01/13/1994 (2)
;;: t{:::~F'.i' (, 1: :~~~ ~: ~... " '":- j
.,.I'" r,
\'.::..:~:
~~\ .,',
J.', .
~! :~.; -
'.r~" .
" ..'
~.' ~ .;.'
L~" t ::'.
:~\j: :
..'.
.~ (.,
(:
.:~~.~.~.
~-?-""':J...~,\'...,\
'").'.'.' ~ "I;~ . ,'<.' !" ,
,-",'
:~~. " . . .
:' .
" "
~-' .
": <
DeAR
~.' I .
'.~ <'
.< '
".
~;~ ",
':'~-~
.",
.....f.,
~~ I '
'.-...
Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
, ...
.Date
';r 1!1l1/uQ~ l~ L' f1I
-,
. .
, '. .. ~
~ ~:'~
': : '.~,
~
,
,.
'.. .
:i
"~:
:L
}j
,"
. ~ ~
'l ~ '
. .,'
, '
..' ,
~ -.. :'<., -': -.
.,-
~ .,"
'. ~;: :, r. '. '
r .. ~ "i " ,
.. '.;
;. .
"".&
~~"""-- -:--~...
~~~i~f~r~~{t~;'~\f;~ifJ":L;:',,,:,.:':, """'\i':i:~:t;.:~:,:""...,:".... ... .'
~'~~::i~~!~~i~\ 1'-'t;:.~....'~J ':~!.1\.' ~~L.:!:S-~~'.i'i:~'\l-o.:;'j.:,"\ >\: ~~:'~,~ rJ ,";',,'\ ~~ ~r:~,~,~~I""~;-'" .' "" ,":'. ~ ~ ...' :....:>
",:"iU'_ ..' U! ,t, .........."J~. .... "fr-:. ~-. , - ..., ."
t..elliai~'*= '7P.o..,t Li.;O-":'1.~1.l"1-l~1';~\~~y.. ;~'i"'.h:1 '~h'~"~ .~~::...,"l,/~....~ :..~ ~.~~;. }.t~~~::.t.."~::J~J;:~.~..U~~~l~:~..l1i~~
, ..-"":"-~.t~iw.~~~~~\~~~UJ,~
.\<, ):
. I \.
.. ,j-
'0.
"
",,,' '.,',
p..' ;":1': ',+". ~, ..,<:
, .. f'".
t . .~.
..~..~,::~..r...~...f., ~.
, .,":~':/:.(': ,;',..' .~i': ,'.
.... "'~.' ",\ ", J.:' ,.", '
;
'T:~)
..... . ~ . .
"
, '. . '.' .: 'r" '.' . ,.. " . , .,',' .' . I,
" . +.'
.
I
:~
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, January 13, 1994 - 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. Public Hearings
1. Jason B Kuehn & Brenda Martino for a variance of 1.95 ft to allow a
structural addition 3.05 ft from side property line where 5 ft is required at 1108
Charles St, Peale Park, Blk C, Lot 3, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential), V 94-01
:.':0.."
e'
Action: Granted as requested subject to the fol/owing 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 .
obtaineil within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
i
. I
i
,'.,
..' .
,I,. .:'"
2. Lotus Land Inv, Inc for a variance of 3.33 ft to allow a structure 21.67 ft
from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1055 S. Ft. Harrison Ave, Magnolia
Park, Blk 34, Lots 4-8 and part of vacated railroad right-of-way on East, zoned CG
(General Commercial). V 94-02
\,h
,"', i
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; 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained
wIthin six (6) 'months from the date of this public hearing and 3) no certificate of
occupancy shall be issued prior to the completion of the vacation of Lotus Path
adjacent to this property.
i-."
..
.,' , .
',' I
,.0"
- , , ..
OCAB Action
1
1/13/94
"> .'
~~-~-7 '.' ,~"'M.:.~. "'*-i..1f~~ .:. TT~~"Xn.~,:..,;<'~ ,:\,"/.'c ?/.. .' "~:~: ~c;..~. .~. '. ~'. ;: ':. f ....~.. .-:/,j' ~ ;"..,',:.c " ..... ..:. '.l' .. ,.1...1 "c. ',' .;':;.:' ~ "':" ,> .~ >.>:+.,~;. ~ I"~ ~;...'~_c ., :i~':"I~\~'~~~~r
~~~;.." . :. ,.,:..; ,'.. . ,.-' . >. > ~kI.,~~""'!,:~hb<:,.1~ :r~tl:~t;~i{"i:.l{\.~t~\7.:~~::;.;~~;~t;~.~~~.:;i.'\:~~.~t;,~.~~J';,-f",;~~;~:~:.j~"Y~'~.(.i';~{.\".~~~~~lt;~~t:~~';''Ji.~'~~;k,\;~~t,(8~~~I' m
~:',.;'>' ;'. .:,~ ": i:" . ..<' . J < ' , , ",!t.: .,~..f '~t \ r t'~J~~.i:""~"~t"~~4'~I'rh>~}..)'J:(.tt:~7~~i~t'1,~';.l";t~:~li.\'}:~~:.;.;m.'f(' r,~{~,.I~:-~l..~~:lf,I.p'.:'"P;'~~i'r ;
r:~('.;-,.~;. . ~'.~ '., " : <.. . . . , ."1' ~..L'" ....0......,,"1.' ~,.:I "I'~. ,:I'. 'II" ,~. ...L,' ~,.f. \ " \ . '. ~.
I~1.~.;~.;L:>:';>;':.::::.~::,i;.':.' ...... 'e. ~.' ... .<:......,.
" " . ' . . ." .... . .. ' ...'....,.. I +'.' . , ... .' '.
,1\
J
3. JES Properties, Inc (Florida Spine Institute) for a variance of 10ft to allow
a structural addition 0 ft from side property line where 10ft Is required at 2230 Drew
St, Temple Terrace 1 st Add, Blk 0, Lots 26-28, zoned OL (Limited Office). V 94-03
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.
4. JES Properties, Inc (Florida Spine Institute) for a variance of 10ft to allow
a structural addition 0 ft from side property line where 10ft Is required at 2250 Drew
St, Temple Terrace 1st Add, Blk 0, Lots 20-23, zoned OL (Limited Office). V 94-04
.0
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. Gerald P & Brenda A Crum for a variance of 22.8 ft to allow a structural
addition 2.2 ft from street right-af-way where 25 ft is required at 1601 N. Betty Ln,
Pine Ridge, Blk B, Lot 10, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-05
c,' . .
Action: Granted a variance of 20 feet to allow a structure 5 feet from street right-
of-:way 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 except as modified by the granting of this variance. Deviation
from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance
regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located
on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect 2) the requisite
building permit shall be obtained within sIx (6) months from the date of this publiC
hearing; 3J. the shed on the property shall be relocated to be set back a minimum of
5 feet from al/ property lines and 4) landscaping meeting the minimum shrubbery
~ '"j .
J ;.
o
DCAB Action
2
1/13/94
~. .r~
:'. ~~~~~, I' '
" ~,l c . .
~:-..::~"/.:> '.' ;. -.. .,".:
, .". .,",', ::", ,
~~<'<~'. :'-,~.' ~:;' :. l.:.~ '.
Z~t:'\:).\:".,/>. :'.' .,;'
-~.-u~~~;j' ~~:':.' :;l~~' ,:<::"c(,:l ~~t;~~; :~J: ;.>...j:'oj;1..: r' ';..~: ~. r- t ',.' '. ". ..' ~. ~~... <I' ,= ":, " .'/,':. '. '. <";', j" "~l.''' : .~.~.. . ~,~....: ~:~ . T,,'" -::: .,.....\.~ ~:~;;:
. .. . -..~, ...~~': '''";~'. ,.~.:~;,~~.,f.--!i~"Atf fl.~-?1.~ot.; '::;:t;lF';i\;,;)i5:;i.Di;~te~.~;>5;~::;,' ~~ i;;::~i~:;;';:\'0}~.'i{~~.<~,},~~,~":~~~~~;;{::,;~L~~.:;}jj;i~':~~~.
" l . 01 ~~l. ,~f ':' '~',"". ~;'~ ~r-. :r~ .'.(;:!i:.Il.'~" ,,"!!9~~:I~"~) .~~t~t."'~'.t~,;...~~~., , :.'" ;:1:. :~:.> '.~':-. r)_~
I".' ~...
. . . +' " . . ... :. .. . ....' ,.' . .. '. .:.. . ,'.
.,
, "
o
landscaping material requirements for perimeter landscaping shall be installed along
the entire south wall of the garage within six months of the date of this public
hearing; this landscaping shall be installed entirely on the applicant's property and not
in the public right-ot-way.
A public hearing was also held to reconsider the following requests for variances of
the Land Development Code due to a site plan change:
8 J E, loc & Pelican Two, loc (Pelican Walk Shopping Ctr) for variances of (1)
10ft to allow a structure 0 ft from street rlght~of-way where 10ft Is required; and
(2) 25 % to allow 100% palm tree plantings where 75 % Is permitted at 483 Mandalay
Ave, Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 43~48, part of Lot 64 and Lots 65-71, and
Clearwater Beach Park 1 st Add, Blk A, lots 2-8 and 1/2 vacated alley, and Blk B, lots
32-43 and 1/2 vacated alley, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 93-36
Action: Reaffirmed variances #1 and #2# granted on May 13, 1993, which are still
in effect and are subject to the same conditions as outlined on that date.
Denied reconsideration of standard condition #1 to allow a site plan
modification to change a drivew'!y tram pedestrian use to pedestrian and vehicular
use.
.'.0
The following land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
Ordinance No. 5513-93 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land
Development Code; amending Section 35.11, Code of Ordinances, to define "churchrl
. and "school"; amending Sections 41.081 And 41.091, Code of Ordinances, to revise
the Information required to be provided by applicants for conditional use approval for
alcoholic beverage establishments; prohibiting alcoholic beverage establishments
within 500 feet" of a church or a school; providing that no variances from such
minimum distance requirements shall be permitted; . providing an effective date.
Action: Old notrecommend approval; suggested to eliminate anyoutrightprohlbition
and continue with the established variance procedures.
I ~ c
Ordinance No. 5521~94 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land
Development Code; amending Section 44.51, Code of Ordinances, to provide for
increased area for attached signs in residential areas; providing an effective date.
Action: Recommended approval.
..0
DCAB Action
3
1/13/94
~~~..-~~
. "7~'~~~~.~:.j;.:j.~~"~~~~. ~/.~~,i:.~~~;ii~d~'~.~~,:~:;iJ;,~il~.;;;:.:;'~~i;~;~ ,;;X~;~:;~~'~;~~;).~\::;~ ~1\~i:~~~f~f~~~ ~t,~::ik~:~:~l~;:; ~j;:li~~~~~;,;f~:~~~~.;:i;',:~~r:!:~:~:~~ ;~~,~:E~~~t!
~; :':. ~': ;:. I : '. '. : ;"
!/;.;;:}:><~. i:.:..: . ,,: 1
~:;// ~ >.. '.)" f: :;" "4 :~.:
'T" .r
.. .
,..'
. ~., .... f,'. .-",'-'" ~ ......,", . ~.: ," . ,'. ..'. . . .,' r '. ' ....:. ~ . ~ :. .
~ \?t':~; "'.' '~:. .
:~;,~~.~t '
, .r< ~ .~.
:,t::..
:;;' ,
.: .. ~ ..
< (
~~::-. .
.....
tt.....,
~~: ..,
../
.,~ i.
. ~ \ "
"""'~/1.fi~',~~~ '/"i:,A'~', ~';.:. :: . ,~':
. T ~. ~ '"'... 1- ~ .
, '.1"'..:."
~ -::, .
n
.._....~
II.
Approval of Minutes of October 28 and December 9, 1993
Action:
Continued to the meeting of February 10, 1994
1:',"
."
';,T
~ r... ~ .
I ~." . \ .
f ~
III.
Board and Staff Discussion
,,).'.
i:( ...
.....,..
!;~>;':'
:~..?~~ ~.~ ;"','
.~~X;::. '
".. ~ .
;'.::'~;>...
Action:
Canceled the meeting of January 27,
scheduled.
1994 due to no new cases being
;i;~:~;::::..;
;;J~F~;,:
11~I?, '."
~;}t~\.~.\;' ..:~. ~
g~iJ.'/;:'~'.~ '.
~t~ri'..;:",~:.:..~: ...~ :"':...
;;r.....c . .'. ..
'f:~;\:tS": i. ',. :.
~~.~~~.. : ':. :. :.; ,: >,., .~, :
......a...~tl;t~.l. \ '{ '. .
Vf'~~~~r!r/. :.;, :' .' .:.....
~J~""rf'i./..'~"~" .: . ~' .
IiR~lj\r';:,.,:.':.",' .
f.,~:d. 'c.,., ."'. .. .'.
.. ~~::::\~~:.: .~L.: I .' ,. ~
.t ~ ~ ,.'t.' 1 1 ~ ~, . .' "
a~i~~~'.:. ;:~:.\:.'. .: >
\t~?fi" .....cc,. .., . ~
.', ,- \,"
'.
...... :
.,
~l i~'.\..l-'~H . ....
t~~lr~:~"J':':. .";:,'~ ,:....
!&.i~Je.' .:.......:...':. ',' '
.t"i'~.V: ". ~~., ~.: .',~".' .
;4';\=,I.\. . d. ..;.' ~.~ ','
1",\;''"''''. '::, ; ,OCAB ActIon
?1~~W;,:,V;;;;;:':';~.:',::.. ~..: - :. ... ,... . . .
.'~l'''l' I.P.'\ ~ '. ~ . . , . .
O:~:~~;\l.':';"~ ~.. ::::. "
(fr-'t.-' ,: -... . .
~,~!,;;,::>~~1,1 l' :. ,\
~.l \ii. ~ . " ~ t.'
~~~;j~:::~;~:,/:.~'; :.
;!,~'li.' .', ,.. ..
~~t~II,:~y.~~'~~~ ';, .',
IV.
Adjournment
Action:
Adjourned the meeting at 4:34 p.m.
"'.
.'.
,..
.'.
4
1/13/94
> .
~~f';:' :
:r")
._~
,':'
"
t".. "
~I :,.
c:~.o
;:" " c.
. ,
"
, , :
t;' .
. , .
".,' ,
-:;.., ,
',~: cO < ':
'J ~ . ::. '
L~.~ ' .
~','." . '
f~ .>: L
, ".\'.
'," I ~<' ',. ' ,"
i ~,' .
f'.:,L .:' ,
I.'.. .'
t"; .
':.#""
::--....
, ~'
.~..... c : ,
'n' ."
~:. "\ i " "
::,~./c:" .
, .
:. "/ ."
. . .
...... .
.t r- ~. ,
~ '.:!:
';y:1::'::.
...;, .
~[\.-.::;...
.,:.:' .
'ft..:, .",
.....~, : c'-
.{:~::::..
:/-.~.
'~~ 'V
: "~"',"
, ,
, .
~ ~.:.,~" :", . ,
" :.~ I.~.. '
, ....
'" .
'>,~ "
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
January 13, 1994
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Qtto Gans
John B.. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
Patricia Sullivan, Board Reporter
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.
Public Hearings
1. Jason B Kuehn & Brenda Martino for a va.riance of 1.95 ft to allow a
structural addition 3.05 ft from side property line where 5 ft is required at
1108 Charles St, Peale Park, Blk C, Lot 3, zoned RS 8 (Single Family
. Residentia\). V 94~01
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the
. applicants wish to construct a small addition to the family room of their single family
residence in alignment with the existing structure. The applicants stated the neighbors
. most directly affecte.d are in support of the request. Staff felt the request seems to
. support the c.onditions of approval.
. Jason Kuehn and Brenda Martino, the owner/applicants, responded to questions. Mr.
Kuehn stated the addition is proposed to be about .12 by 14 feet. It was indicated a
.existing ten-foot addition to the rear of the house, buUt around 1950, was poorly
. constructed with low ceilings and no insulation; therefore, they will be improving the
home while. constructing the addition. Ms. Martino indicated a dangerous stairwell will
be removed and the additional room is needed because they are planning to start a family.
She stated building toward the 'rear of the property without a variance was considered;
however, was too expensive. She responded a new garage door will be installed and their
car will be parked in the garage.
DCAB Minutes
1
1/13/94
""'.~!Ql<~~-':---"~~~~~~1il';'~';'~<I;,'t:.'''_:i,='.j.,."..;..\t' ...c: ,";'..c..,....... ..r: ,':,-... ..\>p. ..<:,. .:'.~. ::.-,:.:..:.~,.>..;..:' ...'..'~..,.; .'.,'"\ X . ,c. ''''i~\fj.
:W.,~:.i;/.;.' .', ., t. . ., ",'.:.. NfJ ~wt~~;~~f,i~;~~~~k~~~!,~.,tJ&i~.;~~.:;irf,:a~i~i~;~~~iJ~F~~:;::p:k\<:jJ.J&~~'~:;l::':,;~;.$.;,~~::i~)j;,t;;~
;i~~lW~~~/~\:;;::..::,?:,:.;,'.~..:,'~.;.:~,r.:~~,~<;.;~,;:'~:::''- .",:':..'.:.;".'~. ~, . .,:. ..:.,..: ' : ., ."'.,y ;.~'.'~:~T..~...!;~,.{r,,:~~~~:i...~r\~~:~~~>,;I~${~$:r;r~~~f~;;.?~?i:~k;,',
. '. . . " :. ' ..' , . . ::: ..... .',' '.',', .. : .
r,
0..'
. .
. '
..'. <
fc:
:'0
. . ,
Mr. Kuehn stated he collects antiques and old furniture and wants the addition to be built
correctly. He stated his neighbor and ~rother will be designing and subcontracting the
work and have spent a Jot of time working to find the best design. In response to a
question, Mr. Kuehn stated the proposed bathroom will not need a variance.
Discussion ensued regarding the application and it was indicated extending the footprint
is mitigated by the hardship of needing to replace the small addition.
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 is the minimum necessary to overcome any
hardship that has been 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 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.
2. Lotus Land Inv, Inc for a variance of 3.33 ft to allow a structure 21.67
ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1055 S. Ft. Harrison
Ave, Magnolia Park, Blk 34, Lots 4-8 and part of vacated railroad right-of-
way on East, zoned CG (General Commercia!). V 94-02
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the
applicant wishes to construct a new medical office building which would extend into the
setback adjoining the Lotus Path right-of-way on the south side of the property. The
street was vacated in 1989, subject to several easements being granted. These
easements were not granted; therefore, the vacation has not officially occurred. The new
property owner is working to complete the vacation. Staff recommended conditioning
approval upon the street vacation being completed prior to any certificate of occupancy
being issued.
Mr. Shuford stated once the vacation occurs, there will be no need for a variance. He
said staff discussed with the applicant the option of pursuing the vacation instead of the
variance; however, the applicant felt requesting the variance to be more expeditious.
Discussion ensued regarding what is still needed to get the vacation and what would
happen if the vacation did not occur. Mr. Shuford stated access easements are needed
to other properties. If the applicant agreed to the condition and the vacation did not.
occur, he indicated the applicant could ask for a reconsideration of the condition, or,
could face the possibility of having to tear the building down.
As the applicant was not present, this hearing was postponed to the end of the meeting.
DCAB Minutes
2
1/13/94
~W;\)'"~~Ja<"~1.:"'---
. .1' . >
. ... .
'", ,;'. '
.r .' ~ ,
~ . '" . ' ~.
:t~~:~,;;;{t':::.;.J. .'. ~~:: .:'
----,~"'~.: .~~~.;}""'~; >~{2;;~;\hb~;: ;:;');~~'.;~~' ~~\.:2-:.::'~; ~)~ ;~:' ;.~:~~~';!X~;~:.:;;~:};:>~~~;,;:?-~6jj~:!~; i;:.f~~'::~:~~!~~i.~A;'~)~:,:~~.::~~f ~:,:",:':::/:::.;!~~:'
\ . +. '. . . . ,,": .' .." . . " . . ~ . . : . l. . . . . ' ! . '. ~..' . . . '. .. . .'
~.:, .'
r"j
C,
, .
"
~ '.' !
:. " .' .
,
~~: .
. ,
i.,"
,..
4'c"'.' "
"
~~/ .;:' ..' .
,..
" ,
'. .'
<~..
,0
Steve Spencer, representing the applicant, stated when the .99 acre site was purchased,
it was not known the vacation process had not been completed. He explained the
doctors' lease expires in June and time does not permit following through with the
vacation procedures. He said he will obtain the necessary ingress/egress documents for
the vacation. Mr. Spencer felt the three-foot variance is minimal.
Discussion ensued regarding the building dimensions, the doctors' entrance, patient
parking, closing one driveway and the easement requirements.
Lois Cormier, citizen, spoke in support of the application. She pointed out the site plan
will require ORe review if the parcel goes over one acre in size. Mrs. Cormier stated it
is desirable to have this office close to Morton Plant Hospital and asked the Board to look
favorably at the request.
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; 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 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 applicant, including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's
request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support
of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any
physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no
effect; 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the
date of this public hearing and 3) no certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to the
completion of the vacation of Lotus Path adjacent to this property. The motton was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
3. JES Properties, Inc (Florida Spine Institute) for a variance of 10ft to
allow a structural addition 0 ft from side property line where 10ft is
required at 2230 Drew St, Temple Terrace 1 st Add, Blk 0, Lots 26-28,
zoned OL (limited Office). V 94-03
4. JE5 Properties, Inc (Florida Spine Institute) for a variance of 10ft to
allow a structural addition 0 ft from side property line where 10ft is
required at 2250 Drew 5t, Temple Terrace 1 st Add, Blk D, Lots 20-23,
zoned OL (limited Office). V 94-04
Central Permitting Director Shuford requested items #3 and #4 be considered together.
He explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a covered
walkway in front of the property; however, he cannot meet the side setback requirement
due to the center portion of the land being in the County. He felt this is a unique circum-
stance and appears to meet the standards for approval.
DCAB Minutes
1/13/94
3
~ " ,
,~~:;:;:.,;:/r>;~.~;"..i.."<,': .
~~~~H"~""-'. .
": ., '.~.. cl.
. -~'''''''''~~~.~U'\''~~'~~M t~'i~,:,;:~,~\~t:~.~;.:;..~;~ ;\;;;"'::':~~ ,:~':'~~~~i'~{;;):)~ ~:~~},j~; ~~~'~{;;i~~/f;~~~~4t{~~:~Ni~;~~;,~~',Ii:~\;<( ~:' j;,:J;,:. /;~,:r~;
. : .' . : . ." " " .' . .' . . ~ . I ~. .. I.' "; . ... '.. '.. '. .' .., . ,
. . ,
.. ,
r']
o
.,
L.
, . . .
,. ,
,". .
.0
.', .
Ed Walker, architect representing the applicant, stated the Institute occupies three parcels
and leases from the owner of the center portion, who does not wish to annex into the
City limits. He stated patients travel between the three buildings and the variance is
needed to cover the walkway. Mr. Walker indicated the county portion has no setback
requirement; the City's zoning requires the ten-foot setback.
Lawrence Wieland, CEO for the Florida Spine Institute, responded to questions, stating
17.6 years remain on the lease of the center portion. He explained patients who move
between the buildings are often infirm, using wheelchairs and walkers. He said a smooth,
covered walk would be very he'pful. It was not known why the owner of the center did
not wish to annex. .
Ron Nesk, the adjacent property owner to the west, requested clarification of the request.
After reviewing the plans with staff, he expressed no opposition to the application.
Discussion ensued regarding other properties in the past building in the county which
were later annexed into the City. It was indicated this is the first time a variance
affecting unincorporated property has come before the Board. It was felt to be a hardship'
taking patients from one building to another and the request was felt to be the minimum.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney maved ta grant the
variances far 2230 and 2250 Drew Street 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 are
. the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the type of business that
is run there and the need .for patients to be able to go from one building to another under
cover 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 upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney,
Messrs. Pliska and Gans voted naye"; Ms. Martin and Mr. Johnson voted "nayll. Motion
carried.
5. Gerald P & Brenda A Crum for a variance of 22.8 ft to allow a structural
addition 2.2 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1601 N.
Betty ln, Pine Ridge, Blk B, lot 10, zoned AS 8 lSingle Family Residential).
V 94-05
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the
applicants wish to construct a new garage on the south side of an existing garage on their
single-family property. Staff felt there is existing reasonable use of the property and
approval of the variance could set an undesirable precedent by being out of alignment
with adjacent front yard setbacks. He stated the request does not appear to comply with
the standards for approval of a variance.
DCAB Minutes
1/13/94
4
~.ll-Io'~boi'lo;O_,n
. ,
.' -~i.,",;l~;J~'..~~ ;)>;;.f..i,;(i!;"J.';!~~i...:" :,~~ ~J:.0.; i',~~;~,>k.~';t~;~.:~~:~,'~~:{~' L;.:. i;();~i~i;'~~,.;; ~:i\.:.:~~:.i:~~~~/;/;~;X~~~~;.~~~tt7:~;/~;':;'~. ~.~S~~:..;~::/ .~~J~'~l~
i:\.:r.',., ,
~! :~::;~I' :1 ~ ~;~ : :. ~
''::''<-:',.1 '. I.' .'
,I,:. r,.
s (~ '.'
r"
::.0
I."
" ,r
, ':.
J'",' .
., .
..:.0
. .
Concern was expressed the location of an existing shed is not accurately shown on the
plans. Mr. Shuford stated the drawing is from a 1986 survey and he will investigate.
Gerald and Brenda Crum, the owner/applicants, stated the garage is needed to protect
their cars, home and family from the increasing crime problem in the neighborhood. Mr.
Crum said his work causes him to be away from home for extended periods of time. He
has four cars, two of which are classics restored to showroom condition. When he leaves
these cars outside, he said they attract vandals as well as people who stop to look. A
question was raised if a privacy fence would help alleviate the situation. Mrs. Crum
responded someone could hide inside a fence and she is concerned with the safety of her
daughter and herself.
In response to questions, Mr. Crum stated the new garage cannot be placed on the north
side because of the septic system, which was allowed to remain when the property was
annexed into the City limits. He explained the site constraints and the difficulties he
encountered related to the annexation. Mr. Crum said he talked to his neighbors, who
indicated no opposition to this request.
Concern was expressed the request is not a minimum variance. Mr. Crum indicated he
is willing to reduce the size of the proposed garage; Discussion ensued regarding the site
having three driveways, possible adjustments to the proposed building plan and location
and landscaping requirements. Mrs. Crum stated Woodbine Street and Betty Lane were
just recently paved and landscaped. She felt it would be unnecessary to landscape again
relative to this request.
Discussion ensued regarding the City's Traffic Engineering Department questions
concerning the location of the garage entrance, if one driveway can be removed and
whether or not additional paving will be required. Mr. Shuford suggested additional
landscaping to soften the south property line and moving the existing shed five feet from
the property line. Mr. Crum indicated this would not be a problem.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant,. Ms. Martin moved to grant a
variance of 20 feet to allow a structure 5 feet from a street right-of-way where 25 feet
is required because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 46.24 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 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 except as modified by the granting of this 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; 3) the shed on the
property shall be relocated to be set back a minimum of 6 feet from all property lines and
4) landscaping meeting the minimum shrubbery landscaping material requirements for
perimeter landscaping shall be installed along the entire south wall of the garage addition
within six months of the date of this public hearing; this landscaping shall be installed
OCAB Minutes
1/13/94
5
~~~~-~.--
. '~-~..::.,,,.,.~";;oc,,,.\,,,.,..i ).,;, ':'::~:;i:~:,:, :,:....: :~,.: .::.~.:;:~; :,':-:, i;\,,~~,..~;' .~:. ,:>.,:~,:..>:.~ \ ~.~;~;~' :',:.' .t\ :.':;'~~l;.;) ~~~,:)::,~::'::)~i:"}~ ;:?::~;.";~.:~< ::, ;,~';f~
>~\~';:.. ' ./, ~' ~.c, '
.'.
~~:""'..'." ..
:~J.J~~T.: ~~~ ~'.:..::;;\', ,\.
" "
, '. ',,' , .... . '. .... '. ' ~. ' .: ',.. I.' ., ': I'... .. -
. ,
o
..0,
. .
.'
,'.
,..
./' .
.. :
, .
, .
.'
:1; ~
~?;- ,',
'. c
'.
" I ~
0'
entirely on the applicants' property and not in the public rightwofwway. The motion was
duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Pliska,
and Johnson voted "aye": Mr. Gans voted "nay". Motion carried.
A public hearing was also held to reconsider the following requests for variances of the
Land Development Code due to a site plan change:
B J E, Inc & Pelican Two, Inc (Pelican Walk Shopping etr) for variances of
(1) 10ft to allow a structure 0 ft from street rightwofwway where 10ft is
required: and (2) 25% to allow 100% palm tree plantings where 75% is
permitted at 483 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 43-48, part
of Lot 64 and Lots 65-71, and Clearwater JBeach Park 1 st Add, Blk A, Lots
2w8 and 1/2 vacated alley, and Blk B, Lots 32-43 and 1/2 vacated alley,
zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 93w36
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the
applicant wishes to increase the pedestrian and vehicular access to the project for which
two variances were granted on May 13, 1993. He said the minutes of that meeting
indicated the Board favorably viewed the pedestrian nature of the project; therefore, he
granted administrative approval to increase the width of the pedestrian access on the
north side. The proposed addition of the vehicular accessway, however, requires the
application be reconsidered. He suggested. additional conditions to ensure pedestrian
safety and referred to comments from the City's Traffic Engineering Department.
In a memo dated January 12, 1994, Acting Public Works Diroctor Peter Yauch expressed
no concern with the proposed northbound, right~turn in only driveway as shown on the
. plans, as long as pedestrian safety concerns are addressed.
In response to a question from Mr. Plisko, Mr. Shuford stated the typical minimum drive
width is 14 feet. However, he stated the site is unlikely to have fastwmoving vehicle
traffic due to the configuration of the buildings, so the drive will be narrower. He
suggested this proposal is only a modification of what was granted in the past.
Ms. Whitney expressed serious concerns regarding the proposal being contrary to what
was previously granted and having a driveway opening on a busy street near a dangerous
intersection. She stated the Board was assured the only vehicular access would be from
Poinsettia Avenue and the Board does not approve of applicants obtaining variances by.
telling the Board one thing and doing something different. She expressed concern
regarding the parking calculations and whether or not a Unity of Title has been recorded
joining this property and the restaurant across the street. Upon further investigation, staff
. verified the Unity of Title exists.
Messrs. Johnson and Plisko agreed the variances were previously granted based on the
project being presented as a pedestrian mall having one vehicular accessway on Poinsettia
Avenue and no traffic circulation off Mandalay Avenue. Mr. Pliska indicated the matter
has been complicated by construction having continued since the variances were granted.
DCAB Minutes
6
1113/94
~~Ii4~-.>
...:.-~~-~".:_;~; I':...;,; '~I:f;"'i'tCl(J,;,~.:,> :,~,,~,;.';:;{~~;.",",..';. ;:, ;.~~,\'-.; ~,;~: ~~':':;;:I;; ';.:;~1~,,:;;::'~~~;'~~i~t;~>:./~,:~:;;~ ~;J~;~:f.{~::{:~,~:;fj.~t<f;i~./.< ,';:: ..:.<:; :.~:~1.
,,),: '.' " .
;!:\>'>'..:/:.: :.-.; . :.::,.:~. ,
. ." . . . I 0.', .' .. '. . . . .. . I,' ....:.., > . '. . . . . .. . . :.. ~ . .' . .' '. . ~. I . .' .
. . ,
. ','.
.' '. .' . . .. . . . ":' ~.'..." ". ...' ...... :. ,. '" .~. L' . . , ',,:'. . ", '. " " '. . . ,': . . "" '.1 . " ",'." . .... '\ .' ~: ..... I' C : I' .".
.. ",. . . '
,".r',. ,"!,.~.,.~ ,~, I: .
,~
.'
.~""
.~. . .
~: . .
. .
')..
::0
.. ,
. .
... ,".
~ \:
"
,'I' .,
.'.. ".
:f- '.. ~ .
~;'~:':'!,:: >.
!{:~ ' " :
{J,\.' ,
~ ;,~'. "~, "
'. '.
.-:..
. ,
:;-...,.; /.
" \. ,
.~ ~ '.: ,'\
,tl.
." ~' ,
.....
~.:.o
. ,',
.;
,
'.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether to hear the applicant's request to
substantially change the site plan, or let it stand as originally submitted.
A question was raised if there is any additional hardship to justify rehearing the request.
It was not known if any new information would be presented. The site plan submitted
in May was compared to the new proposal.
Assistant City Attorney Lance outlined the options available to the Board: 1) not to
rehear; 2} rehear and make no changes and 3) rehear, making changes. In response to
a question from Mr. Plisko, Mr. Lance stated rehearing the application would start the
two-week appeal period running again. He stated, if the decision is not to rehear, the
original variances would still be in effect.
Ms. Whitney moved not to rehear the case. The motion was duly seconded.
Mr. Shuford stated the applicant has the option to come back nine months after the
original hearing with a new application. He suggested rehearing the case now rather than
having to process an entirely new request. He stated the applicants can ask for
reconsideration because they have substantially changed their plans.
Mr. Lance read from the Board rules and procedures, which address reconsideration of
action immediately after it is taken. He pointed out that standard condition #1 was added
to keep applicants from changing what they proposed after variances were granted.
Discussion continued whether or not to rehear the request. In response to a question
from Mr. Shuford, It was indicated there is no point in the application being brought back
at a latEn date because the Board did not favor the new driveway. Majority consensus
was to rehear the ~ase and the motion .was withdrawn.
Mr. Shuford reviewed discussion held during the May 13 meeting relating to the
application. He stated the variances were requested, due to the pedestrian nature of the
project, to bring the City streetscape to the front area of the site design. It was felt :the
request was justified and would be in line with the Clearwater Blue Ribbon Task Force
design recommendations. He stated th~ City Commission considered the modified site
plan and felt that certain technical and safety concerns could be worked out, subject to
. approval of the Development Code Adjustment Board. Discussion continued regarding
procedural concerns and what is being requested.
Ms. Whitney moved not to rehear the case. There was no second.
Mr. Gans moved to rehear Case No. V 93~36 to consider adding a drive-through, changing
. the site from pedestrian only to a combination of vehicular and pedestrian use. 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.
The meeting was recessed from 3:00 to 3: 1 0 p.m. Assistant City Attorney Lance did not
return.
DCAB Minutes
7
1/13/94
,",.',4.
n
" ,
..........rl'
o
.',,'
~ TC
; .
~ } . ,
':.:
".
, '
. .'.
o
\ .
'.'
Stephen Fowler, architect representing the applicant, thanked the Board for allowing the
presentation and gave a brief, history of the application. He stated approximately two
years ago, the Eckerd drug store approached the applicant regarding expanding their
location on Clearwater Beach. Preliminary plans were drawn up and submitted for
approval. In December, Eckerd decided not to proceed with plans. The applicant
volunteered to do a face-lift of the facility to have a better impact on Clearwater Beach
and Eckerd agreed to look at plans to redesign the parking lots. The new plans were
submitted for approval to the City Commission, which directed staff to work out safety
concerns with the Development Code Adjustment Board.
Mr. Fowler displayed a large-scale drawing of the area, explaining the safety precautions
taken to protect the pedestrian areas from faster-moving vehicular traffic. He stated there
was every intention of doing what was originally proposed; however, the tenants felt .
vehicular access is needed from Mandalay Avenue, which he estimated would represent
about five percent of the traffic on the site.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed parking and loading areas on the site.
In response to a question, Mr. Fowler stated that during the original presentation, he
alluded to the negotiations with Eckerd; however, there was no signed deal at that time.
It was indicated the Board was impressed with the pedestrian atmosphere of the front of
the site and the fact that traffic would be hidden behind the buildings. Concern was
expressed that this ambience would be negated by traffic driving through. Mr. Fowler
stated only an occasional vehicle would be likely to use the proposed nine-foot driveway
cut on Mandalay Avenue.
Elias Anastasoupoulos, the owner/applicant, stated they have not done anything other
than what was applied for and they are only asking for help. He said they tried to work
with Eckerd for a year; however, the deal did not work out. He felt the driveway is now
needed and stated he is not asking to make a complete change, but only for a drive to
anow traffic through to the back of the site. He still plans to proceed with what was
originally asked.
Mr. Gans moved to reaffirm variances #1 and #2, granted on May 13, 1993, which are
still in effect and are subject to the same conditions as outlined on that date and to deny
reconsideration of standard condition #1 to allow a site plan modification to change a
driveway from pedestrian use to pedestrian and vehicular use, more specifically because,
no unnecessary hardship was shown; the request is based on the desire of the applicant
to secure a greater financial return from the property; the granting of the variance would
substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, endanger the public safety,
adversely affect the general welfare of the community and violate the general spirit and
intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05 of the Code
of the City of Clearwater. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
DCAB Minutes
8
1/13/94
. ~ ;', .
..................;lI~~;i;li:.:' .... I.~~~~~ ....~~;-, .... "\.' ',~ '-1,.'" .~."-' .._, ,C"" '"~.~:.~.<. ':"1 ':,' .,..,.....,...'...,J.c" ',r .' "~'<I
. '.' . . ::W-*l.ii.:t~ ;Ja.;.~~:.:1.(Ntl~Ji~~ ~~: ~i;:4.f...,~;.:.~~~~~~.;~~;;~:~i(~~... /.:1.- J;t..\,~ ':tl~~~~.;.. ~.r';.J ~~~;.~~~M~~:l~IJ.~~\.;:..~,;..:;~~~).:~;_ .~~.~:' i...j.~:: .'}:. .~..iC,t
. .... " . _'il'lo.i~..,.. u F~r~.~;R-!;.J)o:;(..>~J.~T~.d'I.......~tid~~~J~~4f1:;l""'i!(~'~~\1:(. ~,,~~ .,~.::c.~~, "y~~,}":/.
~I!.~>)~-~.
;~~~:" '.; '~..' t: : .. . .
" . . '., ~ : . . '. . . '..' .' . .-' . . : . . .. . . . .... . '. . "...'. .~. . . I _.
"; 'I': .~,7'" . "
)
"_F
..'
,.
-....
.~
,:..V
"
....,
{.~, ~
..:1.,. :
i,~' :
;.:
;.;{.: .
."',,'
,..'
......
~; ",:."
/, "
f :, ~.
.~ .:.. .
'.".' .
....~.. .~.. .
'.;:. .'..
. ~. <
..
... .
. .,' ~
....., ~ ."
,.,
-,0
~ :':., I . ~
,.
.',' .
. '.
The following land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
Ordinance No. 5513-93 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the
land Development Code; amending Section 35. 11, Code of Ordinances, to
define "churchtt and uschool"; amending Sections 41.081 And 41.091,
Code of Ordinances, to revise the information required to be provided by
applicants for conditional use approval for alcoholic beverage establish-
ments; prohibiting alcoholic beverage establishments within 500 feet of a
church or a school; providing that no variances from such minimum distance
requirements shall be permitted; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford explained the ordinance in detail, stating the City Commission has asked that
no alcoholic beverage establishments be located within 500 feet of any church or school
with no variances to be granted. He explained details of the proposal relating to
conditional use permits and separation distance variances.
Concern was expressed the ordinance would prohibit Sunshi'ne Mall, Searstown and a
number of other sites where it would be appropriate to have alcoholic beverage sales in
stores and restaurants. It was noted this would have a serious effect on these businesses
and it was felt variance requests should be allowed to come before the Planning and
Zoning Board.
A question was raised why churches were included in the distance calculations. Mr.
Shuford stated citizens have traditionally complained about finding indigents sleeping on
church property on Sunday mornings. He stated churches also have large parking lots
which are vacant most of the time and tend to attract unwanted gatherings.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend eliminating any. outright prohibition and continuing with
the established variance procedures. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote
being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Pfisko and Gans voted "aye"; Mr.
Johnson voted "naytl. Motion carried.
Ordinance No. 5521-94 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the
land Development Code; amending Section 44.51, Code of Ordinances, to
provide for increased area for attached signs in residential areas; providing
an effective date.
Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 5521-94. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
fl.
Approval of Minutes of October 28 and December 9, 1993
Due to the members not having received copies in the mail, approval of the minutes was
continued to the meeting of February 10, 1994.
DCAB Minutes
9
1/13/94
~~::""i'~Ii"=li~~,\.:..~:-~",,,~:'.t~~.".:' .' ......:.~~.....~.. ... ....... ,~~",..L,:'t :...~.;=. ~.;'-~'., ,j':... ",'" ..'. ,,~:.:.:.
. . '. : . - ~ . '~.~ .. ~~;'~~.~i~~~.;:!l';~~iJ~it\'~f~;~*.~~);~..~~p,~;~::J:~~~~~~~~~~1T~\;ij}\~k:~~{'~~~~~J~j~~:,;-.~~T~ t~~":J:4!~~~;:; }:::,,~,,~~~,';fj~
." .. . ~ "V ./e"'J.-~J lE~jh..l'4i~-~..r .:-,,:~~;'j}M-'J.I.a.\,.y~~...l:.v,[,;t1...~.~~./.4-.~..~.f'~l.9fi
~~~(oi~~.~--.:--
~~~;~,~',: ~\: \.~:;,~ ~:.:"'i . :' '. '.. I ,". ' .. . ....'...
. .' ..' '. - '.. . '. .:'. I. ....' , . ~ . . . '. , ,.... ". ~ . . '. : ~ ',. . :
~,1::i! ·
}..:I".t....,...., . ".
~~
. Board Reporter
~~fl:........ ....... .
~h2:~,...;'!. ,.'
3;~~>/,:'::.. .i.. .
r;:.'~o':...:.:.
~.i,"I, , .1 .,.
:~.;~ .:..; ... ' .
I~~"':.' \.;:.', ."..
t:.::.~ !";'.~. '~:. " ~
(Y:;'~: ~.,~::: <
~1:J\~.:::.:.. '
"'i\........ '
. ,~-')
..._,"
.'.
',..~ .:.
1 r...
~ ~ ,
" '
I..~ ~:-.:
c.~(~ ~ ," < .
.t....;..
. _~'~ ~: :.f .
/,-7-'
.:.~ 'c
::}'~.,: ',. \: :
~.~. ,
.~'~1 : ~.
>": ~ c I
~:~>~<: "", .
:~':.C)':
":" ~: '
':;~-! 'l~'- :.'
:J (" .
~:.}:;w: l ':':-. ., .<,
~:;<~:::<~;; ',;, :. .
"',Ie..
III.
Board and Staff Discussion
ryIr. Shuford stated the City Commission has asked the members of the City advisory
boards for their recommendations regarding changes the members would like to see. One
member is to appear before the City Commission on February 14, 1994 to present the
Board's recommendations. A suggestion was made for the Development Code
Adjustment Board to discontinue hearing variance requests regarding docks. Discussion
. of this topic is to be agendaed for the Development Code Adjustment Board meeting of
February 10, 1994.
. Mr. Plisko questioned a house at 821 Bay Esplanade being torn down except f~r one small
section. Staff is to investigate.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern that insufficient hardship existed in the request for the
covered .walkway in V 94-93. However, this was not felt to be a problem due to the
open space on either side of the proposed walkway.
. .Staff. was requested to agenda election of officers for the next meeting.
The meeting of January 27, '994 was canceled due to no new cases being scheduled.
i
, .1
,
,C.le IV
.
Adjournment
, The meeti.ng was adjourned at 4:34 p.m.
d:9~0
Chairman
I
,
\
ATTEST:
OCAB Minutes
10
1/13/94
~'fll'lli.ll'lll~- --~""~<'l". ",.,;11r.r.....^...,~J:t"'~',;;..uI1'..;.;,i.......i\;\";.!.:~;;,;;;;.~t..\);.;... \ If,,:,. ..;.,~ :,.<,;,:,~:, ',,' :::., .'i. i<.:;j ,~'...' ~:,' r:.,.-.;!;;:,:...I;.:J,:~.ti~.~~.~t;J'i;,:~~~~i~+ll.~:'.1\~'\~.\'.."QJ
..' \:. ", " . : '.--"-4.~j~.m1.1-~~~\>}'4;;~~1"'1i,'.~fg~t~~'f'q;m~J?a~~~~'m.~i"".l.\.\ilijj(f#;~
l~j~~\tril,:%i::.,;L) 1,;:::.\>;;.,',.,,:-.:. ::. .,;', ......~ '. .,^' , .i!l, . '$~.",'. .. _ ~.' .... . .....