07/14/1994 (2)
I : '. . .' '... . . ~ '.. '. . . ,'. :. . .,'. ~ .: ..:"." .'. . . . ~ .
~;;/.( ~!. ~ "~: ..~..;'" . ~' .
t;~;! ,;',."
~ :: ~. .
'.' ~. ',~
).~.
, ..... ~
;~};~:
~1 , '
,~i~: .
'.'
~~.
~ ~ ~ .
.. '
: ~ <~ > .' T
.', .
~~~"';. ~~J'~.;.t.~~......,;!~~.J. .t~",,~~ ;."
~ .........:. ~ .,
. . I . "'~..... ,
,'.
',',;
V: ,'~
'. ...'
'JT,' J'.
DeAB
I,\-.
, \'~:'
2~~ ~ " .:
Irl:~~':: .
I::.
J;." ."., .
~~;?.i.~:'.':: ,',
&~""""'" ..
~;,,}},: 0'. Date . ,IliA, II( I ''1'/
~.". . " . , T,
.tH:"~""'h,"'" ,.; " ", .'
. ";.~~i~}\.';~.: ........ . ... .' .
~i;$.Ji~: {'.~'. '",' '. .:
~/"'Si..~.\.. '. ~ . '
~~\~jM;~r~:.<:,~'; ;::. :: .
ff'i"""'" '. '... . \. q
,''f ~1-4\}!'<""""
.;>~~t~;:~:X.<':~ .::'. ..'
~"".~/:\..c.'",,'" 'r'-' ..
. .~j~~':',/,~\: '.
i}jll! ,'c...',. .. ' ,.
~;P'~;~~';.<'<:"<".' "
~~"'I:."" .
(.k~~nrp;':"
4$ti'tt~.: ;,' , . .
i~;,"~f~',':'.""" ".
to:E.>.;., ' , . ."' ; :","
tft~j'<:'>:'.:" . >.',' " ,.
i',,'Rh.)., ."
{~~(;i:'(, 'J;; :. .'
;;i~i(c;{;:.'~::~ ';, :.....
rEf'./. 'l.t;. . . .....J l
~.,.... k.....~. ;" L .
,.,.....,...;.'...r......,.~ H"" ...... .1. r - ... -- ;--~~~li~niiliir"<'~.}.~~~~'
',i[:?~:~~.k~~rt:t~~;.r~::~~i~~fT;t<~{,~;;~i.'J~:..;},i:>;:,.'t'.~.~ "'~:)'>~';;'>-::::;':~"~' r.';~, :' ,'. :::.: -: ":.:~ ,': .".. ~~ ". l~~ ~'l' .j , ~ , .:..'. " ':.,
..(:-!,t.~(~~:f,'L~~lo\.i.:.~.L!'(~~I.",<,.:J",~'';;J: ,~". 9. ',' ~ ~'(:r.."k, ~.. :~'~:f, ': ~~:t{.:.,: .'.::J,''";~!:~:{~~i~ ~": f'i,',t j. <.f1.......~ \.~ ~., ','.' t I '.' ,'L .:: ,~.; , .... .t. : I T .~~. '.' f ~ ~. ":,,..'. ., .
<1..'I:.1.7......1~3. -:;~...;.....-~.'._ ~""'i,","l ,.., ..1"'" .........,- ,. ,. . .~~, "... ..... ...;....'t. .~:?",:..;:.~:..
Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
"'J
,'. .
"
I .'j.,
e'.
",
~ I . "
. .
.,'
.". :
, I.. ~ ~ ~ 1.
,,,.
, ..;~.i-\,
.,
':Y:~.<.': .
. 'i.;.,".,
0:;'\'.. . : .
lei;' .
\ .
~
.. ~ .
~... .
j. - '
",
.0.,.
. , ~
...
;......
. ,
. ~ c .' :
.~ ~ '.
. ,
'. '
,\:, l ."
.)' ~ ,."
.,. .
,"
.~t~.c: . .
~~:~ ..,..... '. .
:".;. '.
: ,~. .'.
~ - ..
. . ,.
'+~ ~. . ~ -:. ",
...,,". r.
': :-:" ,P
. ,
I .,t . .
. L ~ '. '. I
fr:,: ",
ij::~:\'.'..:-:' "
~t-'
~~~. ..
~i\::'::'
" .
f.::':..:..,
. ~ ",' ~
i?- '. 'f
'c. .
", ,
.":' ,~ .
"
,'. "
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, July 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 - (cont. from 6/23/94) Alan H. TraUns for a variance of 5 ft to permit
construction of home 20 ft from a street right-of-way (Eldorado Ave) at 1010 Eldorado Ave,
Mandalay Sub, Blk 69, Lots 8 & 9, land fronting the gulf and riparian rights, zoned RS 8
(Single Family Residential). V 94-33
Action:
Continued to August 11, 1994.
1. Rory L. & Teresa A. Westlund for variances of (1) 2 ft to permit a fence of 6 ft
where 4 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback from a street right-of-way
(Summerlin Dr) where the property is not addressed from; (2) 15 ft to permit a storage shed 10
ft from a street right-of-way (Summerlin Dr) where 25 ft is required at 2453 Glerulann Dr,
Morningside Estates Unit 6B, Lot 516, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 94-36
Action: Granted variance #1 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
stnlcture 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 fence shall be landscaped on the outside along Summerlin Drive right-of-way
in accordance with the perimeter landscaping requirements of Section 42.27.
Denied variance #2.
2. Eric & Mary A. Haebartsen for a variance of 3.3 ft to permit a pool enclosure 6.7
ft from a side property line where 10 ft is required at 3255 San Pedro 8t, DelOra Groves, Lots
326, 327 and 328, zoned RS 4 (single family residential). V 94-38
Action: Granted as requested subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is
based on the replacement enclosure shall be in the same location as the one removed i.e. directly
connected t%r adjacent to the existing pool; 2) the existing landscaping shall not be removed;
3) the application for a variance and documentc; submitted by the applicant, including maps,
plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a
actdc07a.94
1
07114/94
.-
,
~. '\ -Ipt'-!\f.~~'" ;J....r'*,?hJ:.f,~:~~ 7",~~_'it~~~""'--""'~ ...~--~~~~~~ ~~...~ 'h':'~' 'u ". ':.: -. ,\ I . 'C.:.... I,,' ~ .,~, "" ~ :, . .~-\~. '. ~ . .'.1 . or '~~:\:.11
ri tr.~J'l.tJR-',(,JJ.Jl~.~ '. 1 . "'17~~~11t;~""'''':(~''~~'':..iJ.~1~!~tr~$:'\,i,(;''''~:r' lurl.t~-+~~!ii.' ./"IJ>:~ I'':~' ".,~I~~"f"'~f~ .:l.~. . \~j.'"<:~\<' \~ 1~1! .. ..'. . ','. '~r ' ;'';:~;.tl{.'
. . I ... . I ( I' . . ' ~ . I, ....!,h; ,1t~~~~T"\l,,:.'\,, Jp,~~:~I-.':.,.f.'i,~:p~',""t";;'\.~,:...'" ~.~; I~!i,:y....(~ '\"~ I ~\..-""'t . ~.,r"~.~1~~""-",~1
.,~. .,p' ".' " " '. .... _' . .... . "'~.\:/1"'~.6;'''',f.'~~~J~~'~'>:'}I~~~liI\'''':~'.:'' ,,'...~- ,', "';r~"':'t
~;;/'t:~,:,':~~i:.":'I",;~'...tl'~.'.P: ".\.~~,j~':(.,":. "':..~+~.>:t'._ .'.. ,<,,:. .,' .' . < . ':'.~J~~~jt~;~',,"~~~;~\';~':;fj;.~..!t:tfi',?~;:~~~~:~;~::.:~~~~~<
.,'
.'
(")
~;:
,'.
:',?
"
:'~L.; .
.r~;: .
"
'~I > C
.' .
"0
" '
. , .
\: .~
"
\;' .
i,: .'
;'~~.. .
it..
"" .,
",
~~(,
,\, .'
~.~~ . .
\ .~ .
.,' ,".
" .'0 \
~ ': '.
,e '.
t ..:.. .,.' :
:~;,' >
.,.
(.:~: '. "
-" . .
.:: ", ,.
c.. . , ,
~ffi:"~ ~i/ ',.
.". ' ,
I";:', . .
41;:'.,....."
~',. '.
*J>,'
~r:~'
i.>;'; :1'
;~(.'.'~
'i~;. . T
1....
" I
.' ~".
": .'
1...0',' . .
::,'i' .'
: ~ ~ .
. ,.~., .
. "
"
t."
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 4) the requisite building
permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing.
3. . Ronald C. Beraer.. Jr for variances of (1) 7 ft to permit a setback of 18 ft from a
'street right-of-way (Old Coachman Road) where 25 ft is required; (2) 0.5 ft to permit a setback
of 6.5 ft from a side property line where 7 ft is required to allow an inground swimming pool
at 1845 Albright Dr, College Park, Lot 27, zoned RS 6 (single family residential). V 94-39
Action: Granted as requested subject to the following conditions: 1) The replacement
enclosure shall be in the same location as the one removed Le. directly connected t%r adjacent
to the existing pool; 2) the existing landscaping shall not be removed; 3) 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 4) the requisite building
permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
. Ordinance 5654-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land development
code; amending Section 45.23, Code of Ordinances, to delete the authorization for minor
variances from dock width and setback requirements, and to authorize minor variances from
parking space requirements; providing an effective date.
Action:. Recommended approval of Ordinance 5654-94 related to Ordinance 5655-94
witl:1 a condition limiting the number of parking spaces that staff can approve to 10% or ten
. spaces, whichever is less.
Ordinance 5656-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land development
c'ode; amending Chapter 40 creating new Division 23A to establish a Downtown/Mixed Use
District; amending Section 41.035, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplementary conditional
use standards for conditional uses provided in the Downtown/Mixed Use District; providing an
effective date.
Action:
Recommended approval.
Ordinance 5657-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land development
code; amending Section 40.286, Code of Ordinances, to increase the maximum allowable height
for the Limited Office District; providing an effective date.
Action:
Recommended approval.
actdc07a.94
2
07/14/94
w 'rir:\'~~~~fJ~~~~~~~~~-' "-,
. it.~, , .'. . " .
- ," .' .
~~;l:l.~~~~~~;.t.""~~':;It;'~ ~~';~';:~~7. "~~.0~~~~~".1" ;:,~~~Y-:~;i:t ~::,\~,::~:,,: ~':s~;('.>!'~ ".:~:>..I, .:~;-~~ ~'~I::'~I")'~; u: to -.: ."('.~ ...., . ,<'~ " ~.....>.~...~ ',':;0~~
T""~"'\"T..~".:~.:'f'''''_:1,'''''!I''''''P''. ....\.~.) .tr-t'11+."r...'to:~'-==~r.t'. ,"'1;:. ~'_I\' ~~.' '" ",'.' > ,r,-O:+:'...jJl.
. . ... -.. .""'~....:i-'-':~~~"I .f;:t";z.I.~~.ti:.1 ie. .~-I..~t p~'" ("". e:;'..~....,.: .,', ~ ~ '.~ ':-.~ .\.-:..,.\.
. : .... . ,. 'T" " .~ ~.1~' '-'....~~~~~....:()f~~\;~a.t;~~~~.,:.~.fl:.,,'....~:~::..}~.~.()~::;,
. ; . "
, ,
B~tfif}~~':1~:;.;'>~;:~ ::. .~
J.. ::~ \:..... '~. ",
; . ' .. . ....,:. ',. . ..... \ .. ., . '. '...,.. ,.' . " , .
. - . . :t;'t
;:wn~~<;": ;.;.::}"
", ,
: ~\;
~. . "
. Ie
:' ~ ..
c' "
,
'.' 'f:'""\
...10
Ordinance 5658-94 of the City of Cleanvater, Florida, relating to the land development
code; amending Section 35.11, Code of Ordinances, to establish definitions for "outdoor cafe, "
Jlsidewalk vendor," and "vendor stand;" amending Chapter 41, Code of Ordinances; creating a
'new Division 12 to establish requirements for locating and operating outdoor cafes and sidewalk
vendor operations; providing an effective date.
Action: Recommended approval with conditions: the height of fences separating
sidewalk cafes be 30 to 42-inches; drop resort-commercial 24 from the ordinance; limit sidewalk
vendors to food, refreshm~nts and restricted pennitted uses; modify the distance vendors can sell
from their restaurants to 600 feet; promote the incorporation of the design theme; and limit live
entertainment on sidewalk cafes next to motels.
ll. Approval of Minutes - June 9, 1994 and June 23, 1994
Action:
Approved as submitted.
ID. . Board and Staff Discussion
': IV. ". Adjournment
".'
3
07/14J94
i ." '.. . . . '.", ". ..: ';. .. ",'. oJ ... . ..... .. :: . . , . 'l. . I,.. " . ... ..::', . . . . , '.,", . .... ..' 1 . ~ ( ~.. ,'. .'
"t~''<:..l:.....,
.! l";.~f.:': '
!1Y';: '.'
. ~:'. I, .
. I
~~: .:.~.
~
P' """
;'. Ct t.itJJ
'"
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
July 14, 1994
~
. "~'
Members present
l;:-"
Alex Plisko, Chair
Otto Gans
Joyce E. Martin
H
, ~ .
L
;~ .
Absent:
,. .
,;
~' .'
: I
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair (excused)
John B. Johnson (excused)
. ~ . .
:~;'
i::; .
.~~!.. . .'. . .'
~.~":;.', ,~.
t i~: . < ." . .
,":.~~.1 ,'"
f,. ":'+:. " ~
ti;i!~' , i~~~~~~~~gbi~~~=::~~:~;=~enl
Sy: .:~;. ' The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City
W. V "'. Hall.' Ms. Martin lead the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation. Mr. Plisko outlined procedures
t!,::;..... ...' " and advised anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjusunent
/~~~>:. . . . 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
!;~"f' , . proceedings to support the appeal.
~r'.':('.::::"'::' .: '.'In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily
N/:'~" . .... . .' discussed in that order.
.' 'Item A - (cont. from 6/23/94) Alan H. Tralins for a variance of 5 ft to pennit
construction of home 20 ft from a street right-of-way (Eldorado Ave) at 1010
Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 69, Lots 8 & 9, land fronting the gulf and
. . . riparian rights, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-33
*t~.\,:\~::<;:~ ':.' .... S~nior 'Planner John Richter stated this item was continued from June 23, 1994. In his
~fJ./ij~::::~\\ .. i:..:' . .iuly,5,)994, letter, the applicant indicated his choice of a new representative and requested this
W~~?{r)::r:'.<::. ..... item'. be' .cootinue~ t~ Augu~t 1994, for his representative to review the request. Staff
l,i:s:,~t:';:..'.::. recommended contmulDg the Item.
~~g:.>:\<.::. ..' .' .
~ii~::~..:(;'::' ~ . Mr~ Gans moved to continue this item until August 11, 1994. The motion was duly seconded
.Ill'" ". '.. .'
1~;/t,' ':..' and carried unanimously.
~iFO' .... . .
~'.' .
~::~. mindc07a.94
1~~l; t
f~ :'._ " .
~K~..,... .
''''J~\.Y. ~
lMc'. ~," .
f~i{~;. ..
.- < ,
Also present:
1
07/14/94
"
f.":'t;,~~~~~rJi~~)~~- "--..u~3.~1~.i.i.;;f:i4"Ji.ei~~~.;..'/.;~..\"~t~"J..~J..t';;~;!~::";~~:;;'~:;' '~;:i~:;i,i'~' :\':'7'~''> '..,;,;.~. ~;:~ "'~:; ,!,:';:/;;'i;:i.~'r'l
~~t.!'~~;:"~'~ ~c: '". '~\'.~"~ '.., .".. ..:;: . ' ,. '_' ." .... '. .: . ~ s.,t.......:':..;..~r{u)1JI1Stt~.t~~t~t}~~k:i...!i~~~...I~~~livJ~Li'~':~c~;h:~,~~..~.~~...c~~;~~..~.i~f~..~
~~..,i.,,}.l.....,.;'. ..1......,-:... :" :. .,". .:',' " ......: . . .. .t.H!.";~l'@i~~:1fi~t\'lY~':i:""~'''''''''<\'Y.l~i'
WI~~~f~~~~i:'~:i;'~;';~:';;":-:':;;I:< .;::i:.\~:.:.'.:);:/:;.., .~'...:::.\,..:.,::.,. .::....>,......:, .~ ;'..:.' '. .'.., .':-" '....t :''';''!'":\\;'').~~i:~*:~~::'i~~~~~;p.{
. . - '...... 4". ". ~ . +.' . . '. . .' ~ ' \0 .' , ' , .
~
1. Rory L. & Teresa A. Westlund for variances of (1) 2 ft to permit a fence
of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback from a
street right-of-way (Summerlin Dr) where the property is not addressed from; (2)
15 ft to permit a storage shed 10 ft from a street right-of-way (Summerlin Dr)
where 25 ft is required at 2453 Glennann Dr, Morningside Estates Unit 6B, Lot
516, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 94-36
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants request approval
of a two foot height variance to erect a six foot high fence and a 15 foot setback variance to
construct a shed by their single family residence in the Morningside subdivision in the side yard
that adjoins a street right-of-way (Summerlin Drive) where the property is not addressed. The
shed will be used for storing lawn and swimming pool equipment.
A permit was granted in January 1994, to construct a four foot high fence that maintained a
three foot setback from the Summerlin Drive property line. The applicants have indicated they
wish to increase the fence's height for privacy and safety and propose to landscape the buffer
outside the fence.
'.
Staff feels a six foot high fence would be in character with adjoining fenced properties along
Summerlin Drive and the proposed buffer landscape along the right-of-way will soften the
public's view of the fence. The variance requested is minimal to allow the applicants reasonable
use of this land.
>:0
Staff feels the variance for the shed is not minimal and the applicants have not provided evidence
to indicate they are experiencing hardships with the construction of the proposed shed. To
minimize the variance requestt the shed could be located closer to the pool on the east or on the
property's southwest side. The need for the variance arises from the action of the applicants.
Rory Westlund, the applicant, stated he sought a pennit to erect a six foot fence for the privacy
and safety of his three children after his family moved into their house in January 1994. He
indicated he was unable to apply for a variance at that time and accepted a permit to construct
a four foot fence. After further consideration, he felt his family's need for safety warranted a
'six foot fence height. He said he included a request to build a shed within the setback area in
his application for convenience.
.. ~ . + I
In answer to a question, Mr. Westlund indicated his family's need for a secured playground
would not be met by a four foot high fence. He noted deed restrictions require utilities to be
bidden from the road. It was suggested a four foot fence would be inadequate to shield the view
of the subject property's heat pump from Summerlin Drive. Mr. Westlund stated he wants his
property to be aesthetically pleasing and will plant shrubs between the fence and sidewalk.
Two letters in opposition were read into the record. One letter objected to the installation of a
six foot fence and both letters expressed opposition to building a storage shed and pointed out
sheds were not permitted by Morningside/Meadows deed restrictions.
.'i'. c
Ii.-':,::,'
,:~. .
~:~~~r:.
:"of ::'.
r~.~\Z: -.
l,I' .
~~. ~"~ .
'~ '~": c
'.
F O'~'
~ '. jfij,:
.. ~ '
mindc07a.94
2
07/14/94
'.",'
\~: ...
/'. :
~_ ~. .~ ,. . .,"j.. --.r ~ "'~'.".,., "~,". .1 i. ""'.,l..-w--......,.. __u
-t' ',ri-::,;;.,1:~",~':,":';~;,.:Jt.~,;h4~~"'.''''',,"l,pJ'.'-"''
,~!~.", . .
E\).::~'~~!:~;~,:' \::, ',:.:.' ',.':. : ~ . .
---~"""""""~"'~""~,.,J..'..:'.'.~4""',.J"":...',,,,,'...:i'''.\l ~', ,\:' , w.. _ ;: ,..". '~.~+. .. .:.~. . .~.' ". ,~::--:;.t.
. ...,I....J..........,"'.~~'';L~.~,~,J~j~(....~.t:,.:.:..r~I;.{.~. '.;.,":[:, ~~;.~: ;,........f/::~~ r' .::.\ .: W\'lt~1
, ~ . "''''l~I')'':~~,;\'~,'\i]~';'''~..:~''. .t'''P'~}'''!''''\lo .I.,~,""\ "..,\ "?.';l'?4~
f")
-:'0
~":" c
",
:,: 1, .
\"H'
i,."
::"J, .
i',';' ,
;\:., '
f:". : .
,:::, l~~
i~'~ +~ 'W
~ ~ .
';", .
:!c<; t
Concerns were expressed that permitting the construction of a shed would change the
neighborhood. Mr. Westlund stated he was not aware that sheds were forbidden by deed
restrictions.
In answer to a question, Mr. Westlund indicated he is trying to sell the 20 foot boat he has
parked next to his house. It was recommended he contact Mr. Richter regarding applicable
neighborhood deed restrictions.
Discussion ensued regarding the more restrictive fencing regulations that face owners of comer
lots. It was noted no variance would be needed to erect a six foot fence on the property line if
the property were not on a comer.
Based upon the information fum.ished by the applicant. Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance
number one for a fence 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
was not caused by the owner and is needed to bring the property into conformity with existing
deed restrictions together with the safety of the children and the variance is the minimum
necessary to overcome the hardship created by the family size and the limitation of the ground
due to its location on the corner which does not allow for any protected play 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
I 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 months from the date
of this public hearing; and 3) the fence shall be landscaped on the outside along Summerlin
Drive right-of-way in accordance with the perimeter landscaping requirements of Section 42.27.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny variance
number two for a shed as requested because the applicants have not demonstrated they have
met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code
because no unnecessary hardship was shown; the granting of the variance would be injurious to
other properties in the neighborhood; and the granting of the variance would ViO'At~ th~ general
spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05 (general).
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Eric & Mary A. Hal:bartsen for a variance of 3.3 ft to pennit a pool
enclosure 6.7 ft from a side property line where 10 ft is required at 3255 San
Pedro St. Del Oro Groves, Lots 326, 327 and 328, zoned RS 4 (single family
residential). V 94..38
mindc07a.94
3
07/14/94
,
.... '+.
J. ;.'
.~~~~~..~.-._..__.."
,. _h ._--.-....._~, ....,.:.;.~:."...i~. ,(..i..",~. ""'~'~;"~""''<::f~':' ';;;;!;~\.::~.;;: ;.c'~.,;;::';: ;:/..:/;;j:~'~~):':;:'.~A~,.;;':i{;{::,.:.y:,;/.:.:\.~~\K~
.,
.:~"~';'.:: ~~. ~. :'_ c,
:..~l., " .~'j'.' ,.
. .' '. . - .. . .' .. .' .' . .' . : '.. ~. .... ." t ' " . . ',.' '. '. .
'.
'.>
r')
+., .
~.~
"'0
.>
':,:
~ 4<
t "'.
.:.'. .
j, '.
.. ~ I
. ~, :.
" .
.,1 .
I . ~ .' ;
" >'".
''"': I.
~ . n'
,'~ ~ /: 'c
'J~ ,~.' .
I'r::;-:.
C,Tl' .
,L'" .
,'"
t ',i,'
."t_"
" ....,
~~ t .
j..:. .
~ . .'
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants request approval
of a 3.3 foot variance from the west side property line to replace a deteriorating screen pool
enclosure. The subject property in a less concentrated zoning district was developed with a
single family residence in 1957. The enclosure connects the garage with the house. No
enlargement or location change to the original enclosure is proposed.
Staff feels this replacement wilI enhance the aesthetics of the area. The variance requested is
minimal and should have 110 adverse impact on adjoining properties. Without the variance, the
deck would be outside the enclosure and egress to the pool would be effected. Dense
landscaping along the west property line screens the enclosure from the property to the west.
Eric Hagbartsen, applicant, stated he wants to replace the existing screen enclosure which has
deteriorated with a new structure of the same dimensions. In answer to a question, Mr. Richter
noted a variance would not have been required had only the screening been replaced.
In answer to a question, Mr. Hagbartsen indicated he recently had a new roof installed and is
currently replacing gutters and aluminum. In answer to a question, he stated it would be a
hardship to remove the waterfall next to the swimming pool. It was noted that a neighbor's
concern was based on a misunderstanding that the application was requesting an additional three
feet.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variances
as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as
listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because the variance
arises from a condition which is unique to the property existing because of the demolition of the
existing enclosure and the need for replacement thereof and the variance is the minimum
necessary to overcome the hardship created by an existing built-in waterfall and pool deck,
subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the replacement enclosure shall
be in the same location as the one removed i.e. directly connected to for adjacent to the existing
pool; 2) the existing landscaping shall not be removed; 3) 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 4) the requisite building pennit(s) shall be obtained within six months
from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Ronald C. Bereer. .Jr for variances of (1) 7 ft to pennit a setback of 18 ft
from a street right-of-way (Old Coachman Road) where 25 ft is required; (2) 0.5
ft to permit a setback of 6.5 ft from a side property line where 7 ft is required
to allow an inground swimming pool at 1845 Albright Dr, College Park, ~t 27,
zoned RS 6 (single family residential). V 94-39
mindc07a.94
4
07/14/94
!Bk.fMr~:H?j;::,; ; ,,:;.,:j '.~<~~,., <ii~\,~;Jw;....;j~'<<''''''''''--- - .
~~~~.:~;t'~''''''F~.. ~~ . c ,
:;" .
.~.~ ...: <~~~. ": +: !.::..~~ . ~""'" .
'1If'(';.~ ,," c' ...
'-~---..w..-~~~;"~IIU.~'Ll(..t..:.;.....~...\..,..;r.'~~-'l'/"':~'~~':..."",;,,:'..;,;~+.':' ;., ~.~_> T.~....;.L ~. .." ....~ :;:;'c,:~,',""-t~">: .<' I'.:" "~i~~~
. , I.". ., "'. ',..,. ;- ..,/..", ,',', """~'.iV'1'; .:;.J>., ,,'., 1',. t:,,,,,~ \''',t,'"\~' '.; (.' ""t,;;t..,
, ' '-, ""..;.~ 4,..,"J+'::'~;;~~~:-;I:. ~T~.N~.J~,:." \ ~'::~4';~. ~c,'\': ';.'hl'
I '..'..' " 4 " . , ',' " ,',', " " .' .." " ". '.:' .',., \'. .. .'
....'-. "
.c;..
r)
".........
(:
. .TO
",
. .
~}: '.
.',
~ t.
"'0
; '. C
.i~. c.' I
': ~ c.'
~: ' "
'.' .
"~" .
~ . :;
r. '.
, .,
J.::., .'
~: :!' ,.
, .
:. '( c,' .
~! ,:: .
.\ .~(, :'
''; .',
;;,'.'
:' '. ., .
'C '
~~.:'.: .. c
'r""" . .
"".' ~.' .
~\~.~: <
~\, .
't~;).
;~:\~1a
F';W
'V:'.'. "
<tw": '
~~ ,~~ .
Y/:'O.
. ~ ~, ,
., ~. ,
Senior Planner Richter explained the applic~tion in detail, stating the applicants request approval
of a rear and side yard variance to construct a modestly sized, inground swimming pool at the
subject property, a single family residence on a double frontage lot with a rear property line
along Old Coachman Road. The proposed swimming pool will be angled to lessen the variance
requirements and enclosed by the existing 6 foot wood fence with a landscape buffer along Old
Coachman Road.
The applicants expressed concerns about the safety of their two young children and do not wish
to build the pool too close to their house. They have indicated their backyard is large but they
were constrained from building the size pool they desired due to the rear setback requirements.
The applicants stated they require a reasonable amount of space to walk from the house to the
backyard and feel it would be difficult to construct the pool without benefit of a variance.
Staff feels hardship is due to the rear property line's location along Old Coachman Road. Upon
site visit, staff observed swimming pools by existing Rtructures on this side of Old Coachman
Road have varying rear property line setbacks. Some encroach further than this request. The
variances requested are minimal. The proposed swimming pool is intended to follow the pattern
of existing development along Old Coachman Road, and will be consistent with other stroctures
in the area.
Joe HolloweU of Skinee Dip Pools, representative for the applicant, stated the average pool is
400 square feet and this one will only be 282 square feet. He indicated pools behind
neighboring homes were built deeper into the setback. The applicant is not requesting a screen
enclosure. The six foot fence will block view of the pool from Old Coachman Road.
In reply to a question, Mr. Hollowell indicated it would be difficult to move the pool due to the
applicants' need to walk around it. He explained much of the backyard is not usable due to its
slope. He stated before a screen enclosure could be built, new decking would, need to be
poured.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter noted setbacks from Old Coachman Road for pools are
.not uniform. He stated there was nothing wrong with a lack of uniformity as long as they are
built in accordance with code.
Concern was expressed regarding the seven foot setback request. It was explained when
developers build homes with roads running in front and behind them, rear yards are often
affected by unusually large easements, like the one associated with Old Coachman Road. It was
.not felt this variance would be noticed. It was suggested that few alternatives exist due to the
pool's small size and the efforts to design the pool to limit the length of span requiring a
variance.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variances
as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as
mindc07a.94
5
07/14/94
..
Wjgl~~j,~<6',~' ;~H~i:i~';~~(;',~{~}iM'K...;;i,;u;fM4,,;;.#w<A~--'. --
~il'~\Il\o:~':'. i-/'N .' .
;;~;;,~'/~,/:'j:}':;>~~. ';'" .' .
. ~ ~''''''';'''-'''''''''''.~':'_l. :'.i:".,'., .\: ;"';.'~,: ,.';:, ;;i~';~;~~~\,:~;~~;~\\t;';\}'~::~~~~;;~",~~f:",~ ;)~~;:~';:;::;~i;~:,;:;:;).:::., ~~.:,: ':::.: ~:; :~J:f!
; '. . " . . , .... . '. l . . . .;. ' .' .. . . . . I'.: I . . . " 0 ~. .'. . ,.... . I '.
')
.'!.
". "
. .
"0
. . ,
'. '
. .
:~
,
I'
':" .
',M,"
; r..:.;.:
;.t,.
;.
','
~ I I '
"
...-;..,.
~. .' L
, '
(<,":,"
:.{,.,,~~.<
~~~!
k>:' .
<. .
>', .
1.:"..1
. L. ( .
..... ~
~ ; "
't '
"
<fl.or'
",
J. :
~~ '.
.)'. .
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 was 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 n unnecessary hardship upon the
applicant, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot
size combined with the streets in front and back, subject to the following conditions: 1) The
replacement enclosure shall be in the same location as the one removed i.e. directly connected
t%r adjacent to the existing pool; 2) the existing landscaping shall not be removed; 3) 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
stl11cture located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; and 4) the
requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
Ordinance 5654-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land
development code; amending Section 45.23, Code of Ordinances, to delete the
authorization for minor variances from dock width and setback requirements, and
to authorize minor variances from parking space requirements; providing an
effective date.
Senior Planner Richter explained the ordinance in detail stating it will eliminate the City's dock
regulations and turn their oversight to the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Authority that
has standards similar to the City. The change should streamline the process with one authority
handling dock variances. This action should reduce the Development Code Adjustment Board's
(DCAB) workload. Currently, variances must be secured from both the City and County.
Concern was expressed regarding the involvement of the Harbormaster. It was indicated the
Harbormaster would typically not be involved unless there is a dock variance application concern
regarding navigation.
Mr. Richter explained Ordinance 5655~94 is the other half of this proposal. Two items in that
code address minor variances for docks. If the City no longer hears dock variance requests, it
is proposed that these items be deleted.
Ordinance 5655-94 also contains a proposal to allow staff to grant minor parking variances up
to 10% of the applicable parking requirements based on the same standards of approval used by
. DeAB. Concern was expressed that staff could grant approval of 50 or more parking spaces.
It was recommended a maximum limit be established.
Concern was expressed regarding a business paying a large fee to request a one~space variance.
It was suggested a business pay $50 for staff review. If staff denies the request, the applicant
could pay the higher fee and appear before DCAB.
mindc07a.94
6
07/14/94
. ,. ,..,.-..---- - .'
.,?r;~.&r\O;-.;~~..~if;!;.~;....;!~.~i.J~ ~~l';; ..;~...~/i.;.;.;-~:-..:W\...J.~
"i- i~ ~1i~:"f."::~1.""I. 4-
~-.,_.........-~.....,.d...~..~..l,.;....,.::.....~:.,:./.:i~,....~~.: .',~;~~.,<.,:..... :." .I::.... .'~~ ~ "... ....".<.~,.,...,: ''''~~' ~':".'.':L".:.;..!~t~~
\. c,.t.~-?"'Ir"'T"-''''' '~'~"'.{.~ ~ "",,~" .",> t \.,;:.. "'. " _ '...." J ".).," :~~
'T '. ..T .~.. r:-:'~' 'f". .....tj ~,~o,l":I;'~. ,\iJi"~~I.,;:d,"):''''':;;;~'''~'!;'',,:1~~~~;:(;~:..:j.; {..4-~" ,
",.' .
i~,;<;)~::".. ' ...
i .'
. r~1~~~~(' 'F~;;;~i;i~~.~~,t.t~;~~i:;f~;~~~"~~~_c..~
"~~"'."~ ."., . .
~:1~' '~l'~.: . t .
i{;{ ::;.:~~,~:,~;':,~:.':;;:.:; . ":':'..
;' ~ ::.j . ~
:r'"
I'"}
..J.
.. '
:~\.'.;,
. L ~ <; '.
....
~. ~~. I. ..
: ~:< ':...
";.". .
p.. .
" \.'
',"0"
", .
;...:. .
',r,.: .
;~S; .
:.f,", . ~ <
:>":- " .
..
: "~"
~'."~'~' .
~:..:,." .
'"' ~ c.,' '.
: t~ '" .
~~':~!\ ::"
:..: .( . ~
;.I....f.: .
,.~~-t~:' .
.~.(>.. .
~': I '." '.
rt>'~':"":T'
t.;. ~.
;."l_i~'. .' H
~~~;<, " ,
ft-\.\,\ ",' c.':,
i)""" ,
~~""'<
~,{i'~. .
\t~~~. .
f:; ",',
J,j-;-,:
'. '
./ '.' ,
. ,
Mr. Gans recommended approval of Ordinance 5654-94 and Ordinance 5655-94 to the
Commission with a condition limiting thP. n~:ub,:i v1 parking spaces that staff can approve to
10% or ten spaces, whichever is less. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance 5656-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land
development code; amending Chapter 40 creating new Division 23A to establish
a Downtown/Mixed Use District; amending Section 41.035, Code of Ordinances,
to establish supplementary conditional use standards for conditional uses provided
in the Downtown/Mixed Use District; providing an effective date.
Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford explained the amendment in detail and stated part of
the City's Downtown Plan included adding areas outside the existing Community Redevelopment
Agency's (CRA) boundaries for inclusion in the Downtown Urban Center District. The
Commission requested staff focus on a perfOlTIlanCe zoning district to encourage property
acquisition, redevelopment, and increased density. For example, motels developed on more than
two acres would be permitted 80 motel units per acre.
Mr. Shuford reported staff is now concentrating on the N Ft. Harrison area with the unsafe
structure ordinance and razing unsafe structures.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5656-94 to the City Commission. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
. Ordinance 5657-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land
. development code; amending Section 40.286, Code of Ordinances, to increase the
maximum allowable height for the Limited Office District; providing an effective
date.
Central Permitting Director Shuford explained the amendment in detail stating its purpose is to
bring Limited Office District into confonnance with the 30-foot height limit established for lower
density multi-family districts and establish consistency for multi-family zoning included in the
OL district.
Mr.Gaus moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5657-94 to the City Commission. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ordinance 5658-94 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the land
development code; amending Section 35.11, Code of Ordinances, to establish
definitions for "outdoor cafe, II "sidewalk vendor, n and "vendor stand; II amending
Chapter 41, Code 'of Ordinances; creating a new Division 12 to establish
requifements for locating and operating outdoor cafes and sidewalk vendor
. operations; providing an effective date.
mindc07a.94
7
07/14/94
'''77-~~'''~''''''~~J~~."",h.>'':..t.~; :.::~..':~..~'" ~.: ? tc'" ..../ 'I:""'~"; ~">~"~'<"I> . ,'.;.>>.:.:;.;..U
I<i(~""",\.'f., l';""'(l!",1!,;~'V,:AJ..~,~ ....~Aj...~ ~lJ.:.~ :'~~f:,;.t,";;\i \::~ ,,~ ;.;i:<;1.:o.;:; -!.:iJk;~:~;,,~.t'>!.;"'1r-r:;~ ~~'/I:: .:.:~;.' u::\.ii~
. .. ~, . ~L~" ~'-t+'~1f'~""::r:t'.,~. "'J'!~:~:.{'~,Jjut.f'~"'.~["~.::c:i;~~~\~i~~
~ f'\;' ,~ " :
. ,;'
. .
. I' r .. .. ,: " I,' , '. . . ' 'L' . '
;..\, ,'. ' .
;-. ..'.
o
,". "
" .
. .
: ~ ~,
',:.. .
.,.
, .
~ i:&'. .'
.:" ,
\:'.. .
.. "
,.
~"'O
,~. "~ '
.1'.
~ J ,
.:":" .. ':.
..~.. !.
,.:<..::"
);-~ \ ~
,.,','
~~'>~ 1.
~~~ <:,:.'
t'.,
.
.....
1-;'. .'
\~,q,~. ~ '.
~')i:,~. .
,1',;" . 'Ie
;~:.~:;.~.
~1:,'; .
~Y.
S,~<{,'e... ,.
, ~""'..'
~!~';:r '<. .
t, ".
r':o.
~.~;;:'
,..;.,'
:~.! '
.~, \:.":
, .~ \L .
'. .
i ~' .
Central Peooitting Director Shuford explained the amendment in detail stating the Commiss;on
wished to encourage more activities in the streetscape of the pedestrian oriented districts
Downtown and on the beach. This amendment attempts to establish standards and define the
teoos "outdoor cafe," 1Isidewalk vendor,1I and "vendor stand. tt
The amendment would permit outdoor cafes in other than required open spaces, landscape areas,
or vehicular access areas. Cafes will be permitted in front setbacks. Concern was expressed
regarding tables, canopies and umbrellas blocking public sidewalks. Mr. Shuford noted they
must be moveable, not permanent, and a minimum of five feet must be maintained for
pedestrians. Cafes next to sidewalks or streets will require a 42-inch high wall or fence to
separate the use. Concern was expressed that no maximum was stated. A recommendation was
made that 42-inches should be the maximum height and 30-inches the minimum.
Concern was expressed about injuries occurring on City-owned sidewalks. Mr. Shuford noted
the need for cafes to provide proof of insurance.
Mr. Shuford reported a comment on this ordinance was received from Todd Pressman,
representative for McDonald's, expressing opposition to the provision that outdoor seating shall
constitute not more than 25% of the total seating capacity in the restaurant. Mr. Shuford
indicated a compromise could include a requirement for cafes to meet the parking requirements
for the percentage exceeding 25 %. Consensus agreed with the 25 % provision as stated.
Concern was expressed regarding a sufficient number of restrooms.
Concerns were expressed regarding the idea that outdoor cafes are more oriented to walk-in
traffic than other restaurants and the limited parking on the beach. Mr. Shuford indicated the
location of outdoor cafes in the pedestrian areas was a desired amenity to the streetscape. He
agreed people will drive to the beach to sit outside and eat. He noted the desire to permit
existing restaurants to take advantage of the new policy though most cannot provide additional
parking.
Concern was expressed regarding the definition of "accessible to a public sidewalk. It Mr.
Shuford stated outdoor seating behind a restaurant would not provide public benefit nor create
the atmosphere the City wishes to establish.
Concern was expressed regarding live entertainment next to motels. Mr. Shuford suggested
eliminating CR 24 would address this matter.
ConCerns were expressed that anyone could have a garage sale or sell t-shirts off a card table
on Mandalay Avenue. Mr. Shuford explained by vendors meeting the standards listed on pages
three and four, the City can control hazards and separate vendor businesses. He indicated
vendors will only be permitted on eight-foot wide sidewalks and will need to setup against a wall
to provide the required five-foot passage. Sidewalk vendors with approval would be permitted
anyplace on the beach except on the north end and tip of the southern end.
mindc07a.94
8
07/14/94
~~~j#\~~i~'jl}.<i#---'- .
~~i~~::/~~'~<lj..~:' , "~'.. " ... .,.:;.. ' .
. " -~ -"MAl.,',,,,l,~ ~;~y:~.~. ; '''';'1''(') :'1;~"\::",:!, )i.t,;;:j;;ti!'~~'f;i~';;j~~~~i~~,i~;~~4k\~tt#~~f:;"711:;/;-;,'~; ~""i-::~':' :,,;:':'.m~~t
r;~i' " ~~ .
. 't'
o
~~ .. ~
~' '. '.
~. "
Concern was expressed regarding enforcementl limiting sales to certain items, separating vendor
sales of similar items, and ensuring that vendors and stands reflect the tropical seascape theme.
Concern was expressed regarding locating a licensed food vendor within 2,000 feet of the
restaurant and a more practical limit was recommended. 'Mr. Shuford indicated the charge for
street vendors was higher than the cost for an occupational license.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval to the City Conunission of Ordinance 5658.94 with
conditions: the height of fences separating sidewalk cafes be 30 to 42-inches; drop resort-
commercial 24 from the ordinance; limit sidewalk vendors to food, refreshments and restricted
permitted uses; modify the distance vendors can sell from their restaurants to 600 feet; promote
the incorporation of the design theme; and limit live entertainment on sidewalk cafes next to
motels. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
n. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Gans moved to approve the minutes of June 9, 1994, and June 23, 1994, as submitted.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
'".:. . ID. Board and Staff Discussion
'~~~.' ~ '..
\. I .
," .
.'
',t;:: ;
':'0
',f'
: 1,>
:. f'
;'
'r"
< :
. '.
.. ~ .,".
:{>..
.....1,
~, ~, '
jE\',: .'
~~"-: ~. I .
"
'::, $ ~ . .
F:":.::
~;. ;+"
I'"~ . ' <
',>. . , L'
\. ...: '.' .
~~~~~'l~ ~",'~ .
. : ~ . ,
,:'..: '
l}D'.':....::. ..
.'1;,':: . ' . .
~~~:. :~.~" >
'1;'., ;.
!::\ .'-
'~i,::,~'. ~
~ro
K,~
~i~\;':.-'-:
:. ~:: \'. I
I:: .
'l'."...
Senior Planner Richter distributed copies of the memorandum from the Interim City Attorney
regarding the Sunshine Law.
Mr. Plisko requested his infonnation packet be delivered to his office. It was indicated a copy
of the agenda and notice of public hearing are included.
Senior Planner Richter noted hardship is no longer specifically part of the standard approval.
Standards for approval are special conditions.
Concerns were expressed regarding seawalls destroyed by a 1993 stann have created an eyesore.
. Four seawalls plus the wall behind them on Druid Road South were destroyed. Severe erosion
. C?f one yard was noted. The City currently carniot reinforce their rebuilding.
It was reported the fence maintenance ordinance needs to be enforced for one property south and
. three properties north of Magnolia Dock as they present an eyesore from the water.
Central Pennitting Director Shuford displayed a slide presentation of the S Mandalay
red'evelopment area. . Goals include improving the pedestrian connection between bayside
properties and the. beach, improving the pedestrian environment, increasing parking
opportunities, improving public access to Clearwater Harbor, creating an environment that spurs
development, creating an identity for the area, and a logo. Slides included a view of Papaya
Street.as a pedestrian mall with vendors, outdoor cafes, and special events linking the beach to
the harbor. A wide sidewalk also could be built on Baymont.
mindc07a.94
9
07/14/94
,
~""'~l .,~.".....". ',..' ....:". Y' .,).....'>.....:....:.. .'"'r,L"....'--.- ,
... .. '. ^"'J!L'.il'l!1:\-,.t,\r""~l'h"..~,,~..~~"":'
~f"'''''''li'\''''''''''' ., "
~\,,;,:,:>:, :;;~.",.-,:,~.-":" . :' . .,' , .' . .
. - ~~.w '~<''''~'-'t~';':'j(/.''~;:.>i~~j'~'ct:;.:.. ~::;'~~',:;./:i.;;';'t.~..,~,;~,~:.~j;~.f:i.,~ki;;~i+i1f~i;j;~tt'~y~~.~.':~<}t;' ;\....:~~:;.::~:}~1
, .
. ' , '. '.' .' . ' . . . .' I .' ~ , . . , + . ,:. . . . .. .. . . . . . . ,
()
;.
I.."
L ,.,'
>.' ,
: ~. .
-: ~ -.. .
'," '
'.
. ,
"
.~. . J
./i. .
"'0
:'.'~ I.
,"
, .
.,
: .
, .
, -
.\:
:~ i~:; :.
:t. ".
~lr::
" ..,
,<~ ~'
'.: ".:
t~, _
\ ::
:,;,. .
. .>
,"-T,l .: ~
~o:' i:.' .
},...,. . '.'
t~t:..::: .~
'~ .. ,
.j ~~ <
0)';~.';. ,.
.\~~ :" : " .
a~ .. , . .
t?~.,. '.
!.' :~
1':"0" . .
1>'-
\':.'"
."i . .
Ii; .,
:::.
f\....
j",,<T
," f:.
.' .
The pedestrian environment would be enhanced by improving the public infrastructure and
providing a park. Development could include parking garages with ground floor retail stores.
Mr. Shuford noted eliminating back-out parking will cause problems for motels, residential
development and some service industries and angle parking will not replace all spaces lost.
Slides of Mandalay Avenue compared parking design passibilities. Staff suggested replacing
crosswalks with textured materials so drivers could feel the bumps, slow down, and be more
consciaus of pedestrians.
Mr. Shuford noted obstacles that impede a harbar walk include property owners' docks and
resistance to. providing public access. He suggested a public park could be created near the
Papaya Street promenade and the harbar walk could be expanded with a water feature that opens
the harbor view for the public. He noted water access grants are available from the State. Mr.
Shuford indicated this action would address the blight of poorly maintained, bayfront cottages.
Mr. Shuford indicated a second aptian includes moving a public facility, like the Civic Center
ar a conference center, to the study area. If the Civic Centcr were moved, the beauty of
Memorial Causeway cauld extend into the heart of Clearwater Beach.
Mr. Shuford noted there is no. green area in the study area and most land is utilized by a street
network. He suggested a way to apen land for development is to remove some streets.
Properties cauld be interconnected into a large, harbor-front, upscale hotel property with 400
rooms and a conference center on 10 acres. Another version could include a mixed use area
with retail downstairs and residential above. The Civic Center or meeting center could be tied
to a watcrfrant park.
A third aptian wauld remove East Shore and much of Poinsettia and include a mixed use of
retail and residential with a large park. A hotel would include a conference center.
Support was expressed regarding the streetscape of Mandalay A venue. The secand and third
options were deemed too expensive. Suppart was expressed for diaganal parking.
Concern was expressed regarding the beach's dumpster system. The foul smell from dumpsters
. an East Shore was noted. Mr. Shuford indicated a dumpster ordinance is being reviewed by the
City Attorney for consideration.
It was recommended that building inspections be done on rundown properties in the area. Mr.
Shuford indicated that area will be targeted by the City's unsafe structures' program.
Concern was expressed regarding improvements needed for the pedestrian connection between
Downtawn and .Clearwater Beach. It was recommended that the redevelopment take advantage
af the rehabilitated Beach recreatian center with its tennis courts and park. Many tourists like
to walk and it was suggested a walkway be built along the bayou from the recreation center to
. the park across Mandalay to tie it with the beach parking lot. The streetscape dawn Mandalay
Avenue could continue the pathway to the marina renovations and link it across the Causeway.
mindc07a.94
10
07/14/94
~''f'''-'J'.''-.,z!'''l~.. 'to. "'~'".'. ". <"i, 1." 1 ~.' ~, ....\.l.~_-:J:......~~_....u.
. 'ii~~iJ\'(.'t'~ ~"-~i..\;i4tw.(ji'.i~~~<:t~),l.>.- .
.r U...+(.~ f~~.. .
,- u___. ........''''\~:t...~...~..V.:'...:.,....I~:......,..l '.,;.; .:~..i, )..'r;~~I'.i~:'::.o.A t.;1~...!.}....~ i ~ '~.. .,!,' '\:~:~ L~' :' i..: ~ "~ ......~;:~!... :.,'..: -.. :.,~.); ~ ."\'::1;' ... :.: ~:.. ~:\ . . ~: : {~~~.,
..~-.it.,~ :0.... .,~r-''''',. ...'li"\......~..ll..J. .,~.. .,'. ...., .~~ ,"'......\'i ..),'1:.
. "., r'-,:'..l":!;'.'f'~"'.~'~';'~j"":};' '....~:;.....-~~'tI~i.." :~~.'!~."'::\~.{jJ:r.c.
~ ',,:", ~: r:\. \:.:. -, ..': ..
;i.;~.~}.'~.>'_:~~./' :', .1. '
" .
.. .'. I " L .' .,. j . ~ ~'. . ' . . . .. '.. '. . . . . '.. .. .' .. . :. .
~-.,tj 'i,."~:~~:, .~ '~.;'}
~:l,~'~", ,,i ." c':', '"
~~~r:!:":" ....... ".
c ,
. '.
i.,.
.;..::.
~~"{
. .~.
f ~ ~
This linear. development would be an inexpensive way to begin the project. Bicycles could find
alternate routes from Mandalay. Once the theme is apparent, future development would be
encouraged. It was recommended the City use practical solutions.
Mr. Shuford distributed drawings of the options. It was noted that saving Downtown was as
important as saving the beach.
N.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p.m.
CbB~\?dJ
. .... ..,) .
. ~ \ ~ :. " " f: ..
'. ... - I .'. ~ "
\ ~ ~
~. ".
; : ~
.: J
:' ,
II
11
07114/94
:.l
~: ~.
" ~. ,
-::.. ..
. .
~;.:'; \.F>.f! .<...
')
.-" '. RT' ~
, :.
.,:.....i.
'f.'/
": t.~~
:'l'
t",
.:' .,"
" '~ '..:.' '~:. ~ . . .
I. .~.
nl, .~~:. ,":.~,
~. .. .
: .1".