin,and
Whitney, Mr. Johnson voted "aye"; Messrs. Pliska and Gans voted
"nay". Motion carried.
Item B - (continued from 4/22/93) sunset Associates ( n'
Jerry's) for variances (1) of 10 ft to allow zero ft
landscape buffer where 10 ft is required; (2) of 2% to
allow 27% building coverage where 25% is permitted; (3)
of 12.51% to allow 12.49% open space where 25% is
required and (4) of 179 parking spaces to allow 1,180
spaces where 1,359 are required at 23654 U.S. Hwy 19 N,
Sec 6-29-16, M&Bs 41.01, 41.02, 41.04, 41.05 and 41.06
together with Blackburn Sub, parts of Lots 1 and 12,
zoned CC (commercial center). V 93-26
-,,'
DCAB Minutes
3
05/13/93
(....'.
-~
senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating
variances #2, #3 and #4 were previously granted (V 92-22; 5/14/92)
and are still in effect. One of the conditions of approval in that
case related to providing a 10-foot landscape buffer along US 19.
Variance #1 is being requested as a means of asking the Board to
reconsider and modify this condition, involving 22 parking spaces
along us 19. The applicant proposes to leave the 11 parking spaces
closest to the entrance of the store and replace the remaining 11
spaces with a 19-foot landscape buffer.
Discussion ensued regarding the history of the site. Concern was
expressed that granting the variance would rescind conditions placed
by both the Development Code Adjustment Board and the Planning and
zoning Board relating to an alcoholic beverage request.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated the Planning and
Zoning Board and the city commission approved beer and wine sales at
Joel & Jerry's and the applicant asked for a time extension to
request the Development Code Adjustment Board to waive the landscape
buffering condition. He said the city Forester recommended the
proposed solution to leave half the parking spaces and create a
landscape "parkll in the other half of the area in question. The
Assistant Traffic Engineer concurs. The drive aisle outside the
store is very long and wide, allowing vehicles to pick up speed,
causing a hazard to pedestrian traffic trying to cross the parking
lot. He stated safety is a primary concern of Joel & Jerry's and
handicapped and senior patrons need parking closer to the building.
Photographs of the site were submitted for the record. It was noted
that, in the photographs, there is a fringe of grass along US 19.
Mr. Pressman stated the property line runs along the edge of the
parking lot and the grassy fringe will no longer remain after the
right-of-way is widened.
Alan Bittker, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the
application and discussed the traffic conditions on the site. He
stated there is undue hardship related to traffic running through
the site and there are concerns regarding safety, service and the
elderly finding it difficult to park across the drive aisle from the
store.
In response to a question, Mr. Pressman stated there is not suffi-
cient parking in front of the store to alleviate these concerns
because handicapped parking spaces, walk-through spaces and
customers from other stores take up most of the available space in
. front of the store.
Discussion ensued with it being indicated the parking lot is seldom
full on the east side, there is no way to control traffic speed
without reconfiguring the circulation pattern and removal of
landscaping deteriorates a property. It was felt landscaping should
be an overall part of a shopping center.
DCAB Minutes
4
05/13/93
/'''
i "
~"U!'~, J
"-...,
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson
moved to deny variance #1 as requested because the applicant has not
demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed
in section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary
hardship was shown; the variance is not the minimum; the request has
already been denied by the Development Code Adjustment Board and the
Planning and Zoning Board; the granting of the variance would
adversely affect the public health, safety, order, convenience, or
general welfare of the community and would violate the general
spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in sections
35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote
being taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Pliska, Gans and .Johnson voted
"ayell; Ms. Martin voted "nay". Motion carried.
No action was taken on variances #2, #3 and #4, which were granted
on May 14, 1992.
1. James L. and Hatta Panoutsos for a variance of 3 ft
to allow a parking space zero ft from a side property line
where 3 ft is required at 205 S Cirus Ave, Skycrest Sub,
unit 9, Blk E. Lot 10 and one-half of vacated alley on E,
zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 93-29
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating
the applicant wishes to construct a driveway along the north side
property line and due to the location of a large oak tree, is unable
to meet the three-foot setback. There is a landscape hedge along
the property line of the adjacent neighbor.
James Panoutsos, owner/applicant, indicated the driveway is needed
to be able to legally park his boat and he is unable to meet the
setback due to a large oak tree. The neighbors are in support of
the request.
Five letters were submitted in support of the application.
Concerns were expressed with cutting the tree roots to build, the
driveway and with a jog in the driveway causing difficulty backing
the boat into the parking space. Mr. Panoutsos said the shallow
cuts will not be harmful to the tree. He stated he has experience
training bus drivers and will have no trouble backing his small
boat.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney
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 more specifically
because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the
property and not caused by the owner; the particular physical
surroundings, particularly the large tree that is in the way,
results in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and the
variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship as stated
above. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
DCAB Minutes
5
05/13/93
f~''\
2. Clayton E Haskins and Wannie L Taylor for a variance
of 6.3 ft to permit alterations to a structure having a
rear setback of 3.7 ft where 10.0 ft is required at 1450
Pine st, Breeze Hill, Blk C, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (single
family residential). V 93-30
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained this application has been
withdrawn by the applicant and no action is necessary.
3. Family Resources, Inc for variances of 4 ft to allow
a fence 8 ft in height where 4 ft in height is permitted
and 2 ft in height to allow a fence 8 ft in height where
6 ft in height is permitted at 1622 Turner st, Longview
Sub, Lot 32 and part of Lot 33, zoned RM 8 (multi-family
residential). V 93-31
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail
stating this property is a cr~s~s center for runaways and is
currently licensed for ten children. The applicant wishes to
construct a fence eight feet high to replace an existing, deterio-
rating six-foot fence around the property.
Richard Adelson, representing the applicant, stated this facility
has been in existence for some time. The reason for the increase
in height is to decrease the frequency of the children's ball going
over the fence into the neighbors' yards. He said the increase in
height would not substantially affect the appearance of the
~ neighborhood and is supported by the surrounding property owners.
DCAB Minutes
6
05/13/93
Concern was expressed an eight-foot fence is excessive; however,
there was no objection to replacing the existing siX-foot fence.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney
moved to grant a variance of two feet to allow a siX-foot high
fence as located on the site plan, 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 fence shall be located
according to the diagram on the site plan as submitted and 3) the
requisite permits shall be obtained within six (6) months from the
date of this pUblic hearing. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
",-,,<
,~
I
"""".
\~""
4. James E Burnet III for a variance of 95 ft to allow
a dock 120 ft in length where 25 ft is permitted at 1748
Sunset Dr, North Shore Park sub, Blk 11, Lot 5 and
submerged land, zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
V 93-32
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application, stating the
applicant wishes to construct a new dock to replace what was
destroyed by the storm on March 13, 1993. The additional length is
needed to allow the owner to reach water deep enough to dock his
boat. She submitted an aerial view of the vicinity prior to the
storm.
James E. Burnet, III, owner/applicant and Tracy Butler, contractor,
stated they wish to replace what previously existed.
A photograph of the dock as it previously existed was submitted for
the record.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans
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 more specifically
because, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the
hardship created by the most recent storm, subject to the following
condi tions: 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 and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of
this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
5. Leopoldo A Bonati and Lucia A Grimaldi for a
variance. of 2 ft in height to allow a fence 6 ft in
height where 4 ft in height is permitted at 941 Eldorado
Ave, Mandalay sub, Blk 60, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single
family residential). V 93-33
senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail
stating the applicants wish to construct a six-foot privacy fence
to protect the family and their dog on this single~family property
located near a beach public access point. staff felt the proposed
fence would impair visibility of properties to the east and did not
appear to support the standards for approval.
DCAB Minutes
7
05/13/93
/.~ u.
'.
'r_F"
Lucia Grimaldi, the owner/applicant, stated the fence is needed
because the beach access is being redone and she is concerned with
safety and increased pedestrian traffic. She stated her property
is unique due to being a corner lot. The fence will be aestheti-
cally pleasing with a great deal of landscaping and is needed for
privacy and to contain the family dog.
In response to questions, Ms. Grimaldi stated the fence will be set
back three feet from the property line. She said an old garage in
the rear of the property is an eyesore and has been torn down. Her
dog is a German Shepherd.
Ms. Grimaldi submitted photographs of similar fences in the
neighborhood.
One citizen spoke in support of the application, stating the
applicants have no back yard and the proposed fence'would provide
needed privacy.
Three petitions containing fourteen signatures were submitted in
support of the application.
Concern was expressed with the proposal. It was felt there is not
sufficient hardship and the application is not the minimum.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney
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 more specifically
because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to
the property and not caused by the owner or applicant and the
variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created
by the location on the beach and the proximity to the public access
across the street 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 fence shall be constructed according to the site plan as
submitted with this application and 3) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of
this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the
vote being taken, Mses. Martin and whitney, Mr. Pliska voted "aye";
Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
6. Gerald R and Wendy M Santa Maria for a variance of
2 parking spaces to allow a parking spaces where 10
spaces are required at 2530 sunset pt Rd, Blackburn Sub,
part of Lot 12, zoned CG (general commercial). V 93-34
DCAB Minutes
a
05/13/93
f'\
, . .~ ..
,
\
"-. '
I
\ J
-"
senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail
stating the applicant wishes to construct a new, two-story jewelry
store on a corner lot previously occupied by a Farm store. Staff
recommends adjusting the building size down to meet parking
requirements and screening the dumpster, if one is to be used.
"
Gerard santa Maria, owner/applicant, stated he has operated this
small family-operated business in Clearwater for over 21 years. He
hired an engineer to design the largest building that would fit on
the site, not knowing a second floor, although not going above the
20-foot height limit, would create additional parking requirements.
He would not have purChased the property if he had known what the
limitation on building size would be. The proposed second floor
will have no retail area, but will contain storage, a bathroom and
a lounge for the use of the family. He felt the parking calcula-
tions should be based on the amount of first floor area actually
used for retail because if the second floor was not included in the
parking calculations, he would need less than 7 spaces. It was
indicated he meets all the setback and retention requirements.
Mr. Santa Maria stated his store will have only 15 to 20 customers
a day. As he and his wife do not drive to work, he feels eight
parking spaces will be sufficient. He proposes to decrease traffic
congestion and hazards by closing the Sunset Point Road
ingress/egress and limiting access to the Lawson Street side of the
property.
In response to a question, Mr. Santa Maria stated much of his
clientele is repeat business as opposed to transient trade.
Concern was expressed if the property was sold in the future, the
second floor could be converted to additional retail or living
quarters. Mr. santa Maria stated this business has been, and will
continue to be, passed on from father to son.
It was noted the proposal does not appear to meet handicapped
requirements. Mr. Santa Maria stated he was only made aware of the
parking deficit when the plans were reviewed by the city Building
Division.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney
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 more specifically
because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to
the property and is not caused by the owner or applicant and the
variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship subject
to the following conditions: 1) this variance is based on the
application for a variance and documents submitted by the appli-
cant, 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
DCAB Minutes
9
05/13/93
--.',
, '
site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in
this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the second floor
shall never be used for retail and 3) the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this
public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote
being taken, Mses. Whitney and Martin, Messrs. Pliska and Gans
voted "aye"; Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
7. Emmanuel J and Yvette S Lakis for a variance of 5 ft
to allow a structural addition 20 feet from a street
right-of-way where 25 ft is required at ~228 Bell Dr,
Canterbury Heights, Lot 14, zoned RS 6 (single family
residential). V 93-35
senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail
stating the applicant wishes to construct an addition to the front
of his single-family home on an irregularly shaped lot. staff does
not support granting this var iance, as no unique conditions or
hardships exist and there is adequate room for expansion into the
rear or side yards.
Emmanuel Lakis, owner/applicant, stated the existing dining room,
at only 10 by 11 feet, is too small. He feels extending the
addition toward the front would make the best use of the property
and enable him to use his home for entertaining.
In response to questions, Mr. Lakis indicated five feet is being
,_~, requested when only four feet is required to allow a safety margin
due to the curve of the property line. He works as a printer and
does not operate the business from his home.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal, the actual location of
the dining room and the two columns to support an open roof for
shading the front entrance.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney
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 more specifically
because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to
the property and is not caused by the owner or applicant and the
'variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship subject
to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the
application for a variance and documents submitted by the appli-
cant, 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 and 2) tho addition shall
be constructed according to the site plan as submitted with this
~~j
DCAB Minutes
10
05/13/93
F;;,
... ~,'
i ,
",,"
application and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date of this public, hearing. The
motion was duly seconded and, upon the vote being taken, Ms.
Whitney, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "ayel!; Ms. Martin
voted "nay". Motion carried.
8. B J E Inc: and Pelican Two, Inc: (Pelican Walk
Shopping ctr) for variances of (1) 10 ft to allow a
structure zero ft from a street right-of-way where 10 ft
is required and (2) 25% to allow 100% palm tree plantings
where 75% is permitted at 483 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater
Beach Park, 1st Addn, Blk A, Lots 2-8 and Blk B, Lots 32-
43 and adjacent vacated alley and Clearwater Beach Park,
Lots 43-48, part of Lot 64 and Lots 65-71, zoned CB
(beach commercial) and CR 28 (resort commercial) . V 93-36
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail,
stating the applicant is proposing a major redevelopment project on
Clearwater Beach to include a pedestrian plaza and a tropical
seascape theme. The proposal includes properties located on both
sides of Mandalay AvenUe. A Unity of Title is required to link the
restaurant and retail shops on the west side with the new develop-
ment, on the east side.
Concern was expressed regarding whether or not parking requirements
for the restaurant would be verified prior to final approval of the
site plan.
Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, discussed
setback requirements and the advantages of palm trees versus oaks
in a parking area. He stated increasing the impact of the tropical
streetscape by expanding it into a larger plaza and having a 4:1
concentration of palm trees will unify this project with and
augment what the City is doing.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal and a sketch rendering of
what would be provided along Mandalay Avenue was submitted.
In response to questions, Mr. Fowler stated all the property
described in this plan is under one owner and all parking traffic
will enter from poinsettia Street to reduce the impact of traffic
on Mandalay Avenue.
Concern was expressed regarding the color scheme of the restaurant
and a conservative color scheme was requested for the current
proposal. Concerns were also exprossed reg&rding the owner(s) of
these properties having a long history of coming before the Board
and the many questions regarding whether or not parking require-
ments have been met for various projects. Verification of adequate
parking and the Unity of Title were felt to be critical.
DCAB Minutes
05/13/93
1 1
'_C
............,..
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans
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, more specifically
because, the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the
property, the particular physical surroundings, shape, or conditions
of the property involved and the strict application of the provi-
sions of this development code would result in an unnecessary
hardship upon the applicant, to develop this extensive a project,
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) an
immediate physical inspection shall be made for the Jamminz
Restaurant in order to determine whether or not the legal require-
ments for adequate parking are available upon the site and to have
this verified prior to final site plan approval; 3) there shall be
a 20 percent excess of palm trees installed (120 percent of the tree
planting requirements); 4) close attention shall be paid to all site
and building plans to assure .the tropical seascape design meets the
requirements of the Beach Task Force; and 5) the requisite site plan
shall be certified within one year from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being
taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms.
Whitney voted "nay". Motion carried.
9. Imperial Gardens Co/Rondenan Realty Ine for variances
of (1) 56 inches in height to allow a wall 86 inches in
height where 30 inches in height is permitted and (2) 3.5
ft to allow a wall 1.5 ft from property line where 5.0 ft
is required at 2100 Nursery Rd, Sec 24-29-15, M&B 41.01,
zoned RM-20 (multi-family residential). V 93-37
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail,
stating these identical variances were previously granted (V 93-48;
9/24/93); however, expired when the requisite building permit was
not obtained within six months. The current proposal is slightly
different from the first fence design in materials, architectural
design, planter height and location of entryway signs.
Concern was expressed with having an overhead structure at the
entrance and Ms. Glatthorn indicated the new design has more of a
see-through nature than before.
Jonathan Gaines, representing the applicant, stated the original
request expired because the applicant was unable to reach an
agreement with the contractor. The architect redesigned the
proposal to be less expensive and create a better appearance at the
entrance.
DCAB Minutes
12
05/13/93
F"~~
......~.
~
......,1
In response to questions regarding the sign, Mr. Gaines indicated
the original sign was 23-years old, deteriorated and in need of
replacement. The new sign is proposed to be located on the fence
and will require a sign variance.
Discussion ensued regarding the wall and arch height and proposed
construction materials.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin
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 more specifically
because, the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the
property and are not caused by the owner or applicant; the particu-
lar physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the
property involved and the strict application of the provisions of
this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon
the applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to
overcome the hardship created by a need to increase the height of a
wall 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
resul t in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the
landscaping between the fence and the Nursery Road right-of-way
shall be provided in accordance with section 42.27; 3) the signs to
be mounted on the fence shall be set back a minimum of five feet
from the Nursery Road right-of-way to comply with the sign regula-
tions. section 44.41(4) (a)l.d. and 4) the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being
taken, Mses. Whitney and Martin, Messrs. Pliska and Gans voted
"aye"; Mr. Johnson voted "nayll. Motion carried.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
1. ORDINANCE NO. 5382-93 an ordinance of the city of
Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development
Code; readopting, ratifying, and confirming subsection (1)
of Section 44.31, Code of ordinances, relating to sign
permits; providing an effective date.
2. ORDINANCE NO. 5399-93 an ordinance of the city of
Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development
code; amending section 42.24 Code of Ordinances, to permit
elevated air conditioning and like mechanical equipment
and associated decking and structural components to be
located in side setback areas; providing an effective
date.
DCAB Minutes
13
05/13/93
r''.
Cu)
~
Mr. Johnson moved to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Approval of Minutes of April 22, 1993
A request was made to strike out the last sentence of the discus-
sion on page six, relating to the conduct of hearings where a
conflict of interest has been declared.
Ms. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of April 22, 1993,' as
amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
Mr. Johnson is to be on vacation and will not attend the meeting
scheduled for May 27, 1993.
Mr. Pliska is to be on vacation the entire month of June and will
not attend the meetings scheduled for June, 1993.
14
05/13/93
V. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m.
c~-C ~~~
ATTEST:
k1/~
~ city C erk
DCAB Minutes