Loading...
02/23/1995 (2) /t:.~::,:~/~~/~.~... I , ':', ' ~ " . :, ~ . 1", ."'''' ~ 1 \:) /;'1, ,',. ',::, ~' : "I' /, :~j ,:.>. : '. '. " , . ,,' , .. . ,,' .,' c ., ",:. ., ;~ : ,,: ..: I,,: . ':". . '~~ ; 1 ,c, .',' ,> ,'.,. . ~;""~~"_.:;,..F~:L.,.":.l.'~."'" .:.~... '., '7'i~.t...".., ....'" ,:..",,: .'.<'0.... ,. , ". .,', '.'> . 1,1 .', , , . .. ..' ~ > . ~:. +,., . , ,', ,-,.,..,\ , I DCAB Development Code Adjustment Board Minutes ',,: .~l ,- " Date .~ v .J- II 20 .'" '", U " , . '" . . I' . , . .., S1l~:'i 'Vc' , ?,,' ;., , I \ C (') ...."J>' ACTION AGENDA DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Thursdny, Fcbruul")' 23,1995 - 1:00 p.m. Commission Chambers, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida Agenda Item No. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Actio,,: Approved minutes of the February 9, 1995 meeting as submitted. B. VARIANCE REQUESTS: 1. (cont. from 01126/95) Valentinos Koumoulidis for variances of (1) 83 ft. to permit a lot width of67 ft. at setback line; (2) 28.75 percent to permit 21.25 percent of front yard open space where 50 percent is required; (3) 3.5 ft. to pemlit 1.5 ft. of perimeter landscape buffer where 5 ft. is required; (4) 20 percent to permit 0 percent of clear space where 20 percent is required; and (5) 1.5 ft. to pemlit a 3.5 ft. average oflandscaping between the street right-of- way and nonresidential development whcre 5 ft. is required to allow expansion of an accessory dwelling at 606 Bnywny Blvd., Bayside Sub No.5, Blk. A, Lot 7, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-09 c::> Actio,,: Dellietlrequests I) and 4). Actioll: Approved requests 2), 3) and 5) subject to the following conditions: I) 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 pcmlit(s) shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of this public hearing. 2. Tom Schlhorst & Dorothy M. Cnscy (Catarelli Construction) for variances of (1) 25 ft, to permit a minimum lot width of 500 ft. where 75 n. is required; (2) 550 sq. ft. to permit a minimum lot area of 6,950 sw. ft. where 7,500 sq. n. is required; (3) 3.2 ft. to permit a structure 6.8 ft. from a side (west) property line where 10 n. is required; (4) 0.7 n. to permit a structure 9.3 n. from a side (west) property line where IOn. is required; and (5) 7.3 ft. to permit a structure 2.7 ft. from a rear property line where Ion. is required at 604 Pnlm Bluff St., Palm Bluff 15t Addition, Lot 23, zoned CI (Infill Commercial). V 95-14 Actio/l: COlltillllet/ to March 23, 1995. v llctDC02b.95 1 02123/95 '. , ,/. J" " . . >. . ,.' " I , . . :' ' ,', ~;(/:~,.. ...~ 3. Katherine A. Stull Jor a variance to allow a 2.5 ft. high fence within the rear structural setback area of a waterfront propcrty where it is prohibited at 995 Buy Esphmudc~ Carlouel Sub, Blk. 274, Lots 5-6 and parts of Lots 4 & 7. zoned RS 8- (Single Family Residcntial. V 95-15 Action: Approved subject to the following conditions: I) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by thc applicant, including maps, plnns~ survcys~ and other documents submitted in support of thc opplicant1s requcst for n variance. Deviation from any of the above documcnts submitted in support of the rcquest 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 effcct; 2) the requisite building pennit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the fence shall be only two and one-half feet high with aluminum railings and constructed us indicated on the site plan, 4. .lEe Funding, Inc. (Eckerd Drug Company) for a variance of 2 n. to pcrmit an awning 3 ft. from the curbline of Mandalay A venue where 5 n. is required at 467 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater Beach Park t 5t Addition Replat~ Blk. A~ Lots 9-10 and vacated alley in between, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 95-16 ~~;:(\..,. ,l~~) Act;on: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application tor 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 orno ct1eet; 2) the requisite building pennit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing: 3) any signagc attached to the awning shall be subject to separate permitting and review. 5. David R. Little for varianccs of (1)) 90 n. to pennit a minimum lot width of 60 fl. where 150 n. is required; and (2) 7.04 ft. to permit a side setback 01'4.96 ft. where 12 n. is required at 333 S. Gulfvicw Blvd.. Lloyd- White-Skinner, Lot 67. zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-17 Acl;ol1: Approved subject to the (ollowing 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 applicantls request for a variance. Deviation from any of thc above documcnts submitted in supporl of the request for u variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structurc located on the site, will rcsult in this variance being null and of no effect; and 2) the requisite building pcrmit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the datc of this public hearing. 6. Antonios Murlwpuulos (Paradise Bcnch Resort DBA Days Inn) for n variance of 100 sq. n. to permit new motel rooms with 600 sq. ft. of hnbitable floor area where u maximum of v actDC02b.95 2 02/23/95 ,/ . > .' > , . ~ A.. " ,< <' . . ,. .' . ',' ~, ~., . ' ~~~(~.>" :' , , ~~;~: .~':' . ,l' '., ~ 500 sq. n. is allowcd at 100 Coronndo Dr., Lloyd-Whitc-Skinner, Lots 44-47 & Lots 90-93 and vacated strcet together with Columbia, Blk. A, Lot 1 ~ zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-18 Actioll: A,pprovet[ subject to the following conditions: I) 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 applicantts request for a variance. Deviation from any ofthc 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 pennit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the motel rooms will be a two bedroom, two bath suite with one entrance only to be use as one motel room per drawings submitted. 7. Lloyd S. & Ruth B. Marks (Dunkin Donuts) for a variance of 3 additional parking spaces to pennit 00 additional parking spaces where 3 additional parking spaces arc required to allow a 194 sq. ft. expansion at 600 S. Missouri Ave., Turner Street Groves, Lots 6-13, zoned CO (General Commercial). V 95-19 Actioll: COlltil1ued to March 23, 1995 meeting. D. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS: \'/'''''\ ~I 1. Ordinance No. 5768-95 ofthe City of Clean vat crt Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 40.433 and 40.434, Code of Ordinances, to provide for revised permitted and conditional uses in the Infill Commercial District; amending Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplementary standards for approval Jor new conditional uses allowed in the InfiU Commercial District; providing an effective date. Actio,,: Recommeud e"dorseme"t.. 2. Ordinance No. 5769~95 of' the City of Clearwater, Florida, crcating Section 30.058 to establish vehicle parking restrictions in residential areas, including a prohibition of parking on lawns and open space areas of single family, duplex. and triplex uses in residential zones and any unpaved street right-of-way adjacent to authorize the issuance of parking tickets (or any violation or the parking restrictions in residential areas and incorporating the provisions contained therein in Section 30.058; providing and effective date. Aftiolt: Recommend elll/orsemeUlu. u nctDC02b.95 3 02123/95 , ~ . . L f' ~. .., , .'. ,., ",' " , . ,.'/. , ". '.' 'I.r~' <..,' !i'it;%':1',.;,\,.\".~ ,',' ~~;;Jl:i',.' ,,<',::,: ,,', , (:,' . ~J.- ,":e;, { ,i": , .I.,~' ~ '< t1:J',>:':,," " , I: . ,> .. l ' . . ~ MINUTES nEVELOPMENT CODE AD,JUSTMENT BOARD Thursday, February 23, 1995 - 1 ~OO p.m. Commission Chambers~ 112 South Osceola A vcnue~ Clearwater, FL Members present Alex Plisko~ Chair Emma C. Whitney. Vice-Chair Joyce E. Martin Otto Gans John B. Johnson Also present: John Richter. Senior Planner, Central Permitting Dept Miles Lancet Assistant City Attorney Sally Demarest. Board Reporter. City Clerk Department o The meeting was called to order by the Chair at I :02 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. Mr. Johnson led the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation. Mr. Pliska outlined procedures and advised anyone adversely ntTected by any decision ofthe Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal through the City Clerk Department within two weeks. He noted Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. In order to provide continuity~ the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. By motion duly seconded, the minutes of the February 9, 1995 meeting were approved as submitted. The following requests for variances were considered: HI. (cant. from 01/26/95) Valcntinos Koumoulidis for variances of (1) 83 ft. to pennit a lot width of 67 ft. at setback line; (2) 28.75 percent to permit 2 I .25 percent of front yard open space where 50 percent is required; (3) 3.5 n. to permit 1.5 ft. of perimeter landscape buffer where 5 ft. is required; (4) 20 percent to permit 0 percent of clear space where 20 percent is required; and (5) 1.5 ft. to permit a 3.5 n. average of landscaping between the street right-or-way and nonresidential development where 5 n. is required to allow expansion ofan accessory dwelling at 606 Bayway Blvd.t Gayside Sub'No. 5, Blk. A, Lot 7, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-09 u rninDC02b.95 I 02/23/95 ~ "~... . I '. '.' ~ .' ; ,'. . . ~V~I'J: . . c . -;\;~1 r' ~ , t".. .; ,.-.... Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and prescnted, in writing, thc staff recommendations. He described the premise and indicated this item was continued from the January 26, 1995 meeting to enable the applicant to provide a dctailed site plan drawn to scalc and to incorporate the proposed requests under one application. Mr. Richter said stafT did not see any special circumstances inherent with the second floor expansion, and, therefore, could not recommend approval of the rcques. He added that reasonable Use of the property was proposed and approved by an applicantion on October 8, \992; however, staff favors approval of the side and front landscape buffers to allow a seventh parking space. The absence of staff comments specific to the seventh parking space was noted; Mr. Richter clarified prior approvals and current remarks of staff in this regard. <.J Speaking for the applicant, Robert E. Gregg, 2963 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Suite 220, Clearwater, explained how differences in the average width of the front landscape buffer affects the additional parking spuce, udding interior landscaping has been increased. He said the applicant has modified the present plan from that which was originally permitted. He said the original building was not constructed in accordance with approved drawings, and this application would correct that condition. Mr. Gregg pointed out that the variance would apply to the second floor residence, balcony and stairs only and the applicant would realize no material gain. He added the current drawings have been stamped and approved by all City departments and the first floor bathrooms were relocated on the present plans to meet ADA standards. In the ensuing discussion, Mr. Gregg acknowledged the lack of need or hardship. The Chairman noted differences in the original footprint ofthe building and absence orthe dumpster on the current plan. Mr. Gregg said, with the approval of the Solid Waste:Dcpartment, the applicant and Mr. Uro, his neighbor, plan joint use of a dumpster. Mr. Richter said the language in the agreement for dumpster use would have to consider future sale of either property. There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. It was the general consensus that the present request was tantamount to redesign and it was noted that engineering errors arc difficult to correct. Based upon the information furnished by the applicunt, Ms. Whitney moved to deny the requests for variances I) and 4) , more specifically because: I) There arc not special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape Of topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, or such circumstances arc not peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; and 2) the strict application of the provisions orthe codc would not deprive the applicant ortllc reasonable llse orthe land Of buildings. The motion wus duly seconded and curried unanimously. In a separate motion, Ms. Whitncy made a motion to deny items 2), 3) and 5) because the applicant V has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as Iistcd in Section 45.24 of the Land minDC02b.95 2 02/23/95 ....1 :.'... ~; h: ',' . ~~ i;,~ .11' -. I~ , Development Code. The motion was duly seconded. Staft's recommended approval ofitems 3) and 5) was noted, and Assistant City Attorney Miles Lancc opined that the applicant would be in violation orthe code irthe motion carried. Upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney and Ms. Martin voted Itayc"; Chairman Plisko, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gans votcd lInaytt. The motion was denied (3w2). Responding to a question from the board, Mr. Richter said that a variance for lot width was not necessary to accommodate the seventh parking space and lhe remaining variances comprised the landscape and open space issues. ':) Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grunt the variance requests 2),3) and 5) as requested because the applicant has substantially met aU of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant subject to the following. ~onditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveYSI 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 sitc, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; and 2) thc requisite building pcrmil(s) shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly sccondcd~ and upon the vote being taken, Chainnan Pliska, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gans voted !taye"; Ms. Whitney and Ms. Martin voted "nayll. The motion curried (3w2). " i 82. Tom Schlhorst & Dorothy M. Cnscy (Catarelli Construction) for variances of (1) 25 ft, to peffilit u minimum lot width of 500 ft. where 75 ft. is required; (2) 550 sq. ft. to permit a minimum lot area of 6,950 sw. ft. where 7,500 sq. 1'1. is required; (3) 3.2 ft. to permit a structure 6.8 n. from a side (west) property line where lOft. is required; (4) 0.7 ft. to permit a structure 9.3 ft. from a side (west) property line where 10 ft. is required; and (5) 7.3 ft. to pennit a structurc 2.7 n. from a rear property line where Ion. is required at 604 Palm Bluff St., Palm Bluff 1st Addition~ Lot 23, zoned CI (Infill Commercial). V 95~14 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing~ the staff recommendations. He indicated a citation issued for absence of a hurricane anchor revealed the building was constructed without n building permit. Mr. Richter described the neighborhood as fragile. He said stafT encourages investment in the neighborhood and recommends approval of the variances to bring the structure in compliance with the building code. The existing construction trailer on the site would require npproval as an outdoor storage facility if it were to remain on the premise. \-..-1 It was noted when the item \Vas udvcrtised, variance requests (3) and (4) ~oth indicate a "west" property line. Assistant City Attorney Miles Lance opined the item was improperly advertised and said the hearing is predicated upon a legal advertisement which properly notifies the public; he advised the item be continued. Mr. Sehlhorst was advised he would incur no additional charge as minDC02b.95 3 02/23/95 '9-'1",'." f';.~>: . i~ n result of this error. Mr. Richter not cd that the mailing to neighboring propcr~y owners was not ,,' proper us well. Mr. Sehlhorst pointed Ol~t that he has submittcd a written protest that Mr. Johnson has had outside conversation and viewed exhibits which wcre not properly represented to him. He usked that Mr. Johnson either be replaced with a substitute person for this item, or that his participation be a ttayett vote. The Chainnan said this situation would be addressed on the date of the rescheduled hearing on this item. A motion was made by Ms. Whitney to continue V 95-14 to March 23. 1995. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B3. Katherine A. Stull tor a variance to allow a 2.5 n. high fence within the rear structural setback area of a waterfront property where it is prohibited at 995 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub, Blk. 274, Lots 5-6 and parts of Lots 4 & 7, zoned RS 8- (Single Family Residential. V 95-15 ,:) Mr. Richter gave the bnckground of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the applicant proposes to place a 2-] /2 ft. high aluminum rail fence on the rear property line, in this case the sea wall, adding the effect on neighboring properties would be minimal. He noted an ordinance now being considered which would allow open fences within the waterfront setback, but to the best of his recollection, he was not aware of n residential fence placed directly on top of the seawall, as this applicant requests. Speaking for the applicant, David Golobish, ] 00 Turner Street, Clearwater said the fence was requested to be attached to the concrete cap of the seawall tor saH:lty purposes and would keep pets and grandchildren from falling into the wuter. The present woody hedge is overhanging the seawall, difficult to maintain and dying in some places. There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. In the ensuing brief discussion general consensus was approval of the fence, but concern was expressed that granting of the application would establish a precedent. v Based upon the int'ornmtion furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to grnnt the variance as requested because the applicant hus 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 u condition uniqu,e to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant subject to the following conditions: I) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, survcys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicantts requcst for a variance. Deviation tram any of the above documents submitted in support orthc request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, wiB result in this variance being null and of no eOcct; 2) the requisite building pcrmit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this minDC02b.95 4 02123/95 ~;: ':'~','~ . , ' !~ j public hearing; and 3) the lcnce shall be only two and ol1e~half lcet high with aluminum railings and constructed as indicatcd on the site plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 84. .lEe Funding, Inc. (Eckerd Drug Company) for a variance of2 ft. to permit an awning 3 n. Jromthc curbline of Mandalay Avenue where 5 n. is requircd at 467 Mnndalay Ave., ClcUf\vatcr Beach Park 1 st Addition Replat, Blk. A~ Lots 9~ 10 and vacated alley in between, zoned CB (Beach, Commerciul). V 95-16 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the present canopy extends further to the curb line and the existing overhang will be removed and replaced by the awning requested. Staff recommended approval based on the greater distance from the curb line and the upgrading of the appearance of the store front and the bcach busincss district. Speaking for th,c applicant, Lcslic L. Noyce, 8333 Bryan Dairy Road, Clearwater, regional construction manager for Eckcrd Drug Company, described the architcctural design and renovations proposed for the current site. He said the awning wHl improved the appearance of the location and protect customers and pedestrians from the weather. Hc shared a rendering of the front elevation of the proposed project and was advised that the board would allow him to retain the sketch at the conclusion of his presentation. There will be no change to the present parking lot. ':) There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grnnt the variance as requested because the applicunt 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 unique to the property and was 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 applicunt. including maps. plans, surveys, und other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request tor a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request tor 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 months from the date of this public hearing; 3) any signoge attached to the awning shall be subject to separate permitting and review. The motion wns duly seconded and curried unanimously. 85. David R. Little for variances of (1)) 90 n. to permit a minimum lot width of 60 ft. where 150 ft. is required; and (2) 7.04 ft. to permit a side setback of 4.96 n. where 12 ft. is required at 333 S. Gul1vicw Blvd., Lloyd-White~Skinncr. Lot 67, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-17 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the stuff recommendations. He indicatcuthc premise is a commercial/office mix and the applicant proposes u minDC02b.95 5 02/23/95 it~'~'>" . ". ., ,~ I to extend the storefront about 2 n. to the west and, to keep the urchilectuml integrity or tile building, add approximately six n. to second story deck. Stall' considcrs thc variance request minimal. Note wns made of the absmlcc of information on the application. Mr. Richter said n tclephone contact with the applicant produced additional information. received too late to include in membcrs' packets. ' TIle applicant, David Little. owncrof333 South Gulfview Boulevard, Clearwatcr gave a background summary of the property, and described his efforts to renovate the single family home into a commercial property. He offered a photograph orthe original home at the timc it was purchased in 1979. In the ensuing discussion, Mr. Little said he had no plans for an additional business at the present time. Mr. Richter ofTered the proposed addition is very small, 70 sq. n., and notcd the 50% parking reduction on Clearwater Beach. The chain in front is for the tenants' use at night only. Mr. Little counted the 14 parking spaces and said there is room to park in close proximity to the dumpster space. He said the request would have little effect upon his neighbors and would improve the appearance orthe building and the beach community. I''''') ......., Mr. Gans ofTered a complete history of the applicant's past variance rcquests~ beginning in 1986 to accommodate a second floor real estate business. He noted past discussion relative to over- saturation and whether previous parking variances should go with the land~ which remains unanswered today. He said, in his opinion~ this request will cause over-utilization of the property and the applicant did not meet the conditions for approval. Opinion was expressed that the owner's business is growing and the request was rather insignificant. In contrast, it was noted Mr. Little definitely already has reasonable use of the land, was granted numerous variances through the years, and the property is currently nonconforming. There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application. ') '-......) Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 ofthe Land Development Code, more specifically, because thc variancc arises from a condition unique to the property and was not caused by the owner or applicant subject to the following conditions: I) This variance is bused on thc application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and othcr documcnts submittcd in support of the applicant's rcquest for a variance. Deviation from any of the abovc documents submitted in support ot'the requcst tor a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to thc site or any physical structure locatcd on thc site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shaH be obtained within six months from the date of this public heuring. The motion wns duly seconded and upon the votc being taken, Mr Johnson. Ms. Whitney and Ms. Murtin"ayelt; Chairman Plisko and Mr. Guns votcd "nay". Motion carried (3-2). minUC02b.95 6 02/23/95 l~:hj ;'.. .' ~ 86. Antonios M:u'kopuulos (Paradise Bcach Resort DBA Days Inn) for a variance of ) 00 sq. fl. to pemlit ncw motcl rooms with 600 sq. n. of habitable floor arca where a maximum or500 sq. ft. is allowed at 100 Coronndo Dr., Lloyd-White-Skinner, Lots 44-47 & Lots 90- 93 and vacatcd street togethcr with Columbia, Blk. A, Lot 1, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 95-18 Mr. Richter gavc the background of thc application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the Clearwater Beach Days I nn proposed to convert the former fourth floor restaurant, vacant for seven years, into six motel units. Each proposed unit will contain two sleeping rooms, each with an individual bathroom. Mr. Richter said staff expressed concern for the possibility ofincreascd density of the proposed six motel units, if the six rooms into twelve rooms by adding doors. Responding to questions from the bourd~ Mr. Richtcr said parking will be less impacted as a result of this motcl usc, and present parking is locatcd across the strcet, to the south. The applicant does not need additional storagc spacc and wants to utilize all of the fourth floor area for motcl room space. ':J The applicant, Antonios Mal'kopoulos, 100 Coronado Drivc, Clearwater Beach said he purchased the property seven years ago. aficr it had been closed for eight years. I-Ie conveyed his efforts to rehabilitatc the property and said the shortage of parking precluded development of the fourth floor restaurant. Mr. Markopoulos explained the motel suitcs were designed to accommodate the needs of his motcl patrons who wanted separate quarters for adults and childrcn. It was notcd that motel rooms presently have individual room air conditioners, all of which are in working order. Concern was again expressed that the six units could be converted to twelve with addition of a separating door. There wcre no persons or documcnts in support of or opposition to the application. Based upon the information l\lmished by the applicant. Ms. Whitney moved to deny thc variance(s) as requested because the applicant has not substantially mct all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code. There was no second. -...J Based upon the inlormation furnished by thc applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to grnnt the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 ofthc Land Development Corle, morc specifically, because the variance arises from a condition unique to the propcrty and was not causcd by the owncr or applicant subject to the following conditions: I) This variance is based on the applicatiqn for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant. including maps, plans. surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request Jor a variance. Deviation (i'om any of the above documents submitted in support of the request lor a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure locatcd on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effcct; 2) the requisite building pcrmit(s) shall be obtaincd within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 3) the motel rooms will be a two bedroom. two bath suite with one entrance only minDC02b.95 7 02/23/95 " Ci), I'.... ' ~f~:.f~.., c,,~:~ ~ to be. use as one motcl room per drawings submitted. The motion was duly seconded and curried -,." unammously. The board emphasized thot it be clearly understood thut approval was grunted for occupation of the fourth floor former restaurant area 'by six motel suites only. 87. Lloyd S. & Ruth n. Mnrks (Dunkin Donuts) for a variance of 3 additional parking spaces to penuit 00 additional parking spaces where 3 additional parking spaces arc required to allow a 194 sq. n. cxpansion at 600 S. Missouri Ave" Turner Street Groves, Lots 6-13, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 95-19 Mr. Richter gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommendations. He indicated the expansion would entail 84 sq. n. for a walk-in freezer and I] 0 sq. ft. of new seating and counter area. This addition would require three additional parking spaces. Mr. Richter explained the applicant owns the] ,250 sq. ft. pawn shop next door which he plans to demolish when the lease expires in February, 1996. Thirty-two parking spaces would then be required; however, there are only 18 parking spaces available on the two sites and the property is substantially non-conforming. Speaking for the applicant, John A. Ziemnicki, World Design, Inc., 4301 32nd Street West, #C-4, Bradenton displayed a rendering and explained the circumstances surrounding the applicant's request. He indicated the present land-leased Dunkin' Donuts site is old and run-down, and corporatc ," h.,\ Dunkin' Donuts requires its slores to upgrade to its new image. He described the proposed walk-in \"'S,IJ cooler, landscaping and site redesign to accommodate the addition of a drive-tl1m, proposed for construction following thc demolition df the pawn shop, presently owned by the applicant. The Chairman said thc board could better understand the application if a site plan were submitted with the application indicating what thc proposed linal schemc will be, and submission of a signed package including expiring leases was suggested by the board. A motion was made by Ms. Whitney to continue this item to March 23, 1995 to allow the applicant to bring in further documcntation to support this request. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The board reecssed at 3:] 2 p.m., reconvening at 3 :20 p.m. during whieh timc Mr. Lancc left the meeting. The following Land Development Code Amendments were considered: D1. Ordinance No. 5768-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Codc; amcnding Sections 40.433 and 40.434, Code of Ordinances, to provide for revised permitted and conditional uses in the lnfill Commcrcial District; amending Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplcmcntary standards for approval for new conditional uses allowed in the InfilI Commercial District; providing an effectivc date. \..J minl>C02b.95 8 02/23/95 . , ,. ," .. '. , ",. . . .. j Mr. Richter gave the background of the proposed Land Development Code Amendment and prcsentedf in writing, the stall'recommendations, He indicated this amendment addressed pemlittcd and conditional uses which were questioned as a result of the rezoning of the Lakeview Road area. Speci fieatly, it proposes that I) convenience stores, 2) indoor commercial recreation useSf and 3) gasoline stations no longer be induded as permitted uses and be designated as conditional uscs, thereby mandating approval by the Planning & Zoning Board. The brief ensuing discussion determined all of the above three uses create considerable vehicular traffic. The late hours and trash problems of convenience storesf the potential noise problems of recreational Uses, and the late-night lighting and proximity to neighbors were mentioned to support approval. A motion was made by Mr. Johnson to recommend endorsement of Ordinance No. 5768-95 to the City Commission. The motion was duly secondc,d',and carried unanimously. D2. Ordinance No. 5769-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, creating Section 30.058 to establish vehicle parking restrictions in residential areas, including a prohibition of parking on lawns and open space areas of single family, duplex, and triplex uses in residential zones and any unpaved street right-or-way adjacent to authorize the issuance of parking tickets for any violation afthe parking restrictions in residential areas and incorporating the provisions contained therein in Section 30.058; providing and effective date. //,,~-j:.i;~ l . '1)p.:\f Mr. Richter gave the background of the proposed Land Development Code Amendment and presented, in writing, the staff rccommendations. He indicated this amendment will preclude parking vehicles on front lawns and street rights-ol:'way adjoining residential neighborhoods and be enforced by police issuance ofparking tickets. It will also relocate the existing restrictions regarding boats, RV's. trailers, trucks, commercial vehicles locatcd in residential neighborhoods trom'Ch 42 to Ch 30 of the Code of Ordinances, placing jurisdiction Jor enforcement ofthcse violations with the police department. It was mentioned that the Clearwater Beach police arc very much in favor of this proposed amendment. A motion was made by Mr. Guns to recommend endorsement of Ordinance No. 5769-95 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded nnd curried unanimously. It was requcsted that the citizen's letter received in support of the proposed amendment accompany the boardt:; recommendation of endorsemcnt to the City Commission. There were no Chnirmnn's or Director's items for consideration. The following are Board and Staff comments: ,___J The possibility of increllsed enforcement and investigation of the background of applications was questioned. Mr. Richter said recent variances will be included in the stafTreport and discussed. He said, however, long term history of properties is difficult to research, but all relative information available will be brought to the attention of the board. m i n DC02 b. 95 9 02/23/95 .' .~;.", ,'.'''' ,. , " . ~ .~.: ~.. " I.' ' '.'. I,'::,: t ,t : " .', \. lIottr,,'I:~!);"Y 'q,;. ".., , " , " ~~.f.~:+. .',',;, ",.'....~~.f'.~..f:1..,I..>.';.'..,. ,.... ,j".""'.'. . ,;r'l;: ... .'" .,. '. .,. ~l.." , . ,. ,. ,.. .. ~,' ',1.'. i . . . ,~' '", , , 'n I 'r"'l"!f.~t- For the information of the board, a copy of Ordinance 5754-95, creating a new appeal process whereby the City Commission will hear conditional use appeals regarding alcoholic beverage requirements, was included with their packets. The need to enforce ordinances relative to problems with bicycles and dogs on the beach was mentioned. The difficulty of detennining whether an area ofthe beach is public or private was seen as a possible impediment to enforcement. , , I There being no further business, by motion duly seconded, the meeting adjourned at 3 :39 p.m. I' I , I '.'/ r ;~: : .,c o " \, " <..J minDC02b.95 10 02/23/95