04/14/1994 (2)
i '
DCAB
Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
Date
fir. eft. : -
rya r1'. ?. ?. . ,
+?S' J
?ytiJ 1 '
.E
.¦
37
?:r•ti'c.,i<?? 5ti'r: ''::ft'.. ?•; 1. ?'. ?. ; . , ?? i Y? ? ,k ? s ?
?' '?.'T?"i???r:ieAP::.?:f?dS` .'?r,i'. ,.P.l• •?t"' '.y: .j?. - _?
`.ill ..? • '.'? ?',?[ !? r•? i-: ..a': 'r`. ?? ?,. .
b ? X71. ?r. ?+J ...?.. Its `?{.. . s•1 T1rr: •?.
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, April 14, 1994 - 1:00 P.M. - Commission Meeting Room,
City Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida
To consider requests for variances of the Land Development Code:
i. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (continued from 3-24-94) Charles C. & Mary A. Carter for variances of (1)
5 ft to permit a side setback of 10 ft where 15 ft is required; (2) 15 ft to permit entrance
steps 20 fit from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required, (3) 10 ft to permit
a residential structure 25 ft from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required; (4)
15 ft to permit a garage structure 20 ft from a street right-of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is
required; and (5) 1 ft to permit 24 ft of vegetative buffer where 25 ft is required at 2671
Third Ave, Chautauqua Unit No 1 -Sec A, Blk 44, Lots 1-6, 21-26, and part of lots 7 & 20,
zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential). V 93-13
Action: Continued to April 28, 1994.
ITEM B - (coat from 3-24-94) Sun Watch, Inc for a variance of 2.2 ft to permit a
structure 92.2 ft in height where 90 ft is allowed at 670 Island Way, Sec 5-29-15, M&B
31.011, zoned RM 28 (Multi-Family Residential). V 94-14
Action: Continued to April 28, 1994 due to a tie vote.
1. Isabelle R. Keener for variances of (1) 1 ft to permit a fence height of 3.5 ft where
2.5 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback area from a street right-of-way
where the property is addressed from; and (2) 2 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 4
ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback from a street right-of-way where the
property is not addressed from at 1976 Drew Plaza, Marymont, Blk 25, Lots 17, 18, 19, and
part of Lot 20, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-15
Action: Granted as requested subject to the following conditions: 11 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(s) shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing and 3) the fences shall be landscaped on the outside, or right-of-way side of the
fences and in accord with the provisions and specifications contained in Section 42.27.
2. Mark S. & Jill M. Araujo for a variance of 1.9 ft to permit a side setback of 3,1 ft
where 5 ft is required at 1125 Charles St, Peale Park, Blk D, Lot 7, zoned RS 8 (Single Family
Residential). V 94-16
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
DCAB Action i 04/14/94
?71.'aJiL?in??R.F'?'id? #?+'+ti=•??1r'.?. ??i Iii .y? µ• d' J., •1 ?. :% i .!f.. x: ' ' ?i* '>?. ,fir ,{•°o..? ?`?•. :. .'i . ,'a. .
.
,?]'*rbJl?A?r'?x??.x? i ? ?'i'- ' ,,,5?/°: r,' ?':c. 1•:-a' ??'•'t?•.,, ? {iS?y-`:?' ? ti, r,....?'?. ? .<... `,s.; -.
?L??4'..+;rj"_":.ak,.r.r.,.f:
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(s) shall be obtained within six (61 months from the date of this public
hearing.
3. Aubrey MacLean, TRBIClearwater Trust for a variance of 52 parking spaces to
permit a total of 4043 parking spaces where 4095 parking spaces have been required at
20505 US Hwy 19, N, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 32.01 & 32.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center)
and OL (Limited Office). V 94-17
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(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public
hearing and 3) the applicant shall revise the certified site plan with the approved amendment.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
Ordinance No. 5557-94 (coot from 3-24-94) Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating
to the Land Development Code; amending Section 45.24, Code of Ordinances, to revise the
standards for the approval of variances; providing an effective date.
Action: Continued to the meeting of April 28, 1994.
Ordinance No. 5562-94 (cont from 3-24-94) Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating
to the Land Development Code; amending Section 35.11, Code of Ordinances, to create a
definition for utility facilities; amending various sections within Chapter 40, Code of
Ordinances, to provide for utility facilities as permitted uses in the Limited Industrial and Pub-
lic/Semi-Public districts and as a conditional use in all other zoning districts; amending Section
41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplementary conditional use standards for utility
facilities; providing an effective date.
Action: Recommended approval.
Ordinance No. 5589-94 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land
Development Code; amending Section 42.21, Code of Ordinances, to provide for revised
requirements for nonconformities; providing an effective date.
Action: Recommended approval.
11. Approval of Minutes - March 24, 1994 - Approved as submitted.
111. Board and Staff Discussion
IV. Adjournment - 4:42 p.m.
%nof
[SCAB Action 2 04/14/94
? ?'cd+3.'L'i?!?hiRiif ?4 'Fl,?r?',q.'"• }..,F•,?y .w ?..,{; li ,?? ..-r?i.. '1,?., :"s ..,. j.: '; .>? ?-4. ?e?.°.. F,?^
r. : t ? ?, 3nkf??k? s ,r? •i'r?n t"'??' x'7 ",;.;?7 ?:?'^^?? 1:- ?i" ?Y S::::.':T,. ??r ??. ?'?;?, rnl. it ?:. ',, .?, i
' ?.#. .r ? ` ,'.4+.. J?s? is ?'f'?f!a•..?n.,... .?€:.?.j:;,'iir._.,pr?1',•.:,S?:. cs?: .+.+?'s pis=R?'e3';:.?:+« ?'?iM,Y!S:."?n.?!'"1;?: ? r., :; t.
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
April 14, 1994
Members present:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Members absent:
Alex Plisko, Chairman (excused)
Also present:
Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Director
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
.o
.h
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the
Commission Chambers of City Hall. She 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. She
noted Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a
record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
She also noted, as per Board policy, rules and procedures, three members must vote
in favor of a request for it to be approved and an applicant has the choice of asking
for a postponement to the next meeting or proceeding with the request.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
1. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (continued from 3-24-94) Charles C. & Mary A. Carter for
variances of (1) 5 ft to permit a side setback of 10 ft where 15 ft is
required; (2) 15 ft to permit entrance steps 20 ft from a street right-of-
way' (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required; (3) 10 ft to permit a residential
structure 25 ft from a street right-bf-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is
required; (4) 15 ft to permit a garage structure 20 ft from a street right-
of-way (3rd Ave) where 35 ft is required; and (5) 1 ft to permit 24 ft of
vegetative buffer where 25 ft is required at 2671 Third Ave, Chautauqua
Unit No 1 -Sec A, Blk 44, Lots 1-6, 21-26, and part of lots 7 & 20,
zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential). V 93-13
ACAB Minutes
1
4114/94
4.4
.i•tiddL t.l..'r.:w.'r.YrY.?Y wi4i}_:;?+??'?sfT?'t?n..'?t!NF. ?.+.::•?,:.9,'.:tr:.k?1..?::i't.'_s. "dl'C.".::?:?..". :`i 'i :i ..v`?...
Central Permitting Director Shuford stated this item was continued from the meeting
of March 24 to allow time to change the request. As the applicant did not submit the
necessary information before the advertising deadline, it is necessary to continue the
item to the meeting of April 28, 1994.
Mr. Johnson moved to continue item V 93-13 to the meeting of April 28, 1994. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM B - (cunt from 3-24-94) Sun Watch, Inc for a variance of 2.2 ft to
permit a structure 92.2 ft in height where 90 ft is allowed at 670 Island
Way, Sac 5-29-15, M&B 31.011, zoned RM 28 (Multi-Family
Residential). V 94-14
Central Permitting Director Shuford stated this item was continued from the meeting
of March 24, 1994 pending issuance of the final order in the appeal of V 93-55. In
a final order dated March 25, 1994, Hearing Officer Johnston affirmed the Board's
decision to deny a five foot height request. The applicant is now requesting a smaller
variance. Staff recommends denial, indicating the proposed style of building creates
the need for the variance and the application does not appear to support the standards
for approval.
Carlton. Ward, attorney representing the applicant, explained the application in detail,
indicating the applicant proposes to build a 96-unit, nine-floor apartment building over
a ground floor parking garage. He stated the original building plans were redesigned
to allow for an absolute minimum 12-inch clearance between floors needed for heating
and air, conditioning duct work. He submitted a list of building heights in the vicinity,
pointing out the proposal would be in character with its surroundings. He handed out
packets containing floor plans of the five different apartment styles and overall
sketches of the proposal. He stated the long and narrow building was designed to
maximize the waterfront view. Mr. Ward indicated it is not possible to meet the
required ceiling height without the variance because there are no long hallways in the
dwelling units where the ceiling could be dropped to accommodate the ducts.
Referring to the floor plans, he detailed the ceiling height requirements related to the
proposal.
It was noted many of the adjacent buildings were constructed prior to the current
code.
0
Ernie Shreve, mechanical engineer representing the applicant, addressed the Board
regarding duct size calculations, materials and air velocity requirements. He indicated
seven-inch circular duct is needed to extend around the perimeters of the rooms in
order to avoid dropping the ceilings below the required height. He stated the
challenge is carrying adequate air into the large entertainment areas to provide the
DCA9 Minutes 2 4114194
1.?xispa'?•?:ik?r:?c1c'???ttrt?f:;?f.'X".3?` ? r+ •'t?:°1.k'^ .;"1 tRr• a •?'.- .??;r r• ? ? ..:. .t. L'?r.?.
level of comfort expected in luxury apartments of this type.
Discussion ensued regarding the locations of the air handlers for the various units.
In response to questions, Mr. Shreve indicated, even in apartments with centrally
located air handlers, smaller duct cannot be used due to the large size of some of the
rooms. Referring to the floor plans he stated the different apartment styles have
different duct requirements and all but 36 of the 96 proposed units are impacted. Mr.
Ward stated the garage ceiling has been lowered as much as it can be.
Summarizing the request, Mr. Ward stated the applicant did not create this hardship,
the request is extremely minimal and is not offensive to the surrounding community.
He felt the developer has worked very hard to come up with a reasonable and
attractive use of the land. He stated the proposal will be good the residents of Island
Estates and will increase the City's tax base.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. Concern was expressed the building,
having nine floors of dwelling units is designed for maximum density to secure a
greater financial return from the luxury condominiums. It was indicated there were
letters submitted at the previous hearing expressing concerns the proposal would
adversely impact the view, air and light of adjacent buildings.
In rebuttal, Mr. Ward stated heating and air conditioning are considered to be
necessities, not luxuries. He felt the 2.2-foot variance was extremely minimal and the
property owner should be allowed to fully develop his property. He noted there were
no letters from adjacent property owners concerned with the current application. Mr.
Ward stated the size of the property does not allow the owner to reasonably build
within the code and the required 7.5 foot ceiling height is a hardship.
Discussion continued regarding the proposal. It was agreed the request is minimal for
a nine-story building and the reasoning behind the code height requirement was
questioned. However, it was also felt that dropping one floor and staying within the
code was preferable. The existence of other tall buildings nearby was not felt to be
pertinent to this case. It was noted the applicant is already receiving a ten-foot height
bonus for having the parking beneath the building. Adding height to the allowed
bonus was not felt to be appropriate. It was felt the hardship was self-imposed and
primarily for financial gain. Discussion ensued regarding the rationale of placing
parking below the building. One member felt the case be continued in order to be
heard before a full Board.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin 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
DCAB Minutes
3
4114194
?`? `"z fiY??,«yf??i!,i::i??s???e;s?'f: ;?' '.7 ?: •.f.: .., ?:!)...?.5; rr?`, .r ;` -? -?. tt"? ,-tc*?,'•??? ,?;?;
- .t ?. ..`u-rS7-.' :'?=. " •` ,f•?V'?'R„i' -t`- :r ?: °.:.,'•p:y... .1"_k,}?;4:,'?'?'???u°L?.e? '??? - „q?'-•._ r?i.
- .e!'? .^i. .?7'jt??.i•,? /4rr''r:? ?;fa •;fr„ ' ?!: i; }? j ?Y•t,,FF?????': '.'1+;:'.;;' ` ??7ii
specifically because, the variance arises from a condition that 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. 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(s) shall be
obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was
duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney voted "aye";
Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "nay". Due to a tie vote, item V 94-14 was
continued to the meeting of April 28, 1994.
1. Isabelle R. Keener for variances of (1) 1 ft to permit a fence height of
3.5 ft where 2.5 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback
area from a street right-of-way where the property is addressed from;
and (2) 2 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum height
is permitted in a structural setback from a street right-of-way where the
property is not addressed from at 1976 Drew Plaza, Marymont, 131k 25,
Lots 17, 18, 19, and part of Lot 20, zoned RS 8 (Single Family
Residential). V 94-15
. Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the
applicant wishes to construct two fences in street yards on the corner of Drew Plaza
and Hercules Avenue. He noted a 30-inch fence is allowed on the side to which the
property is addressed. Staff recommended approval subject to three conditions.
Isabella Keener, the owner/applicant, stated she has changed her name to Donohoe
since her application was filed. She explained her home is on the corner at a busy
intersection near a gas station. She felt the fences will help block some of the noise,
fumes and dirt from the traffic. Ms. Dohonoe also wishes to provide a safer place for
her granddaughter to play.
In response to a question, Ms. Donohoe stated picket fencing is the only 30-inch-tall
a:
wooden fence material on the market and it would not match the nice double-sided
wooden shadow box fence she wishes to build. She proposes, instead, to have a 42-
inch-tall shadow box fence with a gate across the front of her property. She said this
property has been in her family for 40 years and she wishes to make it as nice as she
can.
Discussion ensued regarding the request with it being felt that a hardship exists due
to the growth of this area. It was noted, if the variances are granted, the subject
property will be the only house on Drew Plaza with a fence in front.
DCAB Minutes 4 4114194
???.'irk'A'V!'?F.'?rti.h,eVdY;+:.#ki::?f?';?}??°+vHi:?.?..???ct?'io?r?C' _ 1" c';??..'• t?..; r ??.i? '?h.'.' hi..?„? . r ?'"'J;? .t'.:'?,
;k' i?.?. ..'7,?a?.. '• .t .,? t`y ..._,?.. ?:r: ,.,?.:' ,` +'. ,•, ,fir ?•
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to grant
the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the
standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code,
more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition that 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 suroundings of the property
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(s) shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date
of this public hearing and 3) the fences shall be landscaped on the outside, or right-of-
way side of the fences and in accord with the provisions and specifications contained
in Section 42.27. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms.
Whitney, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Martin voted "nay". Motion
carried.
2. Mark S. & Jill M. Araujo for a variance of 1.9 ft to permit a side
setback of 3.1 ft where 5 ft is required at 1125 Charles St, Peale Park,
Blk D, Lot 7, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-16
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the
applicants wish to construct an addition to their single-family home in alignment with
the existing structure in the east side setback. It was indicated the adjoining
neighbors support the request. Staff recommended approval, indicating the request
supports the conditions of approval due to the location and setback of the existing
structure. The application was felt to be the minimum to provide visual appeal.
Mark and Jill Araujo, the owner/applicants, addressed the Board, stating their house
was built in the 1940's. The wish to build the addition in line with the existing house
for economic as well as aesthetic reasons. Mr. Araujo said offsetting the addition
would block the only window in a bedroom on that side of the house.
One letter, from the adjacent property owner, was submitted in support of the
application.
In response to a question, Mr. Araujo stated the addition will consist of a kitchen,
master bedroom and a bathroom.
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
DCAB Minutes 5 4114194
_ ? ? ?•s" lq?i.:tt2iil ;a}i?'?yr,,' . tl..¢., •?i?,? 'r,? { ? _ .? ??:'
s?.ia. ;4.}a:, "; ?.t?;6+'•??i:. '??I,yP {....i,+'., .a,y'?la?:4,;t .e'.'?'0 ? ':•+'?,i ? F' •.r'., ,r^ll,"',;?', -?"°?"
°+4e Ki?v' T1,;.??..A:fl r:?}?{. .. f_ . e.?.?_ ti .?.,.?.: •a.Etr ? ?..?, :.?
.tt; f} .4? i. .r/f+'?.`-s44h,'? ., {?.• .i. ?? ? j? ????.a ????? ..? k::: ??:?:?<i '?f,:i-?Ev?3i =" ,,
4EF" 't . °° . ?.?..Le? I i?."?.k. "?4??+?T!'?R` ?i"•`?'i??'?S',•u 14.E a.t.'i' A v?4.
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 the hardship created by the placement of the present house and the size of
the lot 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(s) shall be obtained within six (6) months
from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
3. Aubrey MacLean, THE/Clearwater Trust for a variance of 52 parking
spaces to permit a total of 4043 parking spaces where 4095 parking
spaces have been required at 20505 US Hwy 19, N, Sec 17-29-16,
M&B 32.01 & 32.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center) and OL (Limited
Office). V 94-17
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the application in detail, stating the
applicant is requesting approval of the variance to enable the City of Clearwater Public
Works Department to construct a stormwater retention area on Clearwater Mall
property to treat existing untreated stormwater runoff. Presently, the untreated runoff
discharges from the mall property in a 60-inch reinforced concrete storm sewer which
drains approximately 27 acres and discharges directly into the Old Tampa Bay. The
t' location .of the proposed construction at the rear of the mall property would prompt
the removal of 52 existing employee parking spaces which are seldom used. Staff
enthusiastically endorsed approval of this request due to the potential for enormous
'benefit to the City and the surroundings.
Mike Quillen, Water Resource Engineer for the City's Environmental Management
Group and Mr. Shuford responded to questions. It was indicated the current request
is not related to an apartment complex being built near the mall. The apartment
development will have its own water retention. Even though treating stormwater
runoff is mandated by the state, the reduction in parking below what is required for
the mall requires a public hearing. Approval for the loss of parking is also needed
from some of the major department stores.
Robert Courtney, representing the applicant, responded to questions, stating a building
on the southeast corner of the property was formerly a part of the mall and will be
torn down to make room for the retention. It was not known who will pay for the
demolition. Mr. Quillen stated the Southwest Florida Water Management District
DCAB Minutes 6 4/14194
,r
,? ;.• "???T(?wi7a?Sii??srJ;.?«F?i„?.e;f?'`?ti??.?y ?'?.C:?;'f f-'ti? t'`v'1, `:` r.b'•??- 1' `.. 'i:? ,t '
F? ? "' +-. a.Y?':t?,y?{`h C4?-it':,4,. •t.;,;e?. v..b"R: ;:{i'" ::i:•??j :•i??, ••:?:1?,;.''.r: .??r? :?;,,. ?? ;?"' ,:?;?l:r ??'? ?'{
.: ? • ?, F:4S +;a.nf a ,.r >',,:i"° 4<.'?I " :ice c,. 1 ? `..i'• •iir?'
(SWFWMD) is providing construction funds. The mall will retain ownership of the
retention and, as part of the contract, will be responsible for long-term maintenance.
Mr. Quillen stated funding for the project will be available fiscal year 1994/1995. As
construction cannot begin until the end of October, it is hoped to delay the onset until
after the busy Christmas season. He requested one year to obtain the requisite
building permits.
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, because the
variance is needed to construct a desperately needed retention area 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(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing
and 3) the applicant shall revise the certified site plan with the approved amendment.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The.following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
Ordinance No. 5557-94 (cont from 3-24-94) Of the City of Clearwater,
Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section
45.24, Code of Ordinances, to revise the standards for the approval of
variances; providing an effective date.
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the proposed revision to the standards
for approval was felt to be necessary to simplify and clarify the current standards.
Input from other communities across the country was requested and copies were
provided to the Board. Mr. Shuford stated the Planning and Zoning Board
recommended dropping rule #3 related to economic or material gain and changing #4
to read "materially injurious". He indicated their rationale for dropping #3 was
because there is never a variance that does not benefit someone.
Concern was expressed with deleting the section requiring a variance to be the
minimum necessary. Mr. Shuford stated this concept is addressed elsewhere in the
Code. Discussion ensued regarding "financial gain", "minimum" and "reasonable".
There was no clear consensus to drop rule #3. It was indicated the absolute minimum
would be to have no variances and "reasonable" is subject to interpretation.
. DCAB Minutes 7 4114194
5.
r -? ,
17) In response to a question, Mr. Shuford stated all of the standards for approval would
would have to be met in each case. If rules #1, #2 and #4 were met, #3 would
become irrelevant. A request was made to clarify the language in this respect.
3
j4ft
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of all four proposed standards of approval;
inclusion of the word "materially" before the word "injurious" in #4 as recommended
by the Planning and Zoning Board and to change the language in the opening
paragraph to read: "A variance shall not be granted unless the application and
evidence presented clearly supports al of the following conclusions:". There was no
second.
Mr. Johnson moved to continue discussion of this item to the meeting of
April 28, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 5562-94 (cont from 3-24-94) Of the City of Clearwater,
Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section
35.11, Code of Ordinances, to create a definition for utility facilities;
amending various sections within Chapter 40, Code of Ordinances, to
provide for utility facilities as permitted uses in the Limited Industrial and
Public/Semi-Public districts and as a conditional use in all other zoning
districts; amending Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish
supplementary conditional use standards for utility facilities; providing an
effective date.
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the City's comprehensive plan requires
the adoption of an amendment which will allow utility facilities such as electrical utility
substations in all City zoning districts. Staff prepared an ordinance which provided
for both neighborhood and community facilities. Florida Power Corporation raised
questions about the distinctions between these two types of facilities and no further.
action was taken on the ordinance. The current amendment provides for a single type
of utility facility and establishes specific conditional use permit review requirements.
Under this ordinance, utility facilities would be allowed as permitted uses in the limited
industrial and public/semipublic districts and as conditional uses in all other zoning
districts. Mr. Shuford stated all conditions of approval would have to be met or the
conditional use should not be granted.. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended
approval of the ordinance.
Discussion ensued regarding the standard format of a draft ordinance.
A question was raised regarding Florida Power's concern. Mr. Shuford responded the
proposed ordinance was changed to one type of facility designation because the
reference to both neighborhood and community facilities created some confusion.
SCAB Minutes 8 4/14194
.+?•?TI?' `r •G.i?)!?'•T}?i{+F •.'+w. ii??"+?:1}y'^R.'S'T.?'Ny/"?fi ?rl?• ?.•e.?•Y- .n,.? -f•?'f i "r. ?, .tiM .+? "•T •'?.4').•k 1 •' .9'1? 1.
t } H"+'Y????' ?!S?hY il•T:h?Kir(? i r •.?a .f ' ?"• .5 ? ?Yi ?1 .)?i ? t ? ? l?•?
.,?.I e:? .. .1 ; )>. .. ?.r? ,?.t?.?:?z;i? {??#' 36?'i?F???j,`Y}?'t.,i ??`` ?+?'??A??, r•? ?A???????t?5
(7)
=a:
1 ? t
Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5562-94 to the City
Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance No, 5589-94 Of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the
Land Development Code; amending Section 42.21, Code of Ordinances,
to provide for revised requirements for nonconformities; providing an
effective date.
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained a compromise was needed between the
strict existing standards for nonconforming use regulations and a "maintenance" type
of nonconforming use and density regulation which would allow reconstruction
without requiring conformance to other code requirements. He indicated, under this
proposed ordinance, a nonconforming single family dwelling can be rebuilt and must
conform to setback, parking and landscaping requirements. The proposal does not
apply to duplexes or triplexes.
In response to questions, Mr. Shuford explained some of the applications and
definitions of the proposal.
Concern was expressed with allowing nonconformities to continue.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5589-94 to the City
Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
11. Approval of Minutes of March 24, 1994
Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 1994, in accordance with
copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
111. Board and Staff Discussion
A concern was expressed there is no clear and consistent method of determining if
hardships exist nor if hardships are self-imposed. It was indicated one of the reasons
for granting variances is to enable property owners reasonable use of their properties.
Each case must be deterimed on its individual merits.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the Sun Watch request is justified. It was
felt a 2.2 foot variance is extremely minimal to allow reasonable use of the land.
However, concerns were expressed with the difficulty of fitting a ninth story into a
DCAB Minutes 9 4114194
d3'RZSf.S74#?..i::
?IA
.. ":
space devised to accommodate only eight stories. Mr. Shuford stated he will discuss
the technical merits of the proposal with the City Building Official and provide
additional information relating to design and material alternatives to the Board.
Mr. Shuford suggested and consensus was to continue discussion of the single board
issue to the next meeting.
In response to questions, Mr. Shuford explained the work which is being done at the
Pelican Walk Shopping Center. He stated Pelican Walk is to come before the City
Commission on April 21,1994.
A question was raised regarding a portion of the March 24 minutes relating to Ronald
Pratt {V 93-12f never having installed one of his bike racks on a vehicle. It was not
known if the Planning and Zoning Board established a trial period for this case.
_k?Yi ; •F'
?.. IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.
Y?;l..f.. Attest:
t".'.
Board Reporter
iz
DCAB Minutes 10
Chairman
4114194
ice, ?.. ._r? ?, .?. ?. ,. ?'.i".?:1 ' -• ^^"1. f;?.-.- "" '•?:;: '" ''. .,: -... ?•?..- .r, d. ,j,. ..,.,. ,
i •4' ? C '4:V. .L., r 1 ? Y?. ,, e1?, F:. .'•;??.:: °;:.t.. r?l ?'? ..k F. ro. 7?'?,.,., ;T ", ,;; ..' it
?...?." *? ?i' ?? C'., k.i'y.+, ??:' .{??' ,. ??!?"?' st>?r.',?^..??`rr?" i1R::?',._tsS?>-' '?'.•?? .st,i'.•t; "r,S`?'' ;'??' "?;t