05/13/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
May 13, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision
of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. He noted Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this
Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Time Extensions
1. (continued from 4/22/93 - 1st request for a time extension) L M Loken (Imperial Square Shopping Center) for a variance of 58 parking spaces to permit a shopping center with 293 parking
spaces at 1440-1494 S Belcher Rd, Sec 24-29-15, M&B 41.02, 41.03, 41.04 and 41.05, zoned CC (commercial center) and CG (general commer cial). V 92-35
Senior Planner Glatthorn stated approval for this variance was conditioned upon certification of the final site plan. This was not done and the variance expired. No action was taken.
2. (1st request for a time extension) Howard R Jimmie (Howard Jim mie'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) 15 ft to permit a building zero ft from a side property line abutting
a resi dential zone at 609 Seminole St, J.H. Rouse's Sub, Blk
3, Lots 19 thru 21, zoned IL (Limited In dustrial). V 92-56
The applicant requested a time extension due to being in negotia tions with potential buyers of the property.
Ms. Whitney moved to grant a six-month time extension to November 12, 1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 4/8/93) Everybody's Tabernacle, Inc (Homeless Emergency Project, Inc) for variances (1) to permit office and storage trailers to remain as permanent structures;
(2) of 33 ft to permit office structure 2 ft from street right-of-way and of 30 ft to permit storage structure 5 ft from street right-of-way lines where 35 ft is required; (3) of 10
ft to allow structural addition 25 ft from street right-of-way line where 35 ft is required; (4) of 61 inches in height to allow a fence height of 91 inches where 48 inches in height
is permitted; (5) of 43 inches in height to allow a fence height of 91 inches where 48 inches in height is permitted; (6) 5 ft to allow a zero ft setback where a 5 ft setback is required
and (7) to allow zero landscaping on right-of-way side of fence at 1120 N Betty Lane, Fairburn Addn, Blk F, Lots 1-14, zoned P/SP (public/semi-public). V 93-24
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant is requesting the variances to validate various nonconforming uses, some of which have existed for
15 years. Staff has worked closely with the applicant to identify all the existing nonconformities and rectify all viola tions on the site.
Ms. Glatthorn stated variances #1 and #2 are to allow two existing mobile home trailers to remain as office/storage units; #3 is to permit the construction of a building addition between
two existing apartment buildings. The remaining variances are to bring an existing wrought iron fence into compliance. Variances relating to this fence were previously granted (V 92-68;
10/10/91). The applicant is asking the Board to reconsider and delete certain conditions which were imposed upon the granting of the previous fence variances.
Barbara Green, representing the applicant, reviewed the requests, stating she has been working with City staff and wants to take care of these issues.
Ms. Green responded to questions relating to signage, a tool shed against a fence, the proposed addition, and the possibility of locating the storage trailer elsewhere on the site.
It was indicated there are mature trees and heavy landscaping on the site, making it difficult to relocate any of the existing structures. She stated she is having to turn away single
parents seeking shelter due to lack of space and the proposed connecting structure will contain four bedrooms and a bath.
Concerns were expressed the addition will be overdeveloping the property and ground-level landscap ing will be needed if it is allowed.
Opposition toward making trailers permanent structures and lifting the condi tions relating to the fence variances was expressed. However, it was felt the applicants should be encouraged
and aided in their efforts to help the homeless.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variances arise from conditions which are unique to the property; a lot of people are coming in
and this is not a huge area; the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condi tions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development
code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created subject to the following conditions: 1)
this variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's
request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical
structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the trailer facing Cedar Street shall be painted and underpinned within two months of this
public hearing and 3) all certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within three months of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin
and Whitney, Mr. Johnson voted "aye"; Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "nay". Motion carried.
Item B - (continued from 4/22/93) Sunset Associates ( n' Jerry's) for variances (1) of 10 ft to allow zero ft landscape buffer where 10 ft is required; (2) of 2% to allow 27% building
coverage where 25% is permitted; (3) of 12.51% to allow 12.49% open space where 25% is
required and (4) of 179 parking spaces to allow 1,180 spaces where 1,359 are required at 23654 U.S. Hwy 19 N, Sec 6-29-16, M&Bs 41.01, 41.02, 41.04, 41.05 and 41.06 together with Blackburn
Sub, parts of Lots 1 and 12, zoned CC (commercial center). V 93-26
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating variances #2, #3 and #4 were previously granted (V 92-22; 5/14/92) and are still in effect. One of the conditions
of approval in that case related to providing a 10-foot landscape buffer along US 19. Variance #1 is being requested as a means of asking the Board to reconsider and modify this condition,
involving 22 parking spaces along US 19. The applicant proposes to leave the 11 parking spaces closest to the entrance of the store and replace the remaining 11 spaces with a 19-foot
landscape buffer.
Discussion ensued regarding the history of the site. Concern was expressed that granting the variance would rescind conditions placed by both the Development Code Adjustment Board and
the Planning and Zoning Board relating to an alcoholic beverage request.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission approved beer and wine sales at Joel & Jerry's and the applicant asked for a time
extension to request the Development Code Adjustment Board to waive the landscape buffering condition. He said the City Forester recom mended the proposed solution to leave half the
parking spaces and create a landscape "park" in the other half of the area in question. The Assistant Traffic Engineer concurs. The drive aisle outside the store is very long and
wide, allowing vehicles to pick up speed, causing a hazard to pedestrian traffic trying to cross the parking lot. He stated safety is a primary concern of Joel & Jerry's and handi capped
and senior patrons need parking closer to the building.
Photographs of the site were submitted for the record. It was noted that, in the photographs, there is a fringe of grass along US 19. Mr. Pressman stated the property line runs along
the edge of the parking lot and the grassy fringe will no longer remain after the right-of-way is widened.
Alan Bittker, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application and discussed the traffic conditions on the site. He stated there is undue hardship related to traffic
running through the site and there are concerns regarding safety, service and the elderly finding it difficult to park across the drive aisle from the store.
In response to a question, Mr. Pressman stated there is not suffi cient parking in front of the store to alleviate these concerns because handicapped parking spaces, walk-through spaces
and customers from other stores take up most of the available space in
front of the store.
Discussion ensued with it being indicated the parking lot is seldom full on the east side, there is no way to control traffic speed without reconfiguring the circulation pattern and
removal of landscaping deteriorates a property. It was felt landscaping should be an overall part of a shopping center.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to deny variance #1 as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has 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 variance is not the minimum; the request has already been denied by the
Development Code Adjustment Board and the Planning and Zoning Board; the granting of the variance would adversely affect the public health, safety, order, convenience, or general welfare
of the community and would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being
taken, Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Martin voted "nay". Motion carried.
No action was taken on variances #2, #3 and #4, which were granted on May 14, 1992.
1. James L. and Matta Panoutsos for a variance of 3 ft to allow a parking space zero ft from a side property line where 3 ft is required at 205 S Cirus Ave, Skycrest Sub, Unit 9, Blk
E. Lot 10 and one-half of vacated alley on E, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 93-29
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a driveway along the north side property line and due to the location of a large
oak tree, is unable to meet the three-foot setback. There is a landscape hedge along the property line of the adjacent neighbor.
James Panoutsos, owner/applicant, indicated the driveway is needed to be able to legally park his boat and he is unable to meet the setback due to a large oak tree. The neighbors are
in support of the request.
Five letters were submitted in support of the application.
Concerns were expressed with cutting the tree roots to build the driveway and with a jog in the driveway causing difficul ty backing the boat into the parking space. Mr. Panoutsos said
the shallow cuts will not be harmful to the tree. He stated he has experience training bus drivers and will have no trouble backing his small boat.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney
moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically
because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner; the particular physical surroundings, particularly the large tree that is in
the way, results in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship as stated above. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimous ly.
2. Clayton E Haskins and Wannie L Taylor for a variance of 6.3 ft to permit alterations to a structure having a rear setback of 3.7 ft where 10.0 ft is required at 1450 Pine st, Breeze
Hill, Blk C, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 93-30
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained this application has been withdrawn by the applicant and no action is necessary.
3. Family Resources, Inc for variances of 4 ft to allow a fence 8 ft in height where 4 ft in height is permitted and 2 ft in height to allow a fence 8 ft in height where 6 ft in height
is permitted at 1622 Turner St, Longview Sub, Lot 32 and part of Lot 33, zoned RM 8 (multi-family residential). V 93-31
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating this property is a crisis center for runaways and is currently licensed for ten children. The applicant wishes to
construct a fence eight feet high to replace an existing, deterio rating six-foot fence around the property.
Richard Adelson, representing the applicant, stated this facility has been in existence for some time. The reason for the increase in height is to decrease the frequency of the children's
ball going over the fence into the neighbors' yards. He said the increase in height would not substantially affect the appearance of the neighborhood and is supported by the surrounding
property owners.
Concern was expressed an eight-foot fence is excessive; however, there was no objection to replacing the existing six-foot fence.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant a variance of two feet to allow a six-foot high fence as located on the site plan, because the applicant
has substan tially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) this variance is based on the
applica tion for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant,
including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of
the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect;
2) the fence shall be located according to the diagram on the site plan as submitted and 3) the requisite permits shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
4. James E Burnet III for a variance of 95 ft to allow a dock 120 ft in length where 25 ft is permitted at 1748 Sunset Dr, North Shore Park Sub, Blk 11, Lot 5 and submerged land, zoned
RS 8 (single family residen tial). V 93-32
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application, stating the applicant wishes to construct a new dock to replace what was destroyed by the storm on March 13, 1993. The additional
length is needed to allow the owner to reach water deep enough to dock his boat. She submitted an aerial view of the vicinity prior to the storm.
James E. Burnet, III, owner/applicant and Tracy Butler, contrac tor, stated they wish to replace what previously existed.
A photograph of the dock as it previously existed was submitted for the record.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the most recent storm, subject
to the following conditions: 1) this variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be
done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect and 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
5. Leopoldo A Bonati and Lucia A Grimaldi for a variance of 2 ft in height to allow a fence 6 ft in
height where 4 ft in height is permitted at 941 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 60, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 93-33
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicants wish to construct a six-foot privacy fence to protect the family and their dog on this single-family
property located near a beach public access point. Staff felt the proposed fence would impair visibility of properties to the east and did not appear to support the standards for approval.
Lucia Grimaldi, the owner/applicant, stated the fence is needed because the beach access is being redone and she is concerned with safety and increased pedestrian traffic. She stated
her property is unique due to being a corner lot. The fence will be aestheti cally pleasing with a great deal of landscaping and is needed for privacy and to contain the family dog.
In response to questions, Ms. Grimaldi stated the fence will be set back three feet from the property line. She said an old garage in the rear of the property is an eyesore and has
been torn down. Her dog is a German Shepherd.
Ms. Grimaldi submitted photographs of similar fences in the neighborhood.
One citizen spoke in support of the application, stating the applicants have no back yard and the proposed fence would provide needed privacy.
Three petitions containing fourteen signatures were submitted in support of the application.
Concern was expressed with the proposal. It was felt there is not sufficient hardship and the application is not the minimum.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or
applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the location on the beach and the proximity to the public access across the street subject to
the following conditions: 1) this variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the appli cant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be
done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this
variance being null and of no effect; 2) the fence shall be constructed according to the site plan as submitted with this application and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Mr. Plisko voted "aye"; Messrs. Gans
and Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
6. Gerald R and Wendy M Santa Maria for a variance of 2 parking spaces to allow 8 parking spaces where 10 spaces are required at 2530 Sunset Pt Rd, Blackburn Sub, part of Lot 12, zoned
CG (general commercial). V 93-34
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a new, two-story jewelry store on a corner lot previously occupied by a Farm Store.
Staff recommends adjusting the building size down to meet parking requirements and screening the dumpster, if one is to be used.
Gerard Santa Maria, owner/applicant, stated he has operated this small family-operated business in Clearwater for over 21 years. He hired an engineer to design the largest building
that would fit on the site, not knowing a second floor, although not going above the 20-foot height limit, would create additional parking require ments. He would not have purchased
the property if he had known what the limitation on building size would be. The proposed second floor will have no retail area, but will contain storage, a bathroom and a lounge for
the use of the family. He felt the parking calcula tions should be based on the amount of first floor area actually used for retail because if the second floor was not included in the
parking calculations, he would need less than 7 spaces. It was indicated he meets all the setback and retention requirements.
Mr. Santa Maria stated his store will have only 15 to 20 customers a day. As he and his wife do not drive to work, he feels eight parking spaces will be suffi cient. He proposes to
decrease traffic congestion and hazards by closing the Sunset Point Road ingress/egress and limiting access to the Lawson Street side of the property.
In response to a question, Mr. Santa Maria stated much of his clientele is repeat business as opposed to transient trade.
Concern was expressed if the property was sold in the future, the second floor could be converted to additional retail or living quarters. Mr. Santa Maria stated this business has been,
and will continue to be, passed on from father to son.
It was noted the proposal does not appear to meet handi capped requirements. Mr. Santa Maria stated he was only made aware of the parking deficit when the plans were reviewed by the
City
Building Division.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and is not caused by the owner
or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship subject to the following conditions: 1) this variance is based on the application for a variance and
documents submitted by the appli cant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the
above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in
this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the second floor shall never be used for retail and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date
of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Whitney and Martin, Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "aye"; Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
7. Emmanuel J and Yvette S Lakis for a variance of 5 ft to allow a structural addition 20 feet from a street right-of-way where 25 ft is required at 1228 Bell Dr, Canterbury Heights,
Lot 14, zoned RS 6 (single family residential). V 93-35
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct an addition to the front of his single-family home on an irregularly shaped lot.
Staff does not support granting this variance, as no unique conditions or hardships exist and there is adequate room for expansion into the rear or side yards.
Emmanuel Lakis, owner/applicant, stated the existing dining room, at only 10 by 11 feet, is too small. He feels extending the addition toward the front would make the best use of the
property and enable him to use his home for entertaining.
In response to questions, Mr. Lakis indicated five feet is being requested when only four feet is required to allow a safety margin due to the curve of the property line. He works as
a printer and does not operate the business from his home.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal, the actual location of the dining room and the two columns to support an open roof for shading the front entrance.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique
to the property and is not caused by the owner or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance
is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the appli cant, 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 addition shall be constructed according to the site plan as submitted with this applica tion
and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney,
Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Martin voted "nay". Motion carried.
8. B J E Inc and Pelican Two, Inc (Pelican Walk Shopping Ctr) for variances of (1) 10 ft to allow a structure zero ft from a street right-of-way where 10 ft is required and (2) 25%
to allow 100% palm tree plantings where 75% is permitted at 483 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Park, 1st Addn, Blk A, Lots 2-8 and Blk B, Lots 32-43 and adjacent vacated alley and Clearwater
Beach Park, Lots 43-48, part of Lot 64 and Lots 65-71, zoned CB (beach commercial) and CR 28 (resort Commercial). V 93-36
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating the applicant is proposing a major redevelopment project on Clearwater Beach to include a pedestrian plaza and a
tropical seascape theme. The proposal includes properties located on both sides of Mandalay Avenue. A Unity of Title is required to link the restaurant and retail shops on the west
side with the new develop ment on the east side.
Concern was expressed regarding whether or not parking requirements for the restaurant would be verified prior to final approval of the site plan.
Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, discussed setback requirements and the advantages of palm trees versus oaks in a parking area. He stated increasing the impact of
the tropical streetscape by expanding it into a larger plaza and having a 4:1 concentration of palm trees will unify this project with and augment what the City is doing.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal and a sketch rendering of what would be provided along Mandalay Avenue was submitted.
In response to questions, Mr. Fowler stated all the property described in this plan is under one owner and all parking traffic will enter from Poinsettia Street to reduce the impact
of traffic on Mandalay Avenue.
Concern was expressed regarding the color scheme of the restau rant and a conservative color scheme was requested for the current proposal. Concerns were also expressed regarding the
owner(s) of these proper ties having a long history of coming before the Board and the many questions regarding whether or not parking require ments have been met for various projects.
Verification of adequate parking and the Unity of Title were felt to be critical.
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 variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property, the particular physical surroundings,
shape, or condi tions of the property involved and the strict application of the provi sions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant, to develop
this extensive a project, subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps,
plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for
a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) an immediate
physical inspection shall be made for the Jamminz Restaurant in order to determine whether or not the legal require ments for adequate parking are available upon the site and to have
this verified prior to final site plan approval; 3) there shall be a 20 percent excess of palm trees installed (120 percent of the tree planting require ments); 4) close attention shall
be paid to all site and building plans to assure the tropical seascape design meets the recommendations of the Beach Task Force; and 5) the requisite site plan shall be certified within
one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney voted
"nay". Motion carried.
9. Imperial Gardens Co/Rondenan Realty Inc for varianc es of (1) 56 inches in height to allow a wall 86 inches in height where 30 inches in height is permitted and (2) 3.5 ft to allow
a wall 1.5 ft from property line where 5.0 ft is required at 2100 Nursery Rd, Sec 24-29-15, M&B 41.01, zoned RM-20 (multi-family residential). V 93-37
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail, stating these identical variances were previously granted (V 93-48; 9/24/93); however, expired when the requisite building
permit was not obtained within six months. The current proposal is slightly differ ent from the first fence design in materials, architectural design, planter height and location of
entryway signs.
Concern was expressed with having an overhead structure at the entrance and Ms. Glatthorn indicated the new design has more of a see-through nature than before.
Jonathan Gaines, representing the applicant, stated the original request expired because the applicant was unable to reach an agreement with the contractor. The architect redesigned
the proposal to be less expensive and create a better appearance at the entrance.
In response to questions regarding the sign, Mr. Gaines indicated the original sign was 23-years old, deteriorated and in need of replacement. The new sign is proposed to be located
on the fence and will require a sign variance.
Discussion ensued regarding the wall and arch height and proposed construc tion materials.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and are not caused by the owner
or applicant; the particu lar physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condi tions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code
would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by a need to increase the height of a wall subject
to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be
done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the landscaping between the fence and the Nursery
Road right-of-way shall be provided in accordance with Section 42.27; 3) the signs to be mounted on the fence shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the Nursery Road right-of-way
to comply with the sign regula tions Section 44.41(4)(a)1.d. and 4) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion
was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Whitney and Martin, Messrs. Plisko and Gans
voted "aye"; Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also consid ered:
1. ORDINANCE NO. 5382-93 an ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; readopting, ratifying, and confirming subsection (1) of Section 44.31,
Code of Ordinances, relating to sign permits; providing an effective date.
2. ORDINANCE NO. 5399-93 an ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending section 42.24 Code of Ordinances, to permit elevated air conditioning
and like mechanical equipment and associated decking and structural compo nents to be located in side setback areas; providing an effective date.
Mr. Johnson moved to recommend adoption of the proposed amend ments. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
III. Approval of Minutes of April 22, 1993
A request was made to strike out the last sentence of the discus sion on page six, relating to the conduct of hearings where a conflict of interest has been declared.
Ms. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of April 22, 1993, as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Board and Staff Discussion
Mr. Johnson is to be on vacation and will not attend the meeting scheduled for May 27, 1993.
Mr. Plisko is to be on vacation the entire month of June and will not attend the meetings scheduled for June, 1993.
V. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Assistant City Clerk