11/17/1993 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
November 17, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman (1:05 p.m.)
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Also present:
John Richter, Senior Planner
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman at 1:04 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. She outlined the proce dures and advised that anyone adversely affected by
any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. She noted Florida law requires any applicant appealing a
decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Time Extensions
1. (2nd 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
Mr. Howard Jimmie, owner/applicant, stated if he keeps the property, he plans to develop it. However, there are several parties interested in buying the subject property, in which case,
the buildings are to be demol ished. The extension is needed to allow time to sell the property.
Mr. Gans moved to grant a six-month time extension to May 12, 1994. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearings
ITEM A - (cont from 10/14 & 10/28/93) City of Clearwater for variances of (1) 59 ft to allow a dock length of 91.5 ft where 32.5 ft is permitted; (2) 17.25 ft to allow a dock width
of 40 ft where 22.75 ft is permitted; and (3) 7.5 ft to allow a setback of 12.5 ft from extended property lines where 20 ft is required at 201 Magnolia Drive, submerged land west of
Magnolia Dr, zoned AL/C (Aquatic Land/Coastal). V 93-66
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating this item was continued to request
direction from the City Commission in view of the opposition expressed at the previous meeting. The City Commisison directed staff to aggressively pursue the reconstruc tion of the
dock since it provided important water access for other neighborhood properties.
Scott Shuford, Central Planning Director representing the applicant, addressed the Board. He stated the City Commission was made aware of the concerns of the surrounding property owners
and they directed staff to work out compromises regarding the safety and police complaints. He said options to be considered are lighting the interior of the dock and removing the roof
to make it less attractive to those seeking shelter at night. Given the interest in rebuilding, he said there was some consideration of what could be built without variances.
Lt. Frank Daly, speaking on behalf of City Police Chief Sid Klein, outlined the problems that were reported associated with the old dock. Juveniles drinking and hanging out, noise,
traffic and sleeping transients all contributed to the problem. He indicated the police respond to every noise complaint; however, without additional patrols, they frequently do not
arrive in time to observe the violation. Lt. Daly said if the dock is rebuilt, the police will continue to respond to complaints in the normal fashion and will put in extra patrols
whenever they can. He said interior lighting will help by increasing the visibility of anyone using the dock at night.
Discussion ensued regarding an eight-page list of incidents reported to the police. In response to questions, Lt. Daly indicated calls are prioritized because the department is so limited
in its resources. He suggested the residents form a neighborhood watch group which will work with a crime prevention officer to help address the problem. It was noted the complaint
calls decreased dramatically after the dock was destroyed.
Terry Jennings, Chief City Engineer, stated lighting the dock at night will not cause an environmental problem for turtles because there is no shoreline at this site. He stated the
City is requesting to have the variances approved with whatever conditions the Board feels necessary. The City Commission will then decide whether or not to rebuild in view of the conditions.
If they decide against rebuilding with conditions, a smaller dock can be built without variances, although they have not stated they would pursue this second choice.
Discussion ensued regarding what can be built without variances and whether or not a smaller dock of a different design would attract as much nuisance activity. Fishing was also thought
to be a part of the problem.
Three citizens spoke in support of the application as follows:
Donald MacFarlane, 215 Rogers Street, stated he has used the neighborhood docks since his earliest recollection. He gave a history of the area and said it would be a major mistake not
to rebuild this dock because it is a big amenity for the City. He does not feel there are a sufficient number of people who are adversely affected to warrant not rebuilding. He said
unless the City vacates the end of Magnolia Avenue, the public will continue to have access to the area.
David Martens, 425 Lotus Path, spoke in favor of the application, giving a history of the Harbor Oaks neighborhood. He noted the police report logs more calls than incidents because
each complaint appears to be called in more than once. He said the City Harbormaster, the Harbor Oaks Homeowner's association and the majority of the homeowners are in support of the
request. The reason there were not more supporters at the original hearing, he said, was because only the few
property owners within 200 feet were notified. He submitted a petition in support of the application with the signatures of 36 property owners, who own 71 lots in the neighborhood.
Mr. Martens stated the Harbor Oaks property owners pay 23 percent of the City's tax bill and are entitled to police protection.
Bob Kirn, 321 Lotus Path, spoke on behalf of Cedio Saltarelli and the Harbor Oaks Association, stating, while no longer unanimous, the majority of the association supports the dock replacement
subject to it having a gate and the closing hours being enforced. He felt the police not being able to respond soon enough and the driveways to the residences being blocked should be
taken into consideration.
Three citizens spoke in opposition to the application as follows:
Charles Walter, 208 Magnolia Drive, stated his property is immediately adjacent to the dock and while he recognizes that many people enjoy the use of the dock during the day, he experiences
the nightmare of what often goes on at night. He indicated continual partying, loud music, squealing tires, having to clean up cans, bottles, drug and sex paraphernalia that litter
his yard and having himself and his daughter assaulted by trespassers cause him to be afraid to use his own property. He said his property was damaged in excess of $200,000 and the
wreckage of the former City dock is still on his property. While he commended the police for doing the best job possible, he said the offenders were always gone by the time the police
arrived. Mr. Walter objected to having bright lights shining onto his property at night and stated he does not understand why the City wishes to rebuild this attractive nuisance in
the present location.
Harold Hyatt, 902 Druid Road, stated he owns two properties to the north of Mr. Walter and has lived there since 1943. He stated his property sustained over $100,000 worth of damage
caused by the old dock. Before it was destroyed, he and his wife had to call the police almost nightly because of disturbances at the old dock. While he agreed the dock was beautiful
and enjoyed by many, he does not understand how rebuilding can be considered in view of what's been heard today.
George Cousin, 205 Magnolia Drive, stated his property is immediately to the south of the subject dock, which has not been suitable for use in recent years. He agreed with Mr. Walter
and is opposed to rebuilding the dock on the basis of it being an attractive nuisance.
Mr. MacFarlane and Mr. Martens spoke in rebuttal to the opposition. Mr. MacFarlane was surprised at the increase in opposition since June and feels the dock was a valuable community
asset and should not be shut down because of some criminals. Mr. Martens appreciated Mr. Cousins comments; however, felt the majority of the neighborhood is still in favor of rebuilding.
He felt sleeping on the dock could be made less attractive through lighting design. He supported putting in a gate with a timer and enforcing closing hours.
Mr. Walter stated the waterfront cannot be fenced off and did not feel a gate on the dock would solve the problem.
Mr. Shuford summarized the request, stating the previous dock washing away caused damage to adjoining properties; however, the new dock is to be built with state of the art of materials
to withstand
hurricane force winds. If lighted in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, it would improve the law enforcement aspects of the site. He requested approval of the application
to rebuild the dock to its previous configuration, conditioned upon it being gated and lighted. He suggested a having a timed electronic gate with a manual override which would alert
the police department if activated after hours.
In response to questions, Mr. Shuford indicated 50 percent of the cost of the proposal is being reimbursed by FEMA for rebuilding this historical part of Clearwater's past. He stated
this is a philosophical issue regarding waterfront access and it is not desirable to allow any further loss of public access to one of the things that makes Clearwater unique. Many
law-abiding people used and enjoyed the dock and want it to continue.
Board discussion ensued with it being felt the new dock will have no historical value because of being new. Concern was expressed that it had become uncomfortable to go down to the
dock because of vagrants and problems relating to fishing. Support was expressed for rebuilding a smaller dock reaching shallower water, making it less attractive for fishing. It was
felt being there a long time is not sufficient justification for rebuilding in the same configuration. It was indicated if the City believes the facility should be put up, the City
should provide adequate protection for the residents of the area.
Rebuilding was felt to be needed to avoid any further limitation of access to the area's natural beauty. It was indicated this public hearing has been helpful in making people aware
of both sides of the issue and will assist staff in trying to rectify problems.
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 and not caused by the owner or
applicant and the variances allow the size structure desired to be utilized by the public 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) signage shall be erected by the City to alert the public of the pier's closing at night with enforcement to be handled by the Police Department;
3) feeling that security is of paramount importance, proper illumination compatible with the area and architecturally compatible with emphasis on security shall be installed; 4) an electronic
safety system, i.e., electroni cally controlled gate or comparable device shall be installed; this device should be electronically monitored by the Police Department for the safety of
the public and 5) 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, Martin and Mr. Gans voted "aye"; Messrs. Plisko and Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
The meeting was recessed from 2:47 to 3:02 p.m.
ITEM B - (continued from 10/14/93 & 10/28/93) - Investors Breakers-on-the-Bay Ltd, for a variance of 138 ft to allow dock length of 405 ft where 267 ft is permitted at 2909 Gulf-to-Bay
Blvd, William Brown's Sub of Bayview, Lots 14 & 15,
part of Lots 5, 6 & 13, vacated street and submerged land to the south, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential) & AL/C (Aquatic Land/Coastal). V 93-67
Action: Continued to the meeting of December 9, 1993.
1. Robert E. & Betty J. Hostetler for variances of (1) 10 ft to allow enclosure of existing structure 5 ft from rear proper ty line where 15 ft is required; (2) 3 ft to allow building
separa tion of 17 ft where 20 ft is required; (3) 3,120 sq ft to allow a minimum lot area of 11,800 sq ft where 15, 000 sq ft is required; (4) 12.15 ft to allow a minimum lot depth of
87.85 ft where 100 ft is required; and (5) 15 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 135 ft where 150 ft is required at 1959 Rainbow Dr, Skycrest Unit No 7, Blk B, Lot 10, zoned RM 28 (Multi-Family
Residential). V 93-78
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to enclose an existing free-standing carport on the subject lot, which is non-conforming with
regard to area, depth and width. He stated the setback variance is the most significant, due to the proximi ty of a building on the adjacent property to the south. Concern was expressed
the proposal would adversely affect the light, ventilation and view of the property to the south. He indicated application does not appear to meet the standards for approval.
Gordon Wardell, contractor representing the owner/applicants, stated the existing carport is covered, has one wall and contains laundry facilities. He proposed to remove some nearby
asphalt paving and add three walls. He said the enclosure would be used as a storage area for materials currently being stored in one of the apartment units on the property.
Damon Hostetler, son of the owner/applicants, responded to a concern that five variances are needed for such a small proposal. He stated only variance #1 was requested by the applicant.
The remaining four variances were added by staff (to bring the property into conformance) because the building codes have changed since the structures were built in 1952. This was
indicated to be a common occurrence in older buildings.
Discussion ensued and it was indicated additional construction is proposed in the non-conforming rear setback. This was not felt to be a problem as there seems to be adequate building
coverage.
Concern was expressed removing stored materials from the apartment unit would yield a greater financial return on the property. It was felt a variance is not needed because the materials
could be stored elsewhere. However, it was indicated storage is always needed on rental properties and the property owners should be allowed to use what they have.
Concern was also expressed the residents of the adjacent property will have to face a solid wall where an open structure now exists. It was felt, if they were concerned, they would
be present.
In response to a question, Mr. Hostetler said his mother lives near the subject property and goes by there every day.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicant has not demon strated she has met all of the standards
for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is
unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the request for the variances is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from
the property and the granting of the variances would adversely affect the 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, Mses. Whitney, Martin and Mr. Gans voted "aye"; Messrs. Plisko and Johnson voted "nay".
Motion carried.
2. Morritt Homes, Inc (Walgreens Drug Store) for a vari ance of 18 parking spaces to allow 89 spaces where 107 spaces are required at 2005 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Midway Sub, Lots 1-12 and
strip of land to west, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 93-79
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to redevelop an existing retail center with a 15,525 square-foot Walgreens drug store and an
additional 2,300 square feet of retail space. The applicant indicated that the use will not require the number of spaces required by code; however, provided no supporting docu menta tion
for the 17 percent reduction. The application does not appear to comply with seven of the standards for approval. The City Traffic Engi neering Department commented the plan is not
approved and must be revised per the Design Review Committee (DRC).
In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated the Planning and Zoning Board has approved an alcoholic beverage use application and a separation distance variance request is to go before
the City Commission tomorrow. The DRC needs to review the site plan.
Steven Stuebs, engineer representing the applicant, gave an overview of the proposal, stating the current parking ratio is 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space. The City's
criteria for retail parking is 6/1000. He stated the site does not meet the Land Development Code standards for landscape buffers, setbacks, landscaping or number of access points.
Stormwater sheets off onto the streets and there are dangerous traffic conditions associated with the property.
Under the current proposal, Mr. Stuebs stated, the number of access points will be reduced. There will be a double drive-through for pharmacy pickups and a parking ratio of 5/1000 will
be provided. The proposed site will meet today's Land Development Code standards for landscape buffers, setbacks, stormwater retention driveways and access. He further explained various
site improvements, stating not meeting the 6/1000 parking space require ment will not hinder the operation of the Walgreens store. He stated he is an experienced Walgreens development
designer and has constructed a number of the stores in Florida in the last two years. He compared the City's parking requirement to the less restrictive ones in several sur rounding
communities. Quoting from the Transportation and Traffic Engi neering Handbook, he said a parking ratio of 4/1000 is the general criteria for retail use.
Dan Vietto, representing the applicant, stated there are 180 of these freestanding stores around the country. They make a significant contribu tion to the community because they remain
for a very long time. Approxi mately 275 prescriptions per day are handled by a store of this nature and about 35 percent of those trips are handled through the drive-through pickup
window. He did not understand
staff's objections to the project, stating there are physical constraints on the site, all applicable codes are met, it is better for the neighbors, safer for traffic and meets all eight
criteria for granting a variance.
In response to questions, Mr. Vietto stated the plan is to raze and rebuild on the site, one street is going to be closed down and this will be the first freestanding facility in the
City. He stated, although Walgreens would prefer to stand alone, the additional 2300 square feet is occupied by two tenants with long leases. Based on the experience of several other
units operating around the state, he said the 5/1000 ratio meets Walgreens parking needs for efficient operation. He indicated DRC has reviewed the plans relative to striping and signage,
but did not comment about parking and said he was told pa
It was indicated developers are required to meet the parking code and without the 2300 square feet, the proposal would meet the parking stan dards. Discussion ensued regarding traffic
movement, generation and circulation in the area, specifically related to the adjacent apartment complex which is accessed by Rogers street.
In response to a question, it was indicated Walgreens does not own the property, but has approved the preliminary site plan. Although they would prefer not to have the two tenants,
Mr. Vietto stated they are okay with the project as long as there is no other shop space between Walgreens and the corner. It was not known if Walgreens will actually build even if
this request is approved.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not demonstrat ed he has met all of the standards
for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the hardship was
caused by the owner or applicant; the variance is not the minimum; the granting of the variance could adversely affect the general welfare of the community; and would violate the general
spirit and intent of this develop ment code as expressed in Sections 35.04 and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. GTE Florida, Inc for a variance of 42 in to allow a fence 72 in in height where 30 in is permitted at 21051 US Hwy 19 N, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 23.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial).
V 93-80
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a six-foot high chain link fence around the property for security of a remote switching
station for the emergency 911 computer system. Staff indicated the fence will not adversely affect neighboring properties and will be softened by the code requirement that landscaping
be planted on the right-of-way side of the fence.
Concerns were expressed with the suggested use of barbed wire on top of the fence. Mr. Richter this is an issue which is decided by the Building Official and discussion ensued.
Dave Warrington, fence contractor representing the applicant, stated a fence exists on three sides
and it is desired to extend it toward the road so it will encompass the whole building for additional security.
Questions were raised regarding previous variances which were granted for this property (V 93-56; 8/26/93). It was indicated variances for lot area, width, distance from the centerline
of US 19 and setback from the side property line were granted with the condition an asphalt paving area being replaced should be landscaped with shrubs and trees and maintained to provide
the proper aesthetics.
Discussion continued regarding the proposal. In response to questions, it was not known how the additional fence could improve security nor why it should extend out to the street.
It was felt someone from GTE should be present to explain.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson 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 subject to the condition landscaping shall be placed in front of the fence rather than inside the fence. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin
and Mr. Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted "nay". Motion failed.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not demonstrat ed 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 and the granting of the variance would detract
from the appearance 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 and Gans voted "aye"; Ms. Martin and Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
4. Dan's Island 1660 Condo Assn, Inc for variances of (1) 20.33 ft to allow a wall 29.67 ft from Gulf of Mexico where 50 ft is required; and (2) 4 in to allow a wall 34 in in height
where 30 in is permitted at 1660 Gulf Blvd, Dan's Island Condo 1660 on Sand Key, zoned RM 28 (Multi-Family Residential) and OS/R (Open Space/Recreation). V 93-81
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a wall along the westerly edge of parking lots to prevent sand from washing and
blowing into the lots. Staff felt this solution is minimum and reasonable in light of the hardship experienced by the condominium residents. The application appears to comply with
all standards for approval.
Paul Wade, construction consultant representing the applicant, stated the need for the wall arises from storm damage to the seawall. Sand piles up in the parking lot and has to be continually
swept away. The sea oats planted in an attempt to restrict sand movement did not survive the wind and waves. He said the proposal is for a block and brick wall, which, once the blocks
are stacked up, is
34 inches high. A variance application for an identical wall was granted in 1991. However, due to its location seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), did not pass
the stringent State require ments and was never built.
Discussion ensued regarding the size and placement of the proposed wall. Mr. Wade stated this design is needed to make the new wall architecturally match the other walls on the property.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney 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 not caused by the owner or
applicant and are the minimum necessary to overcome any hardship 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 submit ted
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. John & Laura Gianfilippo (Goodyear Tire & Auto) for a vari ance of 1 parking space to allow 41 spaces where 42 spaces are required at 235 Belcher Rd S, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.07 less
road right-of-way, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 93-82
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to redevelop the subject property with a Goodyear store. As the requested variance represents
only a two percent reduction in the requirement, it is considered minimal and appears to comply with the standards for approval.
Tim Stefan, representing the owner/applicant, responded to questions. It was not known if the City Traffic Engineering Department had any comments regarding proposed the parking layout.
Mr. Stefan said the size of the curb cut is being reduced and the right-of-way equalization is administered by the County. The existing facility has parking problems and is being razed
and a new store built.
Concern was expressed with granting a variance; however, it was felt to be extremely minimal. It was indicated the proposal appears to be properly landscaped and is required to meet
landscaping requirements on site plan approval.
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 is the minimum necessary to overcome any 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 submit ted 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.
6. Joseph & Jean A. Mendolia for a variance of 4.78 ft to allow a dock width of 32.50 ft where 27.72 ft is permitted at 130 Leeward Island, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 1, Lot
64, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential) and AL-C (Aquatic Lands-Coastal). V 93-83
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a cradle boat lift and service catwalk on the south side of an existing dock at
a single-family residence. He said the dock is centrally located along the property, the adjacent properties should not be adversely affected and the City Harbormaster has no problem
with the request. The application appears to comply with the standards for approval.
Dave Griswold, representing the applicant, stated the property was pur chased last month. He stated he will inform the applicants of the Board's concern regarding a large boat illegally
parked in the front of the proper ty. Mr. Richter said he will pass the information along to the Code Enforce ment Division.
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 particular physical surroundings of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions
of this development code would result in an unnecessary hard ship upon the applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) This vari ance is based on the application for a variance
and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submit ted 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.
7. H. Glaesel-Hollenback TRE & H. Bertram-Nothnagel TRE (Publix Supermar ket) for a variance of 10 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 10 spaces are required at 200 Island Way,
Sec 08-29-15, M&B 13.01, zoned CC (Commercial Center). V 93-84
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to use approximately 2,030 square feet of outdoor space for the display of retail merchandise
in the Island Estates Shopping Center. He said there is no proposal to add the required additional parking and explained the parking space calculations. A conditional use for outdoor
uses would also have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. The request does not appear to comply with any of the
standards for approval.
Bill Adams, representing Publix Supermarket, stated this is a very small location and the variance is needed to display plants and Christmas trees. He indicated he would like for his
store to participate in the upcoming Publix sidewalk sale and the sidewalk will be kept orderly and neat.
Discussion ensued regarding what was done previously and what is allowed now. It was indicated materials were displayed outdoors before the Code Enforcement crackdown on outdoor displays
on Clearwater Beach.
In response to questions, Mr. Richter stated businesses do not need variances to have outdoor displays if they have adequate parking to support the requirements. He said the applicant
does have other options. It is possible to obtain a temporary 30-day permit for outdoor retail sales, as is done by Christmas tree lots.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not demonstrat ed 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 for the variance is based primarily
upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property and the granting of the variance 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 carried unani mously.
8. Robert E. Heilman & Heilmans Restaurants, Inc (Heilman's Beach comber Restaurant) for a variance of 32 parking spaces to allow 0 spaces where 32 spaces are required at 447 Mandalay
Ave, Clearwater Beach Park 1st Add, Blk B, Lots 16-23, and vacated alley, Clearwater Beach Park Replat of 1st Add, Blk A, Lots 12-15, zoned CB (Beach Commer cial). V 93-85
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to create a "wine room", expanding the alcoholic beverage sales area of an existing restaurant
on Clearwater Beach. He stated the increased floor area requires additional parking and explained the calcula tions. The City Traffic Engineer does not support any variance to the
parking requirements on Clearwater Beach. However, staff recommended approval based on a proposed code amendment which would revise the parking regulations for alcoholic beverage sales
uses. Mr. Richter ex plained the calculations, stating if the proposed amendment is adopted, the existing parking at the restaurant will meet the requirements.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the owner/applicants, made a general statement regarding the proposed ordinance and an overview of the applicant's project. He said they wish to expand
into approximately 2,500 square feet of an old motel in the center of their property. This will be used as a cooled storage area for wine, bathrooms and as much seating as the code
will allow. Due to the nature of the surrounding area, the proper ty can never be expanded. He said, with over 75 percent of food sales, the business is a restaurant, not a bar, regardless
of the type of license held.
Mr. Cline discussed the parking requirements associated with the restaurant's 4COP license, how they would change under the proposed ordinance. He stated the facility can actually accommodate
more parking than there are physical spaces on the site, due to a unique system of valet parking. He said all of the restaurant's parking is handled on site and this will be a positive
upgrade, with aesthetic benefit to the area and no negative impacts regarding light or noise. He responded to general ques tions regarding the license and seating.
Mr. Heilman spoke regarding the uniqueness of the request: 1) the valet system of parking which allows for over 100 cars at one time; 2) the intent to preserve the character and materially
benefit the area; 3) to improve the present building and the landscaping and 4) the objective to redistrib ute the customer base. While food service will remain the focus, much of the
new structure will be for visual, temperature controlled storage of their wine inventory.
In response to questions, Mr. Heilman stated there may be 50 to 65 seats in the new area which will be a bistro/wine bar and serve appetizers. He explained the valet parking arrangement.
Mr. Richter noted the more restrictive parking requirements were put into effect in the late 1980's because of some alcoholic beverage establish ments packing in customers and violating
fire codes. He contrasted that type of facility with the Heilmans' restaurant, indicating the more restric tive requirement does not seem to apply in this case. In response to a question,
he explained the calculations involved in the 50 percent parking reduction on Clearwater Beach.
The applicants were commended for the improvements they have made to their property and it was felt their establishment has been a credit to Clearwater Beach for a long time.
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 is the minimum necessary for them to be able to develop the property as they would like subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application
for a variance and documents submit ted 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.
9. Clearwater Bay Marine Ways, Inc (Adventure Seaways Corp/The Majestic) for a variance of 81 parking spaces to allow 128 spaces where 209 spaces are required at 900 Osceola Ave N,
J.A. Gorra's Sub, Blk 2, Lots 2 & 3, and part of Lot 1, and filled sub merged land on west, submerged land and riparian rights, Sue Barco Sub, Lots 13, 14, 23, part of Lot 22, and vacated
Nicholson Street, filled submerged land on west, submerged land and riparian rights, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial) and AL-C (Aqua tic Lands-Coastal). V 93-86
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant is requesting a variance to the parking requirement for the operation of the Majestic Empress Cruise
Line. The applicant estimates 30 percent of the cruise passengers arrive and depart on buses, which will not be parked on-site during the cruise time. The applicant indicates 100 to
125 additional parking spaces will be developed across from the marina between Osceola and North Fort Harrison Avenues within six to nine months. Mr. Richter explained the parking calculations,
stating if additional parking is found to be necessary, staff will work with the applicant to provide off-site facilities in the nearby vicinity or City-owned properties. It is felt
the proposed use will be beneficial to the City in general. Staff recom mends approval.
In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated a conditional use for alcohol ic beverage sales and marina expansion was approved at the previous day's Planning and Zoning Board meeting,
subject to 17 conditions. He distributed copies of these conditions.
Espen Tandberg, representing the owner/applicant, stated placing the Majestic Empress here will be a good addition to commerce of the area without any undesirable impacts. He stated
there is a lease with the Clearwater Bay Marina and he agrees with the staff report and recommenda tions.
Tom Radcliffe, representing the owner/applicant, displayed an aerial view of the existing site, explaining what is existing and what is being proposed. He demonstrated where existing
boat slips and trailer/boat storage will be eliminated. The Marine Ways, 54 enclosed boat slips, fuel docks, outdoor sales and service, a dive charter and a sailing charter will remain,
along the with the 600 passenger cruise ship. He stated he researched the entire State and could not find where there are any code provisions for parking relating to cruise ship opera tion.
In response to a question, Mr. Tandberg stated the ship is registered at 94 gross tons, draws six feet of water and is completely self-contained. It meets Coast Guard specifications
and is designed and built in Indiana, to come into smaller areas like Clearwater. There is sufficient water in the basin to accommodate the ship and 24-hour security is provided for
the vehicles parked on site.
Discussion ensued regarding the parking and traffic situation. It was indicated there will be police to direct traffic.
One letter in support was read into the record.
Three citizens spoke in opposition to the application as follows:
Mark Hatoum, 303 Cedar Street, requested the Board consider the traffic impact on the neighborhood, noise and air pollution and inadequate parking conditions of the proposal. He expressed
concern the City has not done adequate traffic studies and the Planning and Zoning Board condition regarding a wall to buffer noise is too vague. He requested having the applicant agree
to have parking as far away from the residential area as possible.
Vicki Morgan, 301 Cedar Street, stated, by choosing this location, the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship because there are other sites which could be used. She stated her
husband is a physician, frequently on call, and it is important that his route to the hospital not to be blocked by traffic. She felt the traffic, noise and the late-night party atmosphere
created by the passengers will adversely impact the residential area. She stated the applicant should wait until Pier 60 opens and locate there.
Phoebe Allen, 806 North Osceola Avenue, said she and her husband Fred Allen, operate a
commercial sailing charter from the marina and a wedding business in the area. She felt tour buses are smelly and dirty and would not have a profitable relationship with the existing
businesses in the neighborhood. She questioned where the proposed additional parking is to be provided at the end of the six-month trial period, and the purpose of changing the direction
of North Osceola Avenue. She said her sailboat draws only four feet of water and they cannot get out into the Intercoastal Waterway at low tide.
Tom Radcliffe spoke in rebuttal to the opposition, stating very little data exists for the impact of an operation of this size; however, a comparable operation in John's Pass Marina
has experienced no problems. He stated the hardship is not self-imposed because there is not another marina in Clearwater which would accommodate this operation. He said ample studies
of water depth have been done and the ship does not need to turn around in the basin. Mr. Radcliffe said the traffic situation has been thoroughly studied by the City traffic engineers;
however, does not affect this request for a parking variance. The applicant is looking at all alternatives for parking in the area.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed bus traffic and parking needs.
Mr. Tandberg stated he has no problem with the recommended conditions and he hopes anyone with concerns will come to him during the trial period because he is willing to cooperate.
He said the operation will employ 150 people who will locate in this area, park off-site, and contribute to the tourism and economy of the City.
Discussion continued regarding the application. Bringing entertainment to the area was felt to be beneficial to the citizens and to the economy of the City. Having a six-month trial
period and working the City to provide additional off-site parking were felt to be positive aspects. However, it was felt the parking shortage, the late hours and the party environment
would seriously impact the area.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicants have not demon strated they have met all of the standards
for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the hardship was
caused by the owner or applicant; the variance is not the minimum and 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, Mses. Martin, Whitney and Mr. Plisko voted "aye"; Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
10. John Hancock Life Ins Co (The Wine Vault) for a variance of 20 seats to allow a minimum of 30 seats where 50 seats are required at 2556 McMullen Booth Rd, Sec 28-28-16, M&B 33.02,
zoned CC (Commercial Center) and OL (Limited Office). V 93-87
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to conduct wine tasting seminars in an existing retail liquor and wine store with a 4COP license.
In view of the small size of the establishment, the variance to the seating requirement is needed to allow on premise consumption. He stated the parking requirement is not affected
by the additional activity within the store and staff recommends approval.
Michael Kwasin, representing the applicant, stated the proposed wine tastings are controlled, sit-down events. He stated, according to his experience as a school teacher, the best size
for a group of this type is 20 to 25 people. He presented photographs of the interior of his retail liquor store.
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 size of the store 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) this variance is limited at this location to
the ownership of Warehouse Liquors, Inc. 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 carried unanimously.
II. Board and Staff Discussion
Mr. Richter distributed copies of the proposed meeting schedule for 1994. It was indicated the second Thursday in November is Thanksgiving Day and that meeting date was deleted from
the schedule. Only one meeting is scheduled for December, on the second Thursday.
Drafts of upcoming Land Development Code amendments were also distribut ed.
III. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p.m.
Chairman