05/26/1994 (2)
.. ' '. . ' '. ': .. , .... j . .: .' . . ':'., :. .' " ~. .. .' '. '.' . " . . . . . .',
;(., ",
';~" 't~ ,". . .
1~~~"
\'"
. '... ~ :
,T",
:i"\
~:::c', c
" <
::~':.I' ;.
~ ~ ... c
....~.:- T~ ,":,;
?: .:\
I.~, r'
.":t" .
.;;'-.,
.~ ~:': :: :'
;:,; .' ~'.
i,.. :.: .>;
toi~;;;"'1,;,\"l< ,. "-~' ~ '., ':,',',Y"
tX~q.fl" .:", . ~. . .
, .' ~ 0'1.....
.... ~..~
i:, .
..,
" ,
~ '.
\1, .
"'... "
..... ~
'.'
:~ ~ J :
r', "
. ~'~ 't'
DeAB
~~~~,~....
.,' I.
{~;~~~: '.
r;-.J ~,;".
~~;r,'
~~~;;~,(, ':,:::,,:
f)ti ~i, . . C
'!'::
,i~;>j':r
"'~'~."'"" ", ., "
FWV;~:-::,:::':,,>~' ",
tf,~ .",;,.. ,., .,.. '
~~J~1{/:{>': :," .,
R!i:';lyr',;~'\'", " .
.~~.izt~~~~~,,::: i., :~"'::. :,
....,.f.?:~~~\'.:~~.+;: .. '\ . ..>.
,;;....:J...~ . (".' " .
;,'r~1..."'~~'<; "'n I, +.'}
N~~~ ..\ I -.. - , '. '. ... ~
. '/.'.
~t""'\ !'."..,.. '. ...".
, ;j~~~~;;;,,:, ,,' .'
"W"'":''' '.'.' "
Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
Date
PIA,! ~ ~ I' 'CI.
',YOZ3
....
'"
".
,J-.,' ~
;',
, ,
,-.oJ., .
<,. .
. ~ ,"
,.".
, "'-, ';",-V'-'.-:',-' ',' r;~"'---:-:'~'~,'~ .._--,..........it'\I-~.w.lL~i1:iIm~;;"-'~~'~~.,..'.,~'..:~~~it,:;.:~
. :;M~!\i;f~,~~~J:.~1~,~i~..~~I{~1&1(:,I:i:',:\~,: ';:";,;,,.:;;,'j'} ",,:..;"": ,.:.,', ,.., ~,:, "',:"':', ~,"':,; . ' - .. . 'l:~;
~ ~~l~f~Ht1.~t.~~~: 2.r:~ ~ 1r,('~!.;.t~~"'t.t~~~ ~...r,::~} JA"i. .....!; 1~:;-_';~ ... ~ L ..r);\,'1I:. ~=~.. '..... :." ~ ~ '. ':," ~;':. . . '< .' ,~'.~' :: ~ ...~ \> ."; t I 'l':..~.. ',". . ..~: >_:: . :~' ;.: : ::. ::,":-. L"~.~:- :::~ . r ~..~ :~.:, : ~~:' I: c. " f '1',7'
~;\/<",: ,: .
.. " ~ .
'~
"'Q
"",
", ... .
, '
\ ~ . D
"'0
. ~; " .. " -\
?~': ~ . ~ .
",' !f,
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACTION AGENDA
Thursday, May 26, 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. Time Extensions
1. (3rd request for a time extension) Howard R Jimmie (Howard Jimmie's Truck Parts)
for variances of (1) 15 ft to permit a zero ft wide landscape buffer between an industrial use
and residential zoning district; (2) 43 ft to permit development on a lot with a width of 57 ft
at setback line; and (3) 15ft to permit a building zero ft from a side property line abutting a
residential zone at 609 Seminole St, J.H. Rouse's Sub, Blk 3, lots 19 thru 21, zoned IL
(Limited Industrial). V 92-56
Action: Granted B three-month time extension to August 12, 1994 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 focated 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 three (3) months
from the date of this public hearing.
2. (1st request for a time extension) Paul B. Lokey for a variance of 9.6 ft to allow
construction of stairway 15.5 ft from street right-of~way where 25 ft is required at 831 Bay
Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 39, Lot 3 and riparian rights, zoned RS-B (single family
, residential). V 93-38
Action: Granted a six-month time extension to November 27, 1994.
II. 'Public Hearings
1 . Tad J. & Jan A. Humphreys for a variance to permit a 23 ft boat to be parked or
stored in a required setback area from a street right-af-way where a 20 ft length is permitted
,at ,1824 Emory Drive, College Hill Park, Lot 13, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). V 94-22
Action: Denied
2. ,James W. Moyles, III for a variance of 16.74 ft to permit an awning 8.24 ft from a
street right-of-way (Gulf-to-Bay Blvd) where 25 ft is required at 2200 Gulf-:-to-Bay Blvd, See 18-
,29-16, M&B 23.12 less roads, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 94-23
Action:
Denied
DCAB Action
1
06/26/94
....:.~., '''''~';'1...~7{+j..;~''~'~~>.'''''I-..l!.'i-.4~",,''~''~~~. '~l~:~\~~\'~..'~;~:'-:-:;I.; l'~"l\"">~.(.~.'~IJ ',':!"",,:.if~' r..:, ,.", ..c~ :~\. ,.~',"~::.'.':.:'I.~~'...,:. '. c'C' 't':..;;::
, "" iW'-"I_~~...~~1:l~:I'''';Jil;'''''\Y'J::s''''-\'l~'' ,., ',.; "':':;"Y"'''~~1~'';.'~''';'"''.,;o ,,"'<' ," ''';.' "'..' .,.~' "....u '\ """, ~,..".,~; ..," ...' r"'<:';: ," , '" ,,;,:
. . . ..', . . ~ . ,.'; " . " oc . ~W:~..~~~~ ~,.. ~}".l.~~..'.~ l.~ '.'~..,I'::'~":~}J.'~-:~;.(~"z;,\~'~lJ:..:':;'}\i?">~'Jt~>.tJ';fo~:'"~v ~!'t~l ~.i~;}~~~~~.~::,,,.!~';~".-, ';"lq~
I~>",.:,!:,:,~..J"',',~"':,. _:' '.,,' ' ',',,-., I., ,,"., " ':"', "~~~ . _", _",~(~r4;~~~g""">I!t~,;"",.~,...~.,~{:(~it~;V1;-if,1.~~ f:?i~:;',;;f.~;':f.(;k'"":..::.';:::,;;.hl'.~,'
r~li~~J;!.';' T ,1 ~ :/ f: "
.~;~\'~": .'
",
, "
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
,': 0 ORDINANCE NO. 5617-94 OFTHE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING SECTION 42.26, CODe OF ORDINANCES, TO
PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR WIRE FENCES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Action: Recommended approval to the City Commission.
,~ ."
.')
.~., .
"'-t,::
".J.
,',
'.. L
ORDINANCE NO. 5618-94 OFTHE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING SECTION 40.463, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO
ESTABLISH CHURCHES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT;
AMENDING SECTION 40.465, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO ESTABLISH USE LIMITATIONS
FOR CHURCH USES IN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
.~\"<.:: :
.~... \
j r~" .
! ~ ~:
;{': ~ -: '.
"'~' ,? "
5.::},"" .
, Action: Recommended approval to the City Commission; providing for a 10 percent limitation
, of, the total gross floor area for church uses in shopping or commercial centers with the
add,/tionalrecommendatlon the maximum are8 of the church use be limited to 10,000 square
fest.
;......... ".
~~~:{::... '"
......... .
~.t~::: .
~~'~:'~~"~ .
<! . ~. ". .
~. ;'>'. .
~:1' ':c: "
Y?o "III., Approval o~ Minutes - May 12, 1994 - Approved as corrected.
J~\:;, '
f.r', , ..,
~:{~?~~"""" : IV. 'Board and Staff Discussion
~~~~:'"::~...::";. c.c, .
~):~~:: .~.:: ~"...
~X:? . V.Adjournment- 2:45 p.m.
':;/~~,:..",:, ,:,:"
~1'.1)..;'~ : .
;~il~r;."".J:t ' .. .
W{~
~~,':K . DeAD Action 2
t1t;~';~:,' , :', ' , '
OS/26/94
~rY:~':~.:.~;.::'...:" < :;.: :.... '.:.;
: . ;k~ .'
, "
,'t~
" ,
" _k,.l'
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
May 26, 1994
" "
Members present:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
~. "
Absent:
,.-.
, .'
Alex PHsko, Chair (excused)
...... '
.::'i..:'.' .
~} ~:. :
.';!>~..' .
,t' ~: <' .
,;, "
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department
, Gwen J~ Legters, Staff Assistant II
Patricia Sullivan, Board Reporter
. . ~.
'-,;.... ,
~ l' .' ~
cl" J
..... ~ ~ . ,
," .
:1.' " The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chair at 1 :00 p.m. In the Commission
",' . .' Chambers of City Hall. Ms. Martin led the Pledge of Allegiance and the invocation. Ms.
(,:'.'." '; , Whltnev ou~lined procedures and advised anyone adversely affected by any decision of the
':::~;~ . Development Coda 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.
....l;.'f... ",' ' ~
~~r. .~;,....,.< i
~r:(:',:-,;. ., In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not
~(~,:~:"';':-': ,>, necessarily discussed in that order. '
{~U'''::,~<':'''','' ,', ' ' ",
rj~;I':;',:: . I. ,Time Extensions
r~\-~!:".., '.' "
~;,:,':;:', '
~]i',:' , '
K'..'. " "
~i?'."".":'
f.W:.\'. '; :',,' Howard Jimmie, the property owner, stated he owns almost two city blocks and a
l~h":,'. ,,". supermarket chain has expressed interest in developing the property. He hopes to complete
~\;\:.: " 'his final plans for building on the property within six months.
.~', . I.' . +
.. -. ,
'1.:':-:' . ,
1" (3rd request for a, time extension) Howard R Jimmie (Howard Jimmie's Truck
, Parts) for variances of .( 1,) 15 feet to permit, a zero feet wide landscape buffer
between an Industrial use and residential zoning district; (2) 43 feet to permit
development on a lot with a width of 57 feet at setback line; and (3) 15 feet to
: permit, a building zero ft from a side property line abutting a residential zone at
'609 Seminole 8t, J.H. Rouse's Sub, Blk 3, Lots 19 thru 21, zoned IL (Limited In-
dustria!). V 92..56
~.~ . ~.
P,',:"O' '
~'" .
l)t~ 'MINDC05B.94
'fn~~".) , . ,
'c.:..,.. .
~:~~~ .~:. .:~~ ".: :
i:/:' ;
:..<.;:.: .
.~ . ;:;' .J
1
OS/26/94
\j~... .
. \1 '~':' \ \ '..~,~ ';~.', ~2;-" .:~~:~.: ..~.::; i ) : : .: . . + ~ .::~~~...12~"~~iIi~-A@&~Ni~~~~~~;.~~:f~~~'~~~~f:~~;.:~~~~~,~~~~f~~;i~~:;~l~~~~~.~~l}~~~~i;):~~~< ...:~ '~> ~{~~!J
. ..,. .,.', ,'. .. ..:. ," '. .'. .... .,..... . ,
~':>;
, .
:.~ ;
o John Richter, Senior Planner, reported a variance for the property was approved in
November 1992. He stated four of the five conditions of approval have been met and
recommended granting the extension.
',;0
,'I.., '
<,\":, .', ,:
I~...'" '
II.,
oj, C.
:',:,,'.'.
",' "
'C ~ , '
.,'
"," ..
..::
.; ....
. ,
,"
'~\:",,:' '
I;~-' >.:
',~' '. ,
:~. ..'
'.r ~ ~
,,", '
',' .
,~:l, r C '
':'"'0
~I , ' +
..' '.
, "
';" .
.' '
A question was raised concerning if a hardship exists. Mr. Jimmie explained meeting the
condition that he dismantle his junk business and remove all vehicles from the property
caused him a serious hardship. He now only stores demolition equipment there.
Concern was expressed regarding the continued granting of time extensions. It was
suggested an extension be granted with a proviso that prohibits future extensions. Miles
Lance, Assistant City Attorney, indicated time extensions are approved at the Board's
discretion and there is no limit to the number that may be requested. He indicated the
inclusion of a proviso would establish the Board's strong objection to future extensions.
A question was raised if Mr. Jimmie could accomplish his negodations within three months.
He stated if a three month extension is approved, he will be forced to expedite his
activities.
It was felt Mr. Jimmie is making improvements to the neighborhood.
Mr. Gans moved to grant a three~month time extension to August 12, 1994 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 three (3) months from the date of this publ1c hearing. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. (1st.,equest for a time extension) Paul B. Lokey for a variance of 9.5 feet to
allow construction of stairway 15.5 feet from street rlght~of-way where 25 feet
is required at 831 Bay Esplanade, Mandalay Sub, Blk 39, Lot 3 and riparian rights,
zoned RS~8 (single family residential). V 93-38
Tom Nash, attorney representing the applicant, stated Mr. and Mrs. Lokey are working with
their builder and face standard problems in determining their exact plan. He requested a
six month time extension.
Mr. Gans moved to grant a slx~month time extension to November 27, 1994. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
MINDC058.94
2
05/26/94
~~,.'
--.............'..~tu:~.,.,;w;;A.; ';~" ;.<<<t.;;'.~{,~1;~'h~':~',:",_ ~s~('" ~+.!j ,'~_:':::~<i~/:~';'~~~><:';:' ,\;' ';>, :}..,,~;. "\ ::~::\~:, . \:,,; -, i.:::</' ,:" ':'.,<;' ;'~;;::~f.
."..... ...."'.:;!f:r..VIl,\~,'t-:j..~. ,.,",,1 ~"f.:f~"'~f~...t..t,L""..r\/~" \or'~.-<",,-~,t.:. ,..".~ .,~~
. . .'. ' .Ii..... ~\.}.'j ,.,.t~'i~4~~};'f~, .:'"l~\~r"l.~~...~f;.~ ,v::' .:'.......::.,:... 'or'!.;':"
.. ,.' " 0
, .'..,: '.. ..~,..'.~' J .'.' .': ..:.. ....,."' '.,J,..f ,:.. ,," \: .. .... .':. ./'
:,;:;~~~>".~: .', ,.'
'r-)
.........tl
:,0
,
,,' ~ ..
-',' .'
.~ 'c'
".1:' .
~~ "'. I~. c'
" ,
'l.'~: ", .
l;.':" .
..
, ,
~} ~'.. '..
.' . ~ \
.;' .
"0
' "
,I,
.. '..
.~~ c'
II. Public Hearings
1. Tad J. & Jan A. Humphreys for a variance to permit a 23 ft boat to be parked
or stored In a required setback area from a street right-at-way where a 20 ft
length Is permitted at 1824 Emory Drive, College Hili Park, Lot 13, zoned RS 6
(Single Family Residential). V 94-22
Senior Planner Richter reported the applicants are requesting a variance to permit a 23~foot
boat to remain at its present location on a residential property within the setback area from
a street right-of-way. The boat is parked on the north side of the single family house at
1824 Emory Drive. According to the application, the boat has been parked at this location
for more than five years without adversely Impacting adjoining properties. City Code does
not permit a boat longer than 20 feet to be parked or stored, in whole or in part, within any
required setback area fr,om the street right-of-way ot a residentially zoned district.
The applicants contend the physical configuration of the site has caused them unnecessary
hardship to comply with Code requirements. They assert that to relocate the boat to the
south property line would cause them financial hardship and would damage their yard,
destroy an oak tree planted by the City, demolish an existing fence, and force the relocation
of an existing light pole.
Upon the site visit, staff observed the six foot wooden fence surrounding the subject
property is setback 25 feet from the front property line. The fence to the south separates
the applicants' swimming pool from the neighbor's and serves as a barrier against children
accessing the pools. The fence was constructed in 1990 without a permit.
Concerns were expressed with the size of the boat and that front yards in nice areas are
not suitable for the storage of large boats. It was noted the yard was well kept but the
, boat added nothing to the neighborhood's ambiance, It was recommended the boat be
stored in a marina.
Four adjacent neighbors wrote in support ot the request.
Staff feels it is unlikely the applicants can move the boat further to the rear of the property
, due to the location of air conditioning units, a water softener system, and a wood gate
along the north property line. An alternate location to the south may not be feasible due
to associated site constraints. Staff recommended approval subject to three conditions.
, Tad Humphreys, owner/applicant, stated the boat will fit on the south edge of his property
but did not feel It was reasonable for him to be forced to park it there. He said he has
violated the code for five years without realizing he was not In compliance. He noted
neighbors have offered no objections to the boat remaining where it Is.
MINDC05B.94
3
05/26/94
. . : .' '. .. . '.",.... , I . .::.., .;: '. . .'.. ......... +. '.': ':":: .
f,/: ::". .
')
:,'0
'0
o'" "
;,
In response to a question, Mr. Humphreys stated deed restrictions expired before he
purchased his house 12 years ago. He said his boat is eight feet wide and noted more than
three boats are parked in his neighborhood. He explained he thought the contractor he
hired to erect his fence had obtained all necessary permits. He discussed the problem with
the contractor on May 25, 1994, and the contractor indicated he would apply for a permit
that day. Mr. Humphreys apologized for this oversight. It was noted it is the contractor's
responsibility to obtain permits. Questioned if they ever move their boat, Mr. Humphreys
indicated they move it when they use it and to maintain their grass.
It was questioned if the Humphreys use their garage. Mr. Humphreys indicated they park
one car in their garage and use the remaining space for storage. He stated the boat sits
two or three feet from the sidewalk and does not impede pedestrian traffic. He also noted
if the fence is removed, two swimming pools will be exposed and pose a danger to
neighborhood children. He reiterated that his neighbors have not complained.
Discussion ensued and it was noted the request does not meet any of the standards for
approval. It was felt all of the hardship is caused by the applicant and a portion of the
fence could be moved to the rear to protect the pools and still permit access to the boat
if it were parked on the south side of the property. It was felt the excessive size and
height of the boat seriously impact the surrounding properties.
Mr. Humpbreys was questioned if it was possible to store the boat out of sight on the
south side of the property. He indicated it would fit there but would not be out of sight
due to its height. He expressed opposition to that alternative.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the
variance as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated they have met an of
the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the land Development Code, more
specifically because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary
hardship was shown; the request for the variance is based in part on the desire of the
applicant to avoid spending additional money for proper storage of the boat; the granting
of the variance would be materially detrimental to other property in the area and would
violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed In Sections
35.04 and 35.05 because there Is space to store the boat lawfully on the property. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. James W. Moyles, III for a variance of 16.74 feet to permit an awning 8.24
feet from a street right-of-way (Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.) where 25 feet is required at
2200 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., See 18-29-16, M&B 23.12 less roads, zoned CG (General
Commercial). V 94-23
Senior Planner Richter reported the setback variance is requested for placing an awning
along the storefront of an existing Allied Discount Tires store at 2200 Gulf to Bay
MINDC05B.94
4
OS/26/94
-"" '~~u;!l...--:,-' ,-,
'-.------.~~y;,>.'"-~~~.,;.:;;:<:(~; !,j",'I~, ~;\,. :',: ,.~~:~..,:~,;:,\;:' ;~:~:~:.:':;}~j'i;~,;c~/}~!.~~Gl::~~~~~~,4:~'i,~,;;};ttf~~:~~~X:.':'::; :';:,~: ~ ,,:.' .;,~;~ilJ
" ~.
.,
"~ I': ~. . i""
""1'" r
).',(. . ,
"
" '
~
:0
~.
!'.; .
- ;, ~.'
; ,
" '
" :
I ',' I ~
, '
" '
" .
.,"r .
~"; .
:','" .
J"::~ c ,
~~~\~ ~, -
,oj . ~ .
j.,-::.
,.' .
:~'. "
:i~: ~'
}:"
1:;0
., .
....
),,"
l' ". .
, ,
\1.
'.,
. .
,
Boulevard. The awning is proposed to project two feet from the building. With regard to
the street front setback requirements, the subject property was built prior to the current
development code and is nonconforming. The awning will be within 8.24 feet of the Gulf-
to-Bay Boulevard right-of-way. It Is needed to improve the property and shade the
workplace from the sun. Staff feels the request Is minimal and recommends approval with
three conditions. Questioned why the staff report indicated the request was incompatible
as proposed, Mr. Richter noted that statement was a typographical error.
Ron Bennett, representing Allied Tire, spoke on behalf of the property owner. He stated
Allied Tire has occupied the building for 45 days and worked with City staff prior to
drawing up plans and signing a lease. He noted the business upgraded the property by
striping the parking lot, and painting and modernizing the look of the building. They
discovered problems regarding the set back when they prepared to install the awning. He
stated it would not obstruct the traffic's view at the corner and will make the building
appear more attractive.
In response to a question, Mr. Bennett stated the bottom of the awning would wrap around
the building's corner and hang at least 12 feet above the ground.
Discussion ensued. While it was felt the awning would enhance the appearance of the
building and make the business easier to find, concerns were expressed with extending a
non conformity on the property. It was noted, due to the height and narrow projection of
the awning and the southern exposure of the building, the awning would not protect the
interior of the building from the sun. It was not felt a hardship existed.
Additional concern was expressed regarding problems with sight restrictions and It was
questioned if the awning would pose a vision problem at this busy intersection. Mr. Richter
noted the City Traffic Engineer would have objected had he considered that a problem. He
stated a substantial triangle of vision exists at the intersection. He suggested any sight
restrictions would be caused by parked vehicles.
It was suggested the purpose of the awning was to call attention to the building and
q'uestlons were raised regarding allowable signage for this property. Mr. Richter reported
the, signage permitted for corner properties in this zone includes two freestanding and two
affixed signs, each a maximum of 64 square feet. When questioned if affixed signs could
be located on the awning. Mr. Richter indicated they could. It was suggested that affixing
slgnage directly to the bUilding would be better for the business.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin 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, more
specifically because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary
MINDC05B.94
5
OS/26/94
~~~----~'~- ..,.",'
t~i~\:/>::C,';<;<~-; :',/ ' " ,': ' '.:-,
.' .--...........".,:.,1,.. ~'.<"'"',.~.,...~ .,; .',.....,;,.?'"~':<t' .:;,: ;:":: .:i,,,,: ::~,~)\.~i!:::: ;,:::';;~;( .~}'::~ i;";~:i;~,.::jr~\':Y\'.':i~;"~:f"';:~"~~, ~. ,,' ',' ','.:::- :,~',<~S
I~~ ... ; ,: ~. > , C. .
()
.~, "
,'.' .
,
I'>.
"
~" +
':0
,,'
,',
~+~L .
'r, ,., f
, '
i. "':-~ .
.' ,
, '
. ,p.
"
~~,,~.:' .,,' . .
ir.< '
~'y::;,'
"
I"~ ',.' ~: .
".' .
, ,
, ..
l.'
.,'"
:::,:
"t~' .
.J;.: ,
~J~ . ,"
~< .~.
~~;:. "". C
tf.",
:~~:' .
,~-: :.
:. <.
!J";~' .
'i ~.
;",'
;:,,0
I' "
, "
"
;f',C
" ~" \.+.
"
..:. ~ C., : " .
;."~'." '.
, .
, .'
hardShip was shown; the variance is not the minimum; the grant1ng of the variance would
be materially detrimental to other property in the area; and the granting of the variance
might endanger the public safety. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being
taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted" Aye;" Ms. Whitney voted "Nay."
Motion carried.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
ORDINANCE NO. 5617-94 OFTHE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING
TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING SECTION 42.26, CODE OF
ORDINANCES, TO PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR WIRE FENCES IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Richter explained the ordinance. In response to a question, it was noted the correct
ordinance number is 5617-94.
Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5617-94 to the City Commission.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 5618-94 OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING
TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING SECTION 40.463, CODE OF
ORDINANCES, TO ESTABLISH CHURCHES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE
. COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 40.465, CODE OF
, ORDINANCES, TO ESTABLISH USE LIMITATIONS FOR CHURCH USES IN THE
.cOMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Richter explained the ordinance. He stated the ordinance would allow churches In
'sto'refronts up to ten percent of the total gross floor area of any shopping center or
commercial center structure. Questioned If the ordinance provided for adequate parking,
Mr~ Richter said the ordinance imposed size limitations due to parking concerns.
, Concern was expressed that substantial property could be removed from tax roles under
, this ordinance. It was recommended the maximum size of church usage be limited to
," 1 0,000 square feet.
Clar1flcation was requested regarding the ordinance number. It was noted the correct
ordinance number i3 5618-94.
Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5618-94 to the City Commission
with the additional recommendation that a maximum size of 10,000 square feet be
allowed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
MINDC05B.94
6
05/26/94
, ~.~~~~-j" ~
. .----------"'~~-
, ,
Om ':-'--"'~P"'"'-:.~"'.+t":';;"~~~l(fJ:~'~'t'f.~'i.':-.~"~'" ~". ;'~(..4'~~'...~.. .~,' ':':" "".;.;: ~..:'."::.;. ~. Jr.:':~t->... " . .. '.' ."". -:. -:.!.,~
' , u: J'4~'~"'>,'WI~" f"vifl1tii,.';,.,....,I!,G;"V,n.i\'i,~"'f/l " ',;,",j '". ~l, ,..' i .'/~\
". . . . < . ... < ;-~I"'l"'-- '''''"'I~]iili.....;.t!. "c"'-..,~~ t~.}J~l;1'!.~)~.,>~:t>.\'. ....~~~...
I ., "0 '>.
~t~.;.;.I~....:~.~<~TI:..:.\ .,. " "<
~,
~. ,'.. .
'. ,...'. ',' . . . ". : . ",..'., . ,," '. ..:.:...... .. .' . ,
:f:t;'~)~", :: '
,0
,f
'. ~
:-.~ ~
: ~ '.,., .'
//.' .
,o' .
~" .
I:,'"~.
"
. ~ 0'.
~ii;'t .
~"""
:4';',,:", ,
l.'}:,:, '
\,.. ," ,
Yd. ~
.~J _
~>~J::~' .
.~f' .:
.,'~
". .'
. . ~ .
?:,,".: .
;, '
J ," .
~':>: .
~t~,.:.~~. .
".,
i,::. .":
'1~~:::, '
I ~ ~ l ~ .
7),' :
;Ij, .
"
':,i~
jf~.""" .'
:~.. ~~.
;~ '. ~'. .
'~'. .
,-
.:.."
~I{'~' .~. ~- ~ . ~ ~~ ~
Ill. Approval of Minutes of May 12, 1994
A correction was made to the first paragraph of page three to remove a redundant phrase.
, Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of May 12, 1994, as corrected. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
Mr. Richter requested direction from the Board. He referred to the property at 600
Mandalay Avenue and noted a series of variances were requested on March 24, 1994. A
variance with six conditions was granted to permit the rental of bicycles and scooters. Mr.
Richter reported the owner now wants to sen the business. One condition specified the
variance was for this business only. Mr. Richter questioned if the new owner would need
to file for a new variance. He noted Code Enforcement has never issued a violation against
the business.
Discussion ensued. The Board expressed concerns that the code at that location has been
violated with regard to parking in front of the store. Mr. Richter Indicated no formal code
citations have been issued for this property and felt the variance Is a separate issue. Mr.
Lance noted some businesses could operate at that location without a variance. It was the
consensus of the Board that the variance was granted for this specific business and a new
owner would need to reapply.
Mr. Richter referenced the May 20, 1994 memorandum from Scott Shuford, Central
Permitting Director, regarding the Variance Standards Code Amendment (Ordinance No.
5557-94). He noted the City Commission had adopted the standards on first reading.
Appreciation was expressed to Mr. Shuford for relating the Board's recommendation to the
,City Commission regarding the definition of hardShip and their acceptance of that
suggestion.
Discussion ensued regarding Board procedures related to time extensions. It was noted an
applicant Is not required to 'appear for the first extension request. Subsequent requests
require the presence of the applicant.
, ,Concern was expressed regarding visibility at Intersections obstructed by shrubbery, signs,
and parked vehicles. Questioned if there were enforceable ordinances that address this
, problem, Mr. Richter indicated he would research the code and report back to the Board.
A question' was raised regarding the progress of Pelican Walk. It was indicated the
developers are negotiating with Eckard Drug Store for additional vehicular access.
Discussion ensued regarding the single board issue. Mr. Richter reported the ordinance Is
scheduled to go for receipt and referral In mid June. He Indicated the thrust of the
MINDC05B.94
7
OS/26/94
~J~-:--' -, ,
~---~""'rf"~c:\~ .' ", ';.,....rj.l.; .l;~~'t:.'f~(<~'<; <tL >~.)P. ,.~;~ ;..:'';-.'~' " '.~ :... c. ..~:~. :.~~..?i ; <...~~.. ., ']../:;" ';: ::.:. :; ''';1'."' ", <.~.: .::~.
'.' ... . . . . ~'J.:"~H.H~.,.;;f.v'~.~.t~.I..O;"\.\..;::=,~.,\:{j.l:~~:..:,/r'.""':"l:~?~1~:n.tt.:,:.,~.1..1~':"1"!~;.';;'":....~t/~~~iirlt'~;-1.'j"L,':\~/f,.tc..t', :..:;...z; '~'>':-' 1 "'';'''''('
.. .. ~.-<j, I,.'. >.r'...x~"-~ ..-.. "Ij~ r..;. . { _ .........>>: ......,.....,.~ ~_.... 4:t....~. '.' "0' _ 'I _.':::,-
~f" . r'.~ .. ,'.' c
. . ~ " " . c. T
,.: -i-
. ,'.
~ ..'
, \:
.' '. .
~~:;j,~)~~.{ ~.i~.:',~:'~.' .'''.. ~.:: ",I' "d'~; <
~. "\: .... . :.c
fi;.:,:::',
;It. "':,' , " ..
;r~;~ft~'c',..;. 't. .,.....: '., '.-
~~~':';:':""'" ,Attest.
1~:i,X;.,p.,. '" .'.
"\~'A'.:"':' .
'~1~~~,~"'::':>::: ,'..'
W~{:"'::: ',; , :>, ' : ,:' ,
~ h -."..~, ., tc. .... " . ,
!:ijt:.i,;/................. .... '.... .
'~~~"~"" " ',' .. '. ,
~f.j:~t.r~:.:~. .~ ,,_,,:~; j. .:
~,l ~l-t~~, ..." ~,' . ,
JJ:f\:i~'i.~'~~... I J,I .
flf.r~l': ., -.- "
~jI1~{::'::;::~::: :~:, ,:::' , "
Xk;;(.l,,,I .' ,'",. ,.
~w.~l-":-;j:.:,:..' '-'., ~', ..,.
"ggJ"j:;,J.".: . ':, '.,' '."
~~W~?> .::,'.:':: ~, '" "'..' "
~'\r,.~. ~'i ",..... t. ,
If?' .'..,:.....",...' '. ' ,
~....-- , ,,' "
l;~':; "'-' , '. ':., ,
~j~:)~\~ '<,' .', . " " MiNDco5B.94
;C~(v;,.. .I ,"
~~S/.~:~~:::'t", . ~. '. . .
~fl'tt':-. "..". '
~~~/~~: :..::~ :
K0:~?:":'::" . .
1. 0, ',' '\ .
~.: ,...,1., ',' .
.:
()
'.
,.:::'..
I.v"
1. ~'.. "
,'\'.
.; T
..~ .
1;:.:. ','
.~. ,~' ,
I ,.~.
ordinance Is to avoid having an applicant appear before both boards. For example, a
development proposal that currently goes to both DCAB and P&Z, would Instead appear
before only one board. The P&Z would have the authority to grant a variance associated
with conditional use approval.
Concerns were expressed regarding merging the two boards. Consensus was for the
boards to remain separate as questions raised by a second board sometimes focus on new
issues that result In better communication among agencies. Mr. Richter stated he would
relay the Board's concerns to Mr. Shuford.
V. Adjournment
"The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
~.;
~~
". :BoaTd RepoTter '
" '
'.-..-----
....
.7 .'C
8
05/26/94
.'--' ,........ b.~~~-:..~~.~:J....o:r":\-:;...)(,}..........d:...+''<.:....-,....:-,....i.r.;1~.,..' .>(;.. I "', ~.'.1'.' ,,:... ~.~.,~~....:;:..".<j~~..>.::~;.:....
,.,J.,.,."".'.." ':," ,,'.', " ~-~......~~~J.~~.;~~~~_.~io,'.')t-ii ':;.';.~;'~).".;'-.i"I%~
,i%;~t~~~[i*{i~i~<~~I~~~};::';~.~~~~!~4.{~;~;i~;:;~;~,,':;;-/l:~,~;'\.;,:::;;;:'.:,,:~':;\,:~.::,';:,~::..:~.:,:)::~!:,::':',. ~ ,./' ".." '-r . .,' r. ~~:",' ," ,'. ~J~~F-f;r/# '. ,