11/17/1993 (2)
"
. I
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE AD.JUSTMENT BOARD
DATE 111I'l/q,q
. I
~.7- /230
.,1
(....
,.....
,.
......"...."
"-,~,
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday. November 17, 1993 - 1 :00 p.m. . Commission Meeting Room,
City Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater. Florida
Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
To consider requests for variances of the land Development Code:
I. Time Extensions
1. (2nd request for a time extension) Howard R Jimmie (Howard Jimmie's
Truck Parts} for variances of (1) 15ft 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 In-
dustrial!. V 92-56
A ction: Granted a six-month time extension to May 12, 1994.
II. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (cant from 10/14 & 10/28/93) City of Clearwater for variances of (1)
59 ft to allow a dock length of 91.5 ft where 32.5 ft is permitted; (2) 17.25 ft to
allow a dock width of 40 ft where 22.75 ft is permitted; and (3) 7.5 ft to allow a
setback of 12.5 ft from extended property lines where 20 ft is required at 201
Magnolia Drive, submerged land west of Magnolla Dr. zoned ALlC (Aquatic
Land/Coastal). V 93-66
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, wi'll result in this variance being null and of no effect,' 2) signage shall be erected by
the City to alert the public of the pier's closing at nigllt with enforcement to be handled by the
Police Department,' 3) feeling that security is of paramount importance, proper l'lIumination
compatible with the area and architecturally compatible with emphasis on security shall be
installed,' 4) an electronic safety system, i.e., electronically controlled gate or comparable device
be installed,' this device should be electronically monitored by the Police Department for the safety
of the public and 5) the requisite bw'lding permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the
date of this public hearing.
DCAE3 AGliOfl
11/17/93
~~,
',,-- I
ITEM B - (continued 'rom 10/14/93 & 10/28/93) - Investors Breakers-on-the-
Bay Ltd, for a variance of 138 ft to allow dock length of 405 ft where 267 ft is
permitted at 2909 Gulf.to-Bay Blvd. William Brown's Sub of Bayview. Lots 14 &
15. part of Lots 5. 6 & 13, vacated street and submerged land to the south. zoned
RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential) & ALlC (Aquatic Land/Coastal). V 93.67
Action:
Continued to the meeting of December 9, 1993.
1. Robert E. & Betty J. Hostetler for variances of (1) 10ft to allow enclosure
of existing structure 5 ft from rear property line where 15 ft is. required; (2) 3 ft to
allow building separation of 17 ft where 20 ft is required; (3) 3,120 sq ft to allow
a minimum lot area of 11.800 sq ft where 15, 000 sq ft is required; (4) 12.15 ft
to allow a minimum lot depth of 87.85 ft where 100 ft is required; and (5) 15 ft
to allow a minimum lot width of 135 ft where 150 ft is required at 1959 Rainbow
Dr, Skycrest Unit No 7, Blk B. Lot 10, zoned RM 28 (Multi-Family Residential).
V 93-78
A clion:
Denied.
2. Morritt Homes, Ino (Walgreens Drug Store) for a variance of 18 parking
spaces to allow 89 spaces where 107 spaces are required at 2005 Gulf-to-Bay
Blvd. Midway Sub, Lots 1-12 and strip of land to west. zoned CG (General
Commercial). V 93-79
Action:
Denied.
3. GTE Florida, Ino for a variance of 42 in to allow a fence 72 in in height
where 30 in is permitted at 21051 US Hwy 19 N. See 17-29-16, M&B 23.03,
zoned CH (Highway Commercial). V 93.80
..,,'
Action:
Denied.
4. Dan's Island 1660 Condo Assn, Ino for variances of (1) 20.33 ft to allow
a wall 29.67 ft from Gulf of Mexico where 50 ft is required; and (2) 4 in to allow
a wall 34 in in height where 30 in is permitted at 1660 Gulf Blvd, Dan's Island
Condo 1660 on Sand Key. zoned RM 28 (Multi-Family Residential) and aS/R (Open
Space/Recreation). V 93-81
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.
DCAB Action
2
11/17/93
,r;.
.....w.
5. John & Laura Gianfillppo (Goodyear Tire & Auto) for a variance of 1 parking
space to allow 41 spaces where 42 spaces are required at 235 Belcher Rd S, Sec
18-29-16, M&B 23.07 less road right-of~way, zoned CG (General Commercial).
V 93-82
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.
6. Joseph & Jean A. Mendolia for a variance of 4.78 ft to allow a dock width
of 32.50 ft where 27.72 ft is permitted at 130 Leeward Island, Island Estates of
Clearwater Unit 1, Lot 64, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) and AL-e
(Aquatic Lands-Coastal). V 93-83
Action: Granted as requested subject to the followli'g 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.
7. H. Glaesel-Hollenback TRE & H. Bertram-Nothnagel TRE (Publlx Supermar-
I<et) for a variance of 1 0 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 10 spaces are
required at 200 Island Way. Sec 08-29-15. M&B 13.01. zoned CC (Commercial
Centerl. V 93-84
Action:
Denied.
8. Robert E. Heilman & Heilmans Restaurants, Inc (Heilman's Beachcomber
Restaurant) for a variance of 32 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 32 spaces
are required at 447 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Park 1 st Add, alk B, Lots 16.
23, and vacated alley, Clearwater Beach Park Replat of 1 st Add, 8lk A.lots 12-15,
zoned C8 (Beach Commercial), V 93~85
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 obtaliJed wit/IIi, six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
DCAB Action
3
11/17/93
~ ~..' : I '.. '. '. :....'., {o '. . . , ' , . , ,I 1 '" ,: ...,./ "'." . ' ',.: , : ,': ".,' . ,
f'r"
,
\.......'
(
",-,/
9, Clearwater Bay Marine Ways, Inc (Adventure Seaways CorpfThe Majestic)
for a variance of 81 parking spaces to allow 128 spaces where 209 spaces are
required at 900 Osceola Ave N. J.A. Gorra's Sub. Blk 2, Lots 2 & 3, and part of
Lot 1. and filled submerged land on west, submerged land and riparian rights, Sue
Barco Sub, Lots 13. 14, 23, part of Lot 22. and vacated Nicholson Street. filled
submerged land on west. submerged land and riparian rights. zoned CR 24 (Resort
Commercial) and AL-C (Aquatic Lands-Coastal). V 93-86
Action:
Denied.
10. John Hancock Life Ins Co (The Wine Vault) for a variance of 20 seats to
allow a minimum of 30 seats where 50 seats are required at 2556 McMullen Booth
Rd, See 28-28-16. M&B 33.02. zoned CC (Commercial Center) and OL (Limited
Office). V 93-87
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 aocuments 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, wl1l result in this variance being null and of no effect.' 2) this variance is limited at this
location to the ownership of Warehouse Liquors. Inc. and 3J the requisite building permit shall be
obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
II.
Board and Staff Discussion
III. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p,m.
DCAB Actinn
4
11/17/93
r"o.-,
. ~ )
"""",.
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
November 17, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko. Chairman (1 :05 p.m.)
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Also present:
John Richter, Senior Planner
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 1 :04 p.m. in the Commission Chambers
of City Hall. She outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affocted by any
decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal
Hearing Officer within two weeks. She 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. (2nd request for a time extension) Howard R Jimmie (Howard Jim-
mie'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 In~
dustriall. V 92-56
Mr. Howard Jimmie, owner/applicant. stated if he keeps the property. he plans to develop it.
However, there are several parties interested in buying the subject property, in which case. the
buildings are to be demolished. The extension is needed to allow time to sell the property.
Mr. Gans moved to grant a six-month time extension to May 12, 1994. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (cont from 10/14 & 10/28/93) City of Clearwater for variances of
(1) 59 ft to allow a dock length of 91.5 ft where 32.5 ft is permitted: (2) 17.25
ft to allow a dock width of 40 ft where 22.75 ft is permitted; and (3) 7.5 ft to
allow a setback of 12.5 ft from extended property lines where 20 ft is required at
201 Magnolia Drive. submerged land west of Magnolia Dr, zoned AL/C (Aquatic
Land/Coastal). V 93-66
DCAB Minutes
1
1 1/1 7/93
,r4
I:
........,...
.'-....
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating this item was continued to
request direction from the City Commission in view of the opposition expressed at the previous
meeting. The City Commisison directed staff to aggressively pursue the reconstruction of the
dock since it provided important water access for other neighborhood properties.
Scott Shuford, Central Planning Director representing the applicant, addressed the Board. He
stated the City Commission was made aware of the concerns of the surrounding property owners
and they directed staff to work out compromises regarding the safety and police complaints. He
said options to be considered are lighting the interior of the dock and removing the roof to make
it less attractive to those seeking shelter at night. Given the interest in rebuilding, he said there
was some consideration of what could be built without variances.
Lt. Frank Daly, speaking on behalf of City Police Chief Sid Klein, outlined the problems that were
reported associated with the old dock. Juveniles drinking and hanging out, noise, traffic and
sleeping transients all contributed to the problem. He indicated the police respond to every noise
complaint; however, without additional patrols, they frequently do not arrive in time to observe
the violation. Lt. Daly said if the dock is rebuilt. the police will continue to respond to complaints
in the normal fashion and will put in extra patrols whenever they can. He said interior lighting will
help by increasing the visibility of anyone using the dock at night.
Discussion ensued regarding an eight-page list of incidents reported to the police. In response
to questions, Lt. Daly indicated calls are prioritized because the department is so limited in its
resources. He suggested the residents form a neighborhood watch group which will work with
a crime prevention officer to help address the problem. It was noted the complaint calls
decreased dramatically after the dock was destroyed.
Terry Jennings. Chief City Engineer, stated lighting the dock at night will not cause an
environmental problem for turtles because there is no shoreline at this site. He stated the City
is requesting to have the variances approved with whatever conditions the Board feels necessary.
The City Commission will then decide whether or not to rebuild in view of the conditions. If they
decide against rebuilding with conditions. a smaller dock can be built without variances. although
they have not stated they would pursue this second choice.
Discussion ensued regarding what can be built without variances and whether or not a smaller
dock of a different design would attract as much nuisance activity. Fishing was also thought to
be a part of the problem.
Three citizens spoke in support of the application as follows:
Donald MacFarlane, 21 5 Rogers Street, stated he has used the neig hborhood docks since his
earliest recollection. He gave a history of the area and said it would be a major mistake not to
rebuild this dock because it is a big amenity for the City. He does not feel there are a sufficient
number of people who are adversely affected to warrant not rebuilding. He said unless the City
vacates the end of Magnolia Avenue. the public will continue to have access to tho area.
David Martens, 425 Lotus Path, spoke in favor of the application, giving a history of the Harbor
Oaks neighborhood. He noted the police report logs more calls than incidents because each
complaint appears to be called in more than once. He said the City Harbormaster, the Harbor
Oaks Homeowner's association and the majority of the homeowners are in support of the request.
DCAB Minutes
2
1 1/1 7/93
(ffJ:4.
"'"'....c
The reason there were not more supporters at the original hearing, he said. was because only the
few property owners within 200 feet were notified. He submitted a petition in support of the
application with the signatures of 36 property owners, who own 71 lots in the neighborhood.
Mr. Martens stated the Harbor Oaks property owners pay 23 percent of the City's tax bill and are
entitled to police protection.
Bob Kirn, 321 Lotus Path, spoke on behalf of Cedio Saltarelli and the Harbor Oaks Association,
stating, while no longer unanimous. the majority 01 the association supports the dock replacement
subject to it having a gate and the closing hours being enforced. He felt the police not being able
to respond soon enough and the driveways to the residences being blocked should be taken into
consideration.
Three citizens spoke in opposition to the application as follows:
Charles Walter, 208 Magnolia Drive, stated his property is immediately adjacent to the dock and
while he recognizes that many people enjoy the use of the dock during the day. he experiences
the nightmare of what often goes on at night. He indicated continual partying. loud music,
squealing tires, having to clean up cans, bottles. drug and sex paraphernalia that litter his yard
and having himself and his daughter assaulted by trespassers cause him to be afraid to use his
own property. He said his property was damaged in excess of $200.000 and the wreckage of
the former City dock is still on his property. While he commended the police for doing the best
job possible, he said the offenders were always gone by the time the police arrived. Mr. Walter
objected to having bright lights shining onto his property at night and stated he does not
understand why the City wishes to rebuild this attractive nuisance in the present location.
Harold Hyatt, 902 Druid Road, stated he owns two properties to the north of Mr. Walter and has
lived there since 1943. He stated his property sustained over $100,000 worth of damage caused
by the old dock. Before it was destroyed, he and his wife had to call the police almost nightly
because of disturbances at the old dock. While he agreed the dock was beautiful and enjoyed
by many, he does not understand how rebuilding can be considered in view of what's been heard
today.
George Cousin. 205 Magnolia Drive, stated his property is immediately to the south of the subject
dock. which has not been suitable for use in recent years. He agreed with Mr. Walter and is
opposed to rebuilding the dock on the basis of it being an attractive nuisance.
Mr. MacFarlane and Mr. Martens spoke in rebuttal to the opposition. Mr. MacFarlane was
surprised at the increase in opposition since June and feels the dock was a valuable community
asset and should not be shut down because of some criminals. Mr. Martens appreciated Mr.
Cousins comments: however. felt the majority of the neighborhood is still in favor of rebuilding.
He felt sleeping on the dock could be made less attractive through lighting design. He supported
putting in a gate with C'I timer and enforcing closing hours.
Mr. Walter stated the waterfront cannot be fenced off and did not feel a gate on the dock would
solve the problem.
DCAB Minutes
3
11/17/93
ff/,~
"-
.................
Mr. Shuford summarized the request, stating the previous dock washing away caused damage
to adjoining properties; however, the new dock is to be built with state of the art of materials to
withstand hurricane force winds. If lighted in a manner compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. it would improve the law enforcement aspects of the site. He requested app"roval
of the application to rebuild the dock to its previous configuration, conditioned upon it being gated
and lighted. He suggested a having a timed electronic gate with a manual override which would
alert the police department jf activated after hours.
In response to questions, Mr. Shuford indicated 50 percent of the cost of the proposal is being
reimbursed by FEMA for rebuilding this historical part of Clearwater's past. He stated this is a
philosophical issue regarding waterfront access and it is not desirable to allow any further loss
of public access to one of the things that makes Clearwater unique. Many law-abiding people
used and enjoyed the dock and want it to continue.
Board discussion ensued with it being felt the new dock will have no historical value because of
being new. Concern was expressed that it had become uncomfortable to go down to the dock
because of vagrants and problems relating to fishing. Support was expressed for rebuilding a
smaller dock reaching shallower water, making it less attractive for fishing. It was felt being
there a long time is not sufficient justification for rebuilding in the same configuration. It was
indicated if the City believes the facility should be put Up, the City should provide adequate
protection for the residents of the area.
Rebuilding was felt to be needed to avoid any further limitation of access to the area's natural
beauty. It was indicated this public hearing has been helpful in making people aware of both
sides of the issue and will assist staff in trying to rectify problems.
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 and not caused by the owner or applicant and
the variances allow the size structure desired to be utilized by the public 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)
signage shall be erected by the City to alert the public of the pier's closing at night with
enforcement to be handled by the Police Department; 3} feeling that security is of paramount
importance, proper illumination compatible with the area and architecturally compatible with
emphasis on security shall be installed; 4) an electronic safety system. Le" electronically
controlled gate or comparable device shall be installed; this device should be electronically
monitored by the Police Department for the safety of the public and 5) 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, Martin and Mr. Gans voted
"aye"; Messrs. Plisko and Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
The meeting was recessed from 2:47 to 3:02 p.m.
DCAB Minutes
4
11 /1 7/93
'. ~ ~"I'~ ".'., i,.', ", '",.., R' ".'. "'4. . "'.'..../.... ~,' ,'~" 1. ~ .,' :.r" .... ~'.' I ,',
f'JI_,
ITEM B - (continued from 10/14/93 & 10/28/93) - Investors Breakers-on-
the-Bay ltd, for a variance of 138 ft to allow dock length of 405 ft where 267 ft
is permitted at 2909 Gulf-ta-Bay Blvd, William Brown's Sub of Bayview. Lots 14
& 15, part of Lots 5, 6 & 13, vacated street and submerged land to the south,
zoned RM 28 {Multiple Family ResidentiaH & Al/C (Aquatic Land/Coastal}. V 93-67
Action:
Continued to the meeting of December 9, 1993.
1. Robert E. & Betty J. Hostetler for variances of (1) 10ft to allow
enclosure of existing structure 5 ft from rear property line where 15ft is required;
(2) 3 ft to allow building separation of 17 ft where 20 ft is required; (3) 3,120 sq
ft to allow a minimum lot area of 11.800 sq ft where 15, 000 sq ft is required; (4)
12.15 ft to allow a minimum lot depth of 87.85 ft where 100 ft is required; and
(5) 15 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 135 ft where 150 ft is required at 1959
Rainbow Dr, Skycrest Unit No 7, Blk B. Lot 10. zoned RM 28 (Multi-Family
Residential). V 93-78
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to enclose
an existing free-standing carport on the subject lot, which is non-conforming with regard to area,
depth and width. He stated the setback variance is the most significant, due to the proximity of
a building on the adjacent property to the south. Concern was expressed the proposal would
adversely affect the light, ventilation and view of the property to the south. He indicated
application does not appear to meet the standards for approval.
l'
"-'
Gordon Wardell. contractor representing the owner/applicants, stated the existing carport is
covered, has one wall and contains laundry facilities. He proposed to remove some nearby
asphalt paving and add threo walls. He said the enclosure would be used as a storage area for
materials currently being stored in one of the apartment units on the property.
Damon Hostetler. son of the owner/applicants, responded to a concern that five variances are
needed for such a small proposal. He stated only variance #1 was requested by the applicant.
The remaining four variances were added by staff (to bring the property into conformance}
because the building codes havo changed since the structures were built in 1952. This was
indicated to be a common occurrence in older buildings.
Discussion ensued and it was indicated additional construction is proposed in the non-conforming
rear setback. This was not felt to be a problem as there seems to be adequate building coverage.
Concern was expressed removing stored materials from the apartment unit would yield a greater
financial return on the property. It was felt a variance is not needed because the materials could
be stored elsewhere. However, it was indicated storage is always needed on rental properties
and the property owners should be allowed to use what they have.
Concern was also expressed the residents of the adjacent property will have to face a solid wall
where an open structure now exists. It was felt. if they were concerned. they would be present.
In response to a question, Mr. Hostetler said his mother lives near the subject property and goes
by there every day.
',- .
DCAB Minutes
5
11/17/93
, ':. ,~ .' .' " . f .' .' .;".'. I . ," ...' : ,". .' ,!' . . . . .'. . ~ .;. . " . , ..' . " '}"', .j ~ . '" I ".
.?.~'
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances
as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated she has met all of the standards for
approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there is no condition
which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown: the request for the
variances is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return
from the property and the granting of the variances would adversely affect the 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, Mses. Whitney, Martin and Mr. Gans voted "aye"; Messrs. Pliska and Johnson voted
"nay". Motion carried.
2. Morritt Homes, tne (Watgreens Drug Store) for a variance of 18 parking
spaces to allow 89 spaces where 107 spaces are required at 2005 Gulf.to-Bay
Blvd, Midway Sub, Lots '-12 and strip of land to west, zoned CG (General
Commercial). V 93-79
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail. stating the applicant wishes to redevelop
an existing retail center with a 15,525 square-foot Walgreens drug store and an additional 2,300
square feet of retail space. The applicant indicated that the use will not require the number of
spaces required by code; however, provided no supporting documentation for the 17 percent
reduction. The application does not appear to comply with seven of the standards for approval.
The City Traffic Engineering Department commented the plan is not approved and must be revised
per the Design Review Committee (DRC).
I
,
In response to a question. Mr. Richter stated the Planning and Zoning Board has approved an
alcoholic beverage use application and a separation distance variance request is to go before the
City Commission tomorrow. The DRC needs to review the site plan.
Steven Stuebs, engineer representing the applicant, gave an overview of the proposal, stating the
current parking ratio is 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space. The City's criteria for retail
parking is 6/1000. He stated the site does not meet the Land Development Code standards for
landscape buffers, setbacks, landscaping or number of access points. Storm water sheets off
onto the streets and there are dangerous traffic conditions associated with the property.
Under the current proposal, Mr. Stuebs stated, the number of access points will be reduced.
There will be a double drive-through for pharmacy pickups and a parking ratio of 5/1000 will be
provided. The proposed site will meet today's Land Development Code standards for landscape
buffers, setbacks, stormwater retention driveways and access. He further explained various site
improvements, stating not meeting the 6/1000 parking space requirement will not hinder the
operation of the Walgreens store. He stated he is an experienced Walgreens development
designer and has constructed a number of the stores in Florida in the last two years. He
compared the City's parking requirement to the less restrictive ones in several surrounding
communities. Quoting from the Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, he said a
parking ratio of 4/1000 is the general criteria for retail use.
t
...... '
DCAB Minutes
6
11/17/93
:' ~'!.' .' '.. .:,' '. .';.... :., ~.. ',' : . I ~ I' . " ," ,~.: ..... I) ..... .'.J "; ::.... ...'~' " ,01" ,~ :'" ,.' ," . ~ ......
f.'fl:'
Dan Vietto, representing the applicant, stated there are 180 of these freestanding stores around
the country. They make a significant contribution to the community because they remain for a
very long time. Approximately 275 prescriptions per day are handled by a store of this nature
and about 35 percent of those trips are handled through the drive-through pickup window. He
did not understand staff's objections to the project, stating there are physical constraints on the
site, all applicable codes are met, it is better for the neighbors, safer for traffic and meets all eight
criteria for granting a variance.
In response to questions, Mr. Vietto stated the plan is to raze and rebuild on the site, one street
is going to be closed down and this will be the first freestanding facility in the City. He stated,
although Walgreens would prefer to stand alone, the additional 2300 square feet is occupied by
two tenants with long leases. Based on the experience of several other units operating around
the state, he said the 5/1000 ratio meets Walgreens parking needs for efficient operation. He
indicated DRC has reviewed the plans relative to striping and signage. but did not comment about
parKing and said he was told pa
It was indicated developers are required to meet the parking code and without the 2300 square
feet, the proposal would meet the parking standards. Discussion ensued regarding traffic
movement, generation and circulation in the area, specifically related to the adjacent apartment
complex which is accessed by Rogers street.
In response to a question, it was indicated Walgreens does not own the property. but has
approved the preliminary site plan. Although they would prefer not to have the two tenants, Mr.
Vietto stated they are okay with the project as long as there is no other shop space between
'-"'>;.1 Walgreens and the corner. It was not known if Walgreens will actually build even if this request
is approved.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant. Ms. Martin moved to deny the variance
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 there is no condition
which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the hardship was caused
by the owner or applicant; the variance is not the minimum; the granting of the variance could
adversely affect the 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 carried unanimously.
3. GTE Florida, Ino for a variance of 42 in to allow a fence 72 in in height
where 30 in is permitted at 21051 US Hwy 19 N, See 17-29-16. M&B 23.03.
zoned CH (Highway Commercial!. V 93.80
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct
a six-foot high chain link fence around the property for security of a remote switching station for
the emergency 911 computer system. Staff indicated the fence will not adversely affect
neighboring properties and will be softened by the code requirement that landscaping be planted
on the right-ofwway side of the fence.
\ .,.,
"'-\.r
DCAB Minutes
7
11/17/93
t~' "
1
''-.N' "
'.....,
Concerns were expressed with the suggested use of barbed wire on top of the fence. Mr. Richter
this is an issue which is decided by the Building Official and discussion ensued.
Dave Warrington, fence contractor representing the applicant, stated a fence exists on three sides
and it is desired to extend it toward the road so it will encompass the whole building for additional
security.
Questions were raised regarding previous variances which were granted for this property (V 93-
56: 8/26/93). It was indicated variances for lot area, width, distance from the centerline of US
19 and setback from the side property line were granted with the condition an asphalt paving area
being replaced should be landscaped with shrubs and trees and maintained to provide the proper
aesthetics.
Discussion continued regarding the proposal. In response to questions. it was not known how
the additional fence could improve security nor why it should extend out to the street. It was felt
someone from GTE should be present to explain.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. 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, more specifically because, the variance arises
from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or applicant
subject to the condition landscaping shall be placed in front of the fence rather than inside the
fence. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin and Mr.
Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney. Messrs. Pliska and Gans voted "nay". Motion failed.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant. Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance 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 and the granting of the variance would
detract from the appearance 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. Plisko and Gans voted "aye"; Ms.
Martin and Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
4. Dan's Island 1660 Condo Assn. lnc for variances of (1) 20.33 ft to allow
a wall 29.67 ft from Gulf of Mexico where 50 ft is required; and (2) 4 in to allow
a wall 34 in in height where 30 in is permitted at 1660 Gulf Blvd, Dan's Island
Condo 1660 on Sand Key, zoned RM 28 (Multi-Family Residential) and aS/R (Open
SpacelRecreation). V 93.81
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct
a wall along the westerly edge of parking lots to prevent sand from washing and blowing into the
lots. Staff felt this solution is minimum and reasonable in light of the hardship experienced by
the condominium residents. The application appears to comply with all standards for approval.
DCAB Minutes
8
11/17/93
( , ;
",,~<;t\o-~'
I
"",......,.;-'
Paul Wade, construction consultant representing the applicant, stated the need for the wall arises
trOll1 :;torm damage to the seawall. Sand piles up in the parking lot and has to be continually
swept away. 'The sea oats planted in an attempt to restrict sand movement did not survive the
wind and waves. He said the proposal is for a block and brick wall, which, once the blocks are
stacked up, is 34 inches high. A variance application for an identical wall was granted in 1991.
However, due to its location seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCel). did not
pass the stringent State requirements and was never built.
Discussion ensued regarding the size and placement of the proposed wall. Mr. Wade stated this
design is needed to make the new wall architecturally match the other walls on the property.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney 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 not caused by the owner or applicant and
are the minimum necessary to overcome any hardship 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. The motion was dUly seconded and carried unanimously.
5. John & Laura Gianfilippo (Goodyear Tife & Auto) for a variance of 1
parking space to allow 41 spaces where 42 spaces are required at 235 Belcher Rd
S, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.07 less road right-of-way. zoned CG (General
Commercial). V 93-82
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to redevelop
the subject property with a Goodyear store. As the requested variance represents only a two
percent reduction in the requirement, it is considered minimal and appears to comply with the
standards for approval.
Tim Stefan, representing the owner/applicant. responded to questions. It was not known jf the
City Traffic Engineering Department had any comments regarding proposed the parking layout.
Mr. Stefan said the size of the curb cut is being reduced and the right-of-way equalization is
administered by the County. The existing facility has parking problems and is being razed and
a new store built.
Concern was expressed with granting a variance; however. it was felt to be extremely minimal.
It wa's indicated the proposal appears to be properly landscaped and is required to meet
landscaping requirements on site plan approval.
DCAB Minutes
9
11/17/93
. : ...j',~ . . ~ ~... It. I' :~'." +' S " I. . . . ..'. '::1" / ,. I ,.: " ~ ,',' " :. ".. '. I
/,..
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
;s the minimum necessary to overcome any 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. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
6. Joseph & Jean A. Mendolia for a variance of 4.78 ft to allow a dock
width at 32.50 tt where 27.72 tt is permitted at 130 Leeward Island, Island
Estates of Clearwater Unit 1, Lot 64, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) and
AL-C (Aquatic Lands-Coastal). V 93-83
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail. stating the applicant wishes to construct
a cradle boat lift and service catwalk on the south side of an existing dock at a single-family
residence. He said the dock is centrally located along the property, the adjacent properties should
not be adversely affected and the City Harbormaster has no problem with the request. The
application appears to comply with the standards for approval.
Dave Griswold, representing the applicant, stated the property was purchased last month. He
stated he will inform the applicants of the Board's concern regarding a large boat illegally parked
in the front of the property. Mr. Richter said he will pass the information along to the Code
Enforcement Division.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as
requested because the applicant has substantially met aU of the standards for approval as listed
in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code. more specifically because, the particular
physical surroundings of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this
development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
7. H. Glaesel-HollenbackTRE & H. Bertram-Nothnagel TRE (Publix Supermar~
ket) for a variance of 10 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 10 spaces are
required at 200 Island Way, See 08-29-15, M&B 13.01, zoned CC (Commercial
Center). V 93-84
\....../
DCAB Minutes
10
11/17/93
. ; ;"::""',": .I,.'~, ~ ", I;>' :1 .' "" '.:' F ."~. ' .....', '.' I..}. ,'~ '.' . ".':, '~:'.'
,.,.~~
,
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to use
approximately 2,030 square feet of outdoor space for the display of retail merchandise in the
Island Estates Shopping Center. He said there is no proposal to add the required additional
parking and explained the parking space calculations. A conditional use for outdoor uses would
also have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. The request does not appear to
comply with any of the standards for approval.
Bill Adams, representing Publix Supermarket. stated this is a very small location and the variance
is needed to display plants and Christmas trees. He indicated he would like for his store to
participate in the upcoming Publix sidewalk sale and the sidewalk will be kept orderly and neat.
Discussion ensued regarding what was done previously and what is allowed now. It was
indicated materials were displayed outdoors before the Code Enforcement crackdown on outdoor
displays on Clearwater Beach.
In response to questions, Mr. Richter stated businesses do not need variances to have outdoor
displays if they have adequate parking to support the requirements. He said the applicant does
have other options. It is possible to obtain a temporary 3D-day permit for outdoor retail sales,
as is done by Christmas tree lots.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance 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 for the variance is based
primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property
and the granting of the variance 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 carried
unanimously.
8. Robert E. Heilman & Heilmans Restaurants, lnc (Heilman's Beachcomber
Restaurant) for a variance of 32 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 32 spaces
are required at 447 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Park 1 st Add. Blk B, Lots 16-
23. and vacated alley, Clearwater Beach Park Replat of 1st Add, Blk A. Lots 12-15,
zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 93.85
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail. stating the applicant wishes to create
a "wine room". expanding the alcoholic beverage sales area of an existing restaurant on
Clearwater Beach. He stated the increased floor area reQuir~s additional parking and explained
the calculations. The City Traffic Engineer does not support any variance to the parking
requirements on Clearwater Beach. However, staff recommended approval based on a proposed
code amendment which would revise the parking regulations for alcoholic beverage sales uses.
Mr. Richter explained the calculations, stating if the proposed amendment is adopted. the existing
parking at t/1e restaurant will meet the requirements.
~ J
_.
DCAB Minutes
11
11/17/93
'-~~
\ I
...fr.,:......
Harry Cline, attorney representing the owner/applicants, made a general statement regarding the
proposed ordinance and an overview of the applicant's project. He said they wish to expand into
approximately 2,500 square feet of an old motel in the center of their property. This will be used
as a cooled storage area for wine, bathrooms and as much seating as the code will allow. Due
to the nature of the surrounding area, the property can never be expanded. He said, with over
75 percent of food sales, the business is a restaurant. not a bar, regardless of the type of license
held.
Mr. Cline discussed the parking requirements associated with the restaurant's 4COP license, how
they would change under the proposed ordinance. He stated the facility can actually
accommodate more parking than there are physical spaces on the site, due to a unique system
of valet parking. He said all of the restaurant's parking is handled on site and this will be a
positive upgrade, with aesthetic benefit to the area and no negative impacts regarding light or
noise. He responded to general questions regarding the license and seating.
,
Mr. Heilman spoke regarding the uniqueness of the request: 1) the valet system of parking which
allows for over 100 cars at one time; 2) the intent to preserve the character and materially benefit
the area; 3) to improve the present building and the landscaping and 4) the objective to redistrib-
ute the customer base. While food service will remain the focus, much of the new structure will
be for visual, temperature controlled storage of their wine inventory.
In response to questions, Mr. Heilman stated there may be 50 to 65 seats in the new area which
will be a bistro/wine bar and serve appetizers. He explained the valet parking arrangement.
Mr. Richter noted the more restrictive parking requirements were put into effect in the late 1980's
because of some alcoholic beverage establishments packing in customers and violating fire codes.
He contrasted that type of facility with the Heilmans' restaurant. indicating the more restrictive
requirement does not seem to apply in this case. In response to a question, he explained the
calculations involved in the 50 percent parking reduction on Clearwater Beach.
The applicants were commended for the improvements they have made to their property and it
was felt their establishment has been a credit to Clearwater Beach for a long time.
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 tile 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
is the minimum necessary for them to be able to develop the property as they would like 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
DCAB Minutes
12
11/17/93
" , _ . ,I :. ' " I . , , ,~'.' , , J.. " , , ~' " . ./;' ~ '. ,',. I '" ' ',.. '. . . .. I' , .
...............
9. Clearwater Bay Marine Ways, Inc (Adventure Seaways Corp/The
Majestic) for a variance of 81 parking spaces to allow 1 28 spaces where 209
spaces are required at 900 Osceola Ave N, J.A. Gorra's Sub, Brk 2, Lots 2 & 3,
and part of Lot 1, and filled submerged land on west/submerged land and riparian
rights, Sue Barc'o Sub, Lots 13, 14, 23, part of Lot 22, and vacated Nicholson
Street. filled submerged land on west, submerged land and riparian rights. zoned
CR 24 (Resort Commercial) and AL-C (Aquatic Lands-Coastall. V 93-86
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant is requesting a
variance to the parking requirement for the operation of the Majestic Empress Cruise Line. The
applicant estimates 30 percent of the cruise passengers arrive and depart on buses, which will
not be parked on-site during the cruise time. The applicant indicates 100 to 125 additional
parking spaces will be developed across from the marina between Osceola and North Fort
Harrison Avenues within six to nine months. Mr, Richter explained the parking calculations,
stating if additional parking is found to be necessary. staff will work with the applicant to provide
off-site facilities in the nearby vicinity or City-owned properties. It is felt the proposed use will
be beneficial to the City in general. Staff recommends approval.
In response to a question. Mr. Richter stated a conditionaJ use for alcoholic beverage sales and
marina expansion was approved at the previous day's PJanning and Zoning Board meeting, subject
to 17 conditions. He distributed copies of these conditions.
Espen Tandberg. representing the owner/applicant, stated placing the Majestic Empress here will
be a good addition to commerce of the area without any undesirable impacts. He stated there
is a lease with the Clearwater Bay Marina and he agrees with the staff report and recommenda-
tions.
'-..............
Tom Radcliffe, representing the owner/applicant, displayed an aeriaJ view of the existing site.
explaining what is existing and what is being proposed. He demonstrated where existing boat
slips and trailer/boat storage will be eliminated. The Marine Ways. 54 enclosed boat slips, fuel
docks, outdoor sales and service. a dive charter and a sailing charter will remain, along the with
the 600 passenger cruise ship. He stated he researched the entire State and could not find where
there are any code provisions for parking relating to cruise ship operation.
In response to a question. Mr. Tandberg stated the ship is registered at 94 gross tons. draws six
feet of water and is completely self-contained. Jt meets Coast Guard specifications and is
designed and built in Indiana, to come into smaller areas like Clearwater. There is sufficient water
in the basin to accommodate the ship and 24-hour security is provided for the vehicles parked on
site.
Discussion ensued regarding the parking and traffic situation. It was indicated there will be police
to direct traffic.
One letter in support was read into the record.
Three citizens spoke in opposition to the application as follows:
Mark Hatoum, 303 Cedar Street, requested the Board consider the traffic impact on the
neighborhood, noise and air pollution and inadequate parking conditions of the proposal. He
expressed concern the City has not done adequate traffic studies and the Planning and Zoning
Board condition regarding Cl wall to buffer noise is too vague. He requested having the applicant
agree to have parking as far away from the residential area as possible.
~l
DCAB Minutes
13
11/17/93
-~
( I
"'-li-..;....
~J
Vicki Morgan, 301 Cedar Street, stated, by choosing this location, the applicant has created a
self-imposed hardship because there are other sites which could be used. She stated her husband
is a physician. frequently on call, and it is important that his route to the hospital not to be
blocked by traffic. She felt the traffic, noise and the late.night party atmosphere created by the
passengers will adversely impact the residential area. She stated the applicant should wait until
Pier 60 opens and locate there.
Phoebe Allen, 806 North Osceola Avenue. said she and her husband Fred Allen, operate a
commercial sailing charter from the marina and a wedding business in the area. She felt tour
buses are smelly and dirty and would not have a profitable relationship with the existing
businesses in the neighborhood. She questioned where the proposed additional parking is to be
provided at the end of the six-month trial period, and the purpose of changing the direction of
North Osceola Avenue. She said her sailboat draws only four feet of water and they cannot get
out into the Intercoastal Waterway at low tide.
Tom Radcliffe spoke in rebuttal to the opposition, stating very little data exists for the impact of
an operation of this size; however, a comparable operation in John's Pass Marina has experienced
no problems. He stated the hardship is not self-imposed because there is not another marina in
Clearwater which would accommodate this operation. He said ample studies of water depth have
been done and the ship does not need to turn around in the basin. Mr. Radcliffe said the traffic
situation has been thoroughly studied by the City traffic engineers; however. does not affect this
request for a parking variance. The applicant is looking at all alternatives for parking ;n the area.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed bus traffic and parking needs.
Mr. Tandberg stated he has no problem with the recommended cond;tion~ and he hopes anyone
with concerns will come to him during the trial period because he is willing to cooperate. He said
the operation will employ 150 people who will locate in this area, park off-site, and contribute to
the tourism and economy of the City.
Discussion continued regarding the application. Bringing entertainment to the area was felt to
be beneficial to the citizens and to the economy of the City. Having a six-month trial period and
working the City to provide additional off-site parking were felt to be positive aspects. However,
it was felt the parking shortage, the late hours and the party environment would seriously impact
the area.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to deny the variance
as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated they have met all of the standards
for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there is no
condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the hardship was
caused by the owner or applicant; the variance is not the minimum and 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, Mses. Martin, Whitney and Mr. Plisko voted "aye"; Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted
"nay". Motion carried.
10. John Hancock Life Ins Co {The Wine Vault) for a varianco of 20 seats
to allow a minimum of 30 seats where 50 seats are required at 2556 McMullen
Booth Rd. Sec 28-28-16, M&B 33.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center) and OL
(Limited Office). V 93-87
DCAB Minutes
14
1 1/1 7/93
~. ..........
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail. stating the applicant wishes to conduct
wine tasting seminars in an existing retail liquor and wine store with a 4COP license. In view of
the small size of the establishment, the variance to the seating requirement is needed to allow
on premise consumption. He stated the parking requirement is not affected by the additional
activity within the store and staff recommends approval.
Michael Kwasin, representing the applicant, stated the proposed wine tastings are controlled, sit-
down events. He stated. according to his experience as a school teacher, the best size for a
group of this type is 20 to 25 people. He presented photographs of the interior of his retail liquor
store.
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 bv the size of the store 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) this variance is limited at this location to the ownership of Warehouse Liquors, Inc.
and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this
public hearing. The motion was dulV seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Board and Staff Discussion
''--'' Mr. Richter distributed copies of the proposed meeting schedule for 1994. It was indicated the
second Thursday in November is Thanksgiving Day and that meeting date was deleted from the
schedule. Only one meeting is scheduled for December, on the second Thursday.
Drafts of upcoming Land Development Code amendments were also distributed.
III. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p.m.
aV~f)
Chairman
DCAB Minutes
15
11/17/93
w