V97-43
V 97-43
333 Gulfview Blvd S
Remodeling Of South Gulfview Blvd
W 111 Word Document MINUTES
Page 1 of 8
, ,
J i ( III
WinWord Document: MINUTES
PrevIous Next ~ N atlvc View Back to New IHel21
~ ---- WmWord "
Do(,ument Document Hit Image Results Query
-- - - --
MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, February 23, 1995 - 1 00 P m
CommisSIOn Chambers, 112 South Osccola Avenue, Clearwater, FL
Members present
Alex Phsko, Chair
_!I"I J. ~
,( ,
t .{ I 1" ~
, "
Emma C Whitney, Vice-Chair
Joyce E Martm
Otto Gans
John B Johnson
Also prcsent
John RIchter, Semor Planner, Central Penmttmg Dept
r,
Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney
Sally Demarest, Board Reporter, City Clerk Departnlcnt
The meetmg was called to order by the Chair at 1 02 P m m the CommissIOn Chambers of City Hall
Mr Johnson led the Pledge of Allegiance and mvocatJon Mr PlIsko outlmed procedures and advIsed
anyone adversely affected by any declSlon of the Dcvelopment Code Adjustment Board may appeal
through the City Clerk Department wlthm two weeks He noted Flonda law reqUIres any applicant
appealing a decIsIOn of this Board to have a rccord of the procccdmgs to support the appeal
In order to provide contmUlty, the Items will be listed 111 agenda order although not necessanly
discussed m that order
By motion duly seconded, the mmutes of the Februmy 9, 1995 meetmg were approved as submIttcd
The folJowmg requests for vanances were considered
,
B 1 (cont from 01/26/95) Valentmos Koumouhdls for vanances of (1) 83 ft to penmt a lot Width of
http 11199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 trftp/3/dbc ,\'
12117/99
" ,
WmWord Document MINUTES
, ,
I "
Page 2 of8
(: I ~~..._:J:> ..I J
67 ft at setback lme, (2) 2875 percent 10 permIt 21 25 percent affront yard open space where 50
percent IS reqUired, (3) 35ft to permit 15ft of pen meter landscape buffer where 5 ft IS reqUired,
(4) 20 percent to permIt 0 percent of clear space\where 20 percent IS reqUIred, and (5) 15ft to penmt
a 35ft average of landscapmg between the street nght-of-way and nonresidentIal development
where 5 ft IS reqUired to allow expanslOn of an accessory dwellmg at 606 Bayway Blvd, Bayslde
Sub No 5, Elk A, Lot 7, zoned CR 28 (Resort CommercIal) V 95-09
Mr RIchter gave the background of the appltcatiOn and presented, m wntmg, the staff
recommendatIOns He descnbed the premise and mdlcated thIs Item was contmued from the January
26, 1995 meetmg to enable the apphcant to provIde a detalled site plan drawn to scale and to
lI1corporate the proposed requests under one applicatIOn Mr RIchter said staff did not see any speCIal
circumstances mherent with the second floor expanSIOn, and, therefore, could not rccommend
approval of the request He added that reasonable uS,e of the property was proposed and approved by
an applicatIon on October 8, 1992, however, staff favors approval of the sIde and front landscape
buffers to allow a seventh parkmg space The absence of staff comments specIfic to the seventh
parkmg space was noted, Mr RIchter clanfied pIlor approvals and current remarks of staff III thIS
regard
Speakmg for the applicant, Robert E Gregg, 2963 GuJ f to Bay Boulevard, SUI te 220, Clearwater,
explamed how differences m the average width of1!le fr.ont landscape buffer affects the addItional
parkmg space, addmg mtenor landscapmg h<!.s. been. mcreased He satd the applIcant has modIfied the
present plan from that which was ongmally' perr:rlltted ~He, satd the ongmal bUlldmg was not
constnlcted 10 accordance wIth approved drawings,. and, thIS applIcatIon would correct that condItIOn
Mr Gregg pomted out that the vanance woul9 appl;y tR ,the second floor resIdence, balcony and staIrs
only and the applIcant would realize no matenal gain He added the current drawmgs have been
stamped and approved by all City departments and,the first floor bathrooms were relocated on the
present plans to meet ADA standards 'I ,,-, I,
( , .
~ l ~ '
,
In the ensumg dIseusslon, Mr Gregg acknowledged the lack of need or hardshIp The Chairman
I
noted dIfferences In the ongmal footpnn1 ofthe,bUlldmg and absence of the dumpster on the eUlTent
plan Mr Gregg saId, wIth the approval of the SQlld Waste Department, the applIcant and Mr Uro,
IllS neIghbor, plan Jomt use of a dumpster Mr RIcnter said the language m the agreement for
dumpster use would have to consIder future sa1c,of,~IJher property
, (
I ... ~ ~ ~ \ 1 j J \
TheIe were no persons or documents In support of or opposItIOn to the appilcatlOn
It was the general consensus that the present request \"(a5 tantamount to redesign and It was noted that
engll1eermg errors are dIfficult to correct,' ,] .'.:
- I , L ...~
Based upon the mfornlatlOn furnIshed by the appl1cant"Ms WhItney moved to deny the requests [or
vanances 1) and 4), more specIfically because 1)1).There arc not specIal cIrcumstances related to the
partJcular phYSIcal surroundll1gs, shape or topographical condItIons applicable to the land 01
bUlldll1gs, or such Circumstances are not peeuliar to sucD land or bU1ldmgs and do not apply generally
to the land or bUlldmgs m the applicable zonmg,dlstnct, and 2) the stnct appheatlon of the provISiOns
of the code would not depnve the appl1cant orthe rea~onable use of the land 01 bUlldmgs The motIon
was duly seconded and carned unammously
.
In a separate motIon, Ms WhItney made a motIOn to deny Items 2), 3) and 5) because the applicant
has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed m SectIOn 45 24 of the Land
Development Code The mollon was duly secon'ded Staffs recommended approval of Items 3) and 5)
was noted, and ASSistant City Attorney Miles Lance opmed that the applicant would be 111 vIOlatIOn
of the code If the motIOn earned Upon the vote,bemg taken, Ms WhItney and Ms Martm voted
"aye", Chamnan PlIska, Mr Johnson and Mr Gans voted "nay" The motIon was denied (3-2)
5
i'
Respondmg to a questIon [rom the board, ,Mr RIchter, said that a van ance for lot wIdth was not
,. ,
'I' ...... I
12/17/99
http //199227233 29/ISYSquel)'/IRL5041inp/3/dod" ,.'
..'<, , ~
! , ~.. 'i. j
WInWord Documcnt MINUTES
"~.ol J~ ~l ~,~
Page 3 of8
',~
1<".. -.--,
necessary to accommodate the seventh parkIng ~space"and' the remammg vanances compnsed the
landscape and open space Issues ' , ,~ ,t~,,~"
Based upon (he ll1[onnatlOn furnished by the apphcant, Mr Gans moved to grant the vanancc
requests 2),3) and 5) as requested because thc applicant has substantIally met all of the standards for
approval as listed III SectIOn 4524 of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because the
varIance arIses from a condition umque to the property and was not caused by the owner or appltcant
1
subject to the followmg conditIOns 1) ThIS van,am;e,ls based on the apphcatlOn for a vanance and
documents submitted by the apphcant, ll1cludlt;lg IT!{1ps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted 111 support of the applicant's request fq'r l;l, vanance DevIatIon from any of the above
documents submItted III support of the request,for a vanance regardmg the work to be done WIth
regard to the sHe or any physIcal structure locaf~d ol{th'e sIte, Will result In thIS varIance bell1g null
and of no effect, and 2) the reqmsite bUilding permlt(s) shall be obtamed wlthm 6 months from the
date of this public heanng The mo11on was duly seconded, and upon the vote bemg taken, ChaIrman
Pliska, Mr Johnson and Mr Gans voted "aye",,Ms ~hltney and Ms Martll1 voted "nay" The
motIOn camed (3-2) ,1'01
82 Torn Sehlhorst & Dorothy M Casey (c<itarelh Construction) for vanances of (1) 25 ft, to penmt
a muumum lot width of 500 ft wherc 75ft IS [e'qlhred, J2) 550 sq ft to penmt a ml mmum lot area
of 6,950 sw ft where 7,500 sq ft IS reqUIred, (3) 32ft to pernllt a structure 68ft from a sIde
(west) property Ime where 10 ft IS reqUIred, (4) 0 7 ft"to pernut a structure 93ft from a side (west)
property hne where 10ft IS reqUIred, and (5) ~ ~ f!: to permIt a structure 27ft from a rear property
lme where 10 ft IS reqUIred at 604 Palm Bluff St , Palm Bluff 1 st Addi11on, Lot 23, zoned C1 (Infill
Commercial) V 95-14 '
I
It( - 1
Mr Richter gave the background of the apphcilt~on aqd,presented, m wntltlg, the staff
f Ii '....
recommendatIOns He Indicated a Citation Issued for absence of a hUrricane anchor revealed the
budding was constructed WIthout a bUIldIng peWtlt"Mi lRlchter deSCrIbed the nelghborhood as
fragIle He Said staff encourages mvestment If!, tQe 'neighborhood and recommends approval oCthe
varIances to bnng the structure m comphance.WJth tlte'bUIldltlg code The eXIstmg constructIOn
trader on the Site would reqUire approval a~]i!TI,9utd~oo~ sJorage faCIlIty lflt weIe to remam on the
premise " "
, .. ... \ III
It was noted when the Item was advertised, vanance requests (3) and (4) both mdlcate a "west"
property lll1e ASSIstant City Attorney Miles Lance opmed the Item was Improperly advertised and
Satd the heanng IS predicated upon a legal advelj:lsement which properly notifies the public, he
adVised the item be contmued Mr Sehlhorst was advlsed'he would mcur no additIOnal charge as a
result of this error Mr RIchter noted that th~e mal1mg t? 'neIghborIng property owners was not proper
as well ' '"
~ j ~
Mr Sehlhorst pomted out that he has submltted';ll vintten protest that Mr Johnson has had outSide
conversation and Viewed exhibIts which were not properly represented to him He asked that Mr
Johnson either be replaced WIth a substItute person for thiS Item, or that hiS partiCipation be a " aye"
vote The Chamnan Said thiS SituatIOn would b'e1addressed on the date of the rescheduled hearmg on
.. t f j.,.. -"<: \ ,
thiS Item " "
~.:J 1 I>- ~.,.... "
i' .j.'t.........
~ t]:11 :::1 ~$'~
A motlOn was made by Ms Whitney to contmHch V 95, L~ to March 23, 1995 The motIon was duly
seconded and camed unanImously :" -:: I, ~',' J;" .
n j L- (\~~ ~ ~:
B3 KatherIne A Stull for a vanance to allow a 2 5_ ft high fence wlthm the rear structural setback
area of a waterfront property where It IS prohibIted at 995 Bay Esplanade, Carlonel Sub, Blk 274,
Lots 5-6 and parts of Lots 4 & 7, zoned RS 8-"tSmg1e Family ReSidentIal
. _' I
, , ,
V 95-15
... ~ h r/
, ,
t ~ t .......... i ___....1_;..1
~.... ,..! ~ ... to.
t~ "" i J
'I; -"1"..
.
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/1RL504 tmp/3I.doc,
: \1" I ~ t [ ('I""
12/17/99
, j 1 '1"l
WmWord Document MINUTES
.1 -1':" \ I
~ l ,'"
Page 4 of 8
~....~ ,~
, "
Mr Richter gave the background of the applIcatlOn'dnd presented, m wntll1g, the staff
recommendatIOns He mdlcated the appltcant proposes ,to place a 2-1/2 ft hIgh alummum rad fence
on thc rear property lme, m thIS case the sea w,?l1, ~ddmg the effect on neIghbonng propertIes would
be mmllnal He noted an ordmance now bemg conSIdered whIch would allow open fences wlthm the
waterfront setback, but to the best of his recollectIon, he was not aware of a residentIal fence placed
directly on top ofthe seawall, dS thiS applicant r,equest,s',
h>
~ ..... .I. I
Speakmg for the applicant, DavId GoloblsQ, 100,' Tl.lrncr, Street, Clearwater said the fence was
requested to be attached to the concrete eap o[the seawall for safcty purposes and would keep pets
and grandchildren from [ailing mto the water Ti)e present woody hedge IS overhangmg the seawall,
dlfficult to mamtam and dymg In some places "
There were no persons or documents 111 support of or oppositIOn to the apphcatlOn
, .
In the ensumg bnef diSCUSSion general consensus was approval of the fence, but concern was
expressed that grantll1g of the applicatIOn would estabJlsh d precedent
Based upon the ll1fOnnatlon furnIshed by the apph~ant; Ms Martll1 moved to grallt the vanance as
requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as IIstedm
SeetIOn 4524 of the Land Development Code, more specIficdlly, because the vanance anses from a
condltIon umque to the property and was not caused-by the owner or applicant subject to the
followmg conditIons 1) ThIS vanance IS bascd on the application for a vanance and documents
submitted by the applIcant, Il1cludmg maps, plal1~.'sllrveys, and other documents SUblTI1tted 111 support
ofthc applicant's request for a vanance DevIatIon'from any of the above documents submitted m
support of the request for d vanance regardmg the ,work to be done With regard to the SIte or any
phYSical strueture located on the SIte, Will result'm'Jhls yanance bemg null and of no effect, 2) the
requISIte bll1ldmg perrmt(s) shall be obtamed wIthm SI). months from the date of thIs public hearmg,
and 3) the fence shdll be only two and one~half,f~e~ hlghM'lth alummum radmgs and constmcted as
mdlcated on the slte plan The motIon was duly,seconcled and carned unammously
B4 lEC Fundmg, Inc (Eckerd Drug Company~ for a yanance of2 ft to pen111t an awnmg 3 ft from
the curbhne of Mandalay Avenue where 5 ft 15 reqmred at 467 Mandalay Ave, Cledrwater Beach
Park 1 st Addition Replat, Blk A, Lots 9-10 and, vacated alley In between, zoned CB (Beach
Commcrclal) V 95-16 ' ,', j 1-"
Mr Richter gave the background of the applIcdhon and presented, 1n wntll1g, the staff
recommenddtIons He Il1dlcated the present cano'pYI extends further to the curb lme and the eXlstmg
overhang WIll be removed and replaced by the awmng.requested Staffrccommended approval based
on the greater dlstance from the curb line and t!Ie upgradmg of the appearance of the store front and
the beach bus mess dlstnct J C .
^ ,
I~...... ....
'1 j t ~ '
Speakmg for the apphcant, Leslie L Noyce, 833'3 Bryan-Dairy Road, Clearwater, reglOnal
construction manager for Eckerd Drug Company, descnbed the architectural deSign and renovatIOns
proposed for the current site He saId the aVv.l1Ing, wllhmproved the appearance of the location and
protect customers and pedestnans from the weather, He shared a rendenng of the front elevatIOn of
the proposed project and was adv1sed that the board ,'\\'ould allow hIm to retam the sketch at the
conclUSIon of his presentation There will be no change to the present parkmg lot
There were no persons or documents 111 support of or OpposItlOn to the application
1 ~"
Based upon the mformatlOn furnished by the'applIc1ll1t~Mr Gans moved to grant the vanance as
requested because the applicant has substantIally met altof the standards for approval as listed m
Section 4524 of the Land Development Code, more speCIfically, because the variance anses from a
condltIon ulllque to the property and WdS not caused b;y the owner or applicant subject to the
.1".. "I.,;,"i!"
"i I I
':rtJ ~J ....
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/lRL504 tmp/3jd'oC1 ,.,>
12/1 7/99
. WmWOld Document MTNUTES
Page 5 of 8
.. -f! \ .,
\: .'ill'
followmg condItIons 1) This vanance IS based'(jn"the'apphcahon for a vanance and documents
submitted by the applicant, Includmg maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted m support
of the applicant's request for a vanance Deviation from any of the above documents submitted m
support of the request for a varIance regardmg tHe ~orK to be done wIth regard to the SIte or any
phYSical strueture located on the SIte, Will result 'In tOIS' vahance bemg null and of no effect, 2) the
requlSlte bUlldmg penmt(s) shall be obtamed w:thmslx.'months from thc date of thIS pubhc hcanng,
3) any slgnage attached to the awmng shall b~ subJrct to,separate penmttmg and review The motion
was duly secondcd and carned unammously' ""::~ ' ,,1 \-"""" \1
llY l . 'I. h ... _ I..~I
~"
B5 ;DavId R Little for vanances of (1)) 90 ft to'penmt a mInImUm lot wIdth of 60 ft where 150 ft
- IS required, and (2) 704 ft to permit a side setback of 496 fi where 12 ft 1S required at 333 S
Gulf VIew Blvd, Lloyd- Whlte-Skmner, Lot 67, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial) V 95-17
),..... t I \ j",~ .(
Mr Richter gave the background of the application andlpresented, m wntmg, the staff
recommendatIOns He indicated the premIse IS a commercial/office nux and the apphcant proposes to
extend the storefront about 2 ft to the west and, to keep the architectural mtegrIty of the bUlldmg, add
approxlmately SIX ft to second story deck Staff considers the vanance request mll1lmal
.... L ~ ~
Note was made of the absence of mformatlOn on' tIle"dpphcatlOn Mr Richter said a telephone contact
WIth the applicant produced addItIonal informatIon, received too late to Include 111 members' packets
_ 1 ~r..j h f
( The ~pphcant, pavI_d _~I~tl~~~~~er-of-~-33j-~'~ S~~~(I'.. d;JlfvleJV 6I>@& Boulevard,)
Clealwater gave a backgrouna summary-of the prop,ct1:y, and descnbed-hIs-efforts-to-renovate the
smgle family home mto a commercial property He offered a photograph of the ongmal home at the
time It was purchased In 1979 " I t'.':_ "
-!.o. .(".....tlt LII.J!-l..- l::!\
, 1 ~ I! -
In the ensumg dIScussIon, Mr Little said he' h"ad no plans for an addItIOnal busmess at the present
tIme Mr Richter offered the proposcd addItIOn-Is veIy'small, 70 sq ft, and noted thc 50% parkmg
reductIOn on Clearwater Beach The chani"In fr0l1t'ls for the tenants' use at 11Ight only Mr Little
counted the 14 parkmg spaces and saId there IS room to park Il1 close proximIty to the dumpster
space He sald the request would have little effect upon hIS neIghbors and would lmprove the
appearance of the bUlldmg and the beach commumty "
"
Mr Gans offered a complete hIStOry ofthe appllcant's 'past vanance requests, begmmng In 1986 to
accommodate a second floor real estate busmess He noted past diSCUSSion relatIve to over-saturatIon
and whether prevIOus parkmg vananccs should go With the land, which remams unanswered today
He Said, m hiS opmlOn, thIS request wJ1l cause 0ver, utIlizatIon of the property and thc apphcant did
not meet the conditions for approval ,,,r~
I ~ 4 r j'S'
!
Opll1l0n was expressed that the owner's busme~sf'Is'fgroo/ll1g and the request was rather mSIgmficant
In contrast, It was noted Mr Little defimtely al'rlyady ~as reasonable use of the land, was granted
11umerous vanances through the years, and,tl1e prop'enyYs currently nonconformmg
.r 1 t~ I J
.J .I "'l~". ~ t J~ "- ~
There were no persons or documents 111 SURport of or oppositIOn to the applicatIOn
1) - 1
J 'II...
Based upon the 111formatlOn furnished by the applicant, Ms Whitney moved to grant the varJance as
requested because the applIcant has subst~111tIi111y metrall of the standards for approval as hsted In
SectlOn 45 24 of the Land Dcvelopment ~od~, 1110re speCIfically, because the vanance anses from a
conditIon umque to the property and was not caused by the owner or apphcant subject to the
followmg condltlOns 1) ThiS vanancc IS based'on the'appltcatlOn for a vanance and documents
submitted by the apphcant, mcludl11g maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submItted m support
of the applicant's request for a vanance DevI<ltJon [rom any of the above documents submItted 111
support of the request for a variance rcgardmg the work to be done With regard to the site or any
phYSical structure located on the Site, will result 111 thlS vanancc bemg null and of no effect, and 2)
the requIsite blllldmg permlt(s) shall be obtamed" w(lthm' SIX months from the date of thiS publIc
Fl- l ~
,
; It J
J> r
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSqucry/IRL504 tmp/3/doc' :':
1! ' "
1 1l i~'L)~l '
.J I f ~ \- t
12/17/99
WlIlWord Document MINUTES
'1"'- \ 1..} l
Page60f8
..t!< Il... I
healmg The motIon was duly seconded and up'9'h the' v.ote bemg taken, Mr Johnson, Ms Whltney
and Ms Martm "aye", Chairman Phsko and M(!Ga:ns voted "nay" Mohon carned (3-2)
I _1 ~ ....l-
, ,
B6 Antomos Markopoulos (ParadIse Beach Rcsort (!)BA Days Inn) for a vanance of 100 sq ft to
penmt new motel rooms WIth 600 sq ft of nabltable ,fl'oor area where a maJomum 0 f 500 sq ft IS
allowed at 100 Coronado Dr, Lloyd-Whlte-Skmner, Lots 44-47 & Lots 90-93 and vacated street
together With ColumbIa, Blk A, Lot 1, zoned CR 28 (Resort CommercIal) V 95-18
." 3'
Mr Richter gave the background of the apphcafIOn':a~'dpresented, 10 wntmg, the staff
recommcndatlons He mdIeated the Clearwater Beach Days Jnn proposed to convert the fanner fourth
floor restaurant, vacant for seven years, mto SIX motel umts Each proposed umt Will contam two
sleepmg rooms, each WIth an ll1dlvIdual bathroom Mr Richter said staff expressed concern for the
posslbllIty ofmcreased denSIty of the proposed SIX motel umts, If the SIX rooms mto twelve rooms by
addmg doors '
, ,
Respondmg to questIons from the board, Mr Rlchler'sald parkmg WIll be less Impacted as a result of
thiS motel use, and present parkmg IS located across the street, to the south Thc applicant does not
need addItIonal storage space and wants to utlh~_e all of the fourth floor area for motel room space
....,.. j : J ~ t "'t I
The apphcant, Antomos Markopoulos, 100 C;ro~ai::ld D~lve, Clcarwater Beach Said he purchased the
- ~ t. I
property seven years ago, after It had been closca for eight years He conveyed hIS efforts to
rehabJiltate the property and said the shortage qI:,park!ng'precluded development of the fourth floor
restaurant Mr Markopoulos explall1ed the lllotel sUites were deSIgned to accommodate the needs of
Ius motel patrons who wanted separate quarters for adults and children It was noted that motel rooms
presently have mdlvldual room air condltIoners,"all of which arc 111 workll1g order Concern was agall1
expressed that the SIX umts could be eonverted tq t\y~lv~ With additIOn of a separatll1g door
_ ..:>' i I j I
There were no pcrsons or doeuments 10 support~of,or oppOSitIOn to the application
Based upon the ll1fOrmatIOn furnIshed by the apphcant, Ms WhItney moved to deny the vanance(s)
as requested because the appltcant has not 'subs~?ntlal1y met all of the standards for approval as lIsted
111 Section 45 24 of the Land Development Code Ther:e was no second
(.. f ~
Based upon the mformatlOn furnished by the apphcant, Mr Johnson moved to grant the vanance as
requested beeause the applIcant has substantIally met all of the standards for approval as hsted m
SectIOn 4524 of the Land Development Code, mpre spcclfically, because the vanance anses from a
conditIon ulllque to the property and was not caused' bY1the owner or applicant subject to the
fo]]owmg conditIons 1) ThIS vanance IS based on,thy appheatIOn for a vanance and documents
submItted by the applicant, mcludll1g maps, plans, surv~ys, and other documents submitted 111 support
of the apphcant's request for a vanance DeViatIon from any o[thc above doeuments submitted In
support of the request for a vanance regardll1g the work to be done With regard to the SIte or any
phYSical structure locdted on the Site, will result 111 thIS vanance bell1g null and of no effect, 2) the
reqUlslte bUlldmg pernllt(s) shall be obtamed IW,lthm"slx months from the date of tIllS public heanng,
and 3) the motel rooms wlll be a two bedroom, 'two ,bath' SUIte WIth one entranee only to be use as one
motel room per draw1l1gs submitted The motIon vJas dlLiy seconded and camed unammously The
board emphaSIzed that It be clearly understqod~thdt~app,r9val was granted for occupatIOn of the fourth
floor former restaurant area by SIX motel SUItes o-nly ,
~ ~ \ <1i.o;f~.. ~
B7 Lloyd S & Ruth B Marks (Dunkm Donuts) for,3,vanance of3 additIonal parkll1g spaces to
penmt 00 additIOnal parkmg spaces where 3 aqglhOl;IaI parkmg spaccs are reqUIred to allow a 194 sq
ft expanSIOn at 600 S Mlssoun Ave, Turncr Street Groves, Lots 6-13, zoned CG (General
CommercIal) V 95-19 "
t f~ ~
- >
J ~,\...
Mr Rlchter gave the background of the appllcatlpn,and,prcsented, Jl1 wntmg, the staff
recommendatIOns He indicated the cxpanslon,,\Y,0uld ,entail 84 sq ft for 3 walk-In freezer and 110 sg
, _ .,~ 1~"', \t;i'~,-,:I..
~.... }::-l j' ~.. ~
, f I!. ... ~ ~ ..... ~
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/3/docl, ".:''1-" "
12/17/99
()~ 1.!1lr~"- 'I:.. ~ ~ I ..... j...,~'" .., l,.
W1OWord Document MINUTES
\' It.. ~
'", l i '"'t t
.
Page 70f8
" J
, .
" " ~ ~\ J ("'"
ft of new seat10g and counter area This ad.dltlon wbulCl,reqUlre three additIOnal park10g spaces Mr
Richter expla10ed the applicant owns thc 1,250 sq ft >pawn shop next door which he plans to
demoilsh when the lease expires 10 Februdry,ll99Q Thirty-two parkmg spaces would then be
, '\ r
reqUIred, however, there are only 18 park10g sp,aces~avaIlable on the two sites and the property IS
substantially non-confom1111g ^' ! <. " '.
I _ .. \~ \ Il J
Speaklllg for the applIcant, John A Zlemlllckl, World Design, lnc , 4301 32nd Street West, #C-4,
Bradenton displayed a rendenng and expla10ed the Clrcumstanees sUlToundmg the applicant's request
He mdleated the present land-leased Dunk1O' Donuts site IS old and run-down, and corporate Dunk1O'
Donuts reqUIres ItS stores to upgrade to ItS new Image He descnbed the proposed walk-m cooler,
landscapmg and Sl te redesign to accommodate the 'additIOn of a dnve-thru, proposed for constructIOn
[ollowmg the demohtlon of the pawn shop, pres'ently 'own cd by the applicant
The Chmffi1an saId the board could better understand the applicatIOn If a site plan were submItted
with the applicatIOn IndicatIng what the proposed final, ~cheme will be, and submission of a signed
package mc1ud1Og explflng leases was suggestcd b'y the board
, -~
A motIOn was made by Ms Whitney to contmue thIs Item to March 23, 1995 to allow the applicant to
bnng m further documentation to support this 're'quest'-The motton was duly seconded and camed
unalllmollsly "., , \
'\ .
/ t I 'i.l t
The bOdrd recessed at 3 12 pm, reconveI1Ing'at-,3 2D'p'm dunng whlch time Mr Lance left the
meetIng , ,
"
~ .. ~ t, J,. tl
The follow1Og Land Development Code Amendments were considered
, ,
D1 Ordmance No 5768-95 of the City ofClearwdter, Flonda, relatmg to the Land Development
Code, amendIng SectIOns 40 433 and 40434, Code qfOrdmances, to provide for reVIsed permitted
and condItional uses mthe lnfill CommercIa] Dlstnct, amendmg SectIOn 41 053, Code of
OrdInances, to establish supplementary standards for approval for new condlttonal uses allowed m
the lnfill CommercIal Dlstnct, provldlllg an effectIve date
~"1.... t 11 4 ~ '!
'i ,
Mr Richter gave the background of the proposed Land Development Code Amendment and
presented, m wntmg, the staffrecommendatton's H~;l11dlcated this amendment addressed permltted
and condItIonal uses whIch were questIOned as a result of the rezomng of the Lakevlew Road area
SpecIfically, It proposes that 1) eonvemence 'stores; '2) mdoor commercIal reereatlon uses, and 3)
gasolme statIOns no longer be 10cluded as penmtted useS' and be desIgnated as conditIOnal uses,
thereby mandatmg approval by the Planlllng 8f Zomng Board
,
-... t ...
The bnef ensumg dISCUSSIOn detenmned ;fi'ofthe aboy~ three uses create consIderable vehlclllar
traffic The late hours and trash problems ofconvemence stores, the potent13l nOise problems of
recreational uses, and the late-mght hghtlllg and plOXlll11ty to nelghbors were mentIOned to support
approval - .' I' 1
A motion was made by Mr Johnson to recomm~nd: endorsement of Ordmance No 5768-95 to the
CIty CommissIon The motIOn was duly seconded and camed unammously
~ I ~,. I I
"
02 Ordlllance No 5769-95 ofthe City ofCleafWater,'Flonda, creatmg Section 30 058 to establIsh
vehIcle park10g restnctJons m residential areas; mcludlllg a prohibItion ofparkmg on lawns and open
space areas of slllgle family, duplex, and tnp1ex uses 111' residential zones and any unpaved street
nght-of-way adjacent to authonze the Issuancc,ofp,arkmg tIckets for any ViolatIOn of the parkIng
restnctlOl1S In residential areas and lllcorporatm'g HIe provlslO11S eontamed there1l1 III SectIon 30 058,
provldmg and effeetIve date
,
l \ ~ L J ~~ \ ~ I It_
, .
"1'\.. \ I "<,11 l\..,~ ~ ~""~1 1
.'
J
1<,
http //199 227 233 2911SYSqueryfIRL504 trrtp/3<doc i ~
12/17/99
I \ ~ f
, '
· WmWord Document MINUTES
1'1''';:.\ f"
" ,
Page 8 of8
II
, { ~ ~ I
l "J I ~
Mi Richter gave the background of the proposed Land Development Code Amendment and
presented, 10 wntmg, the staffrecommendatlOns' He il1chcated this amendment will preclude parkmg
vehiCles on front lawns and street nghts-of-wdy'adjolnmg residentIal neighborhoods and be enforced
by pohce issuance of parkmg tickets It will al~o rylocate the eXlstmg restnctlons regardmg boats,
R V's, traIlers, trucks, commercial vehIcles'located m-residential neIghborhoods flOm Ch 42 to Ch 30
of the Code ofOrdmances, placmgjunsdIctlOn"for enforcement of these vlOlatlOns wIth the police
departmcnt It was mentIOned that the ClearvvatEi BcacQ police are very much 10 favor ofth]s
proposed amendment " "
... J ~ \ .. ~ '\{
, 1
A motion was made by Mr Gans to recommend"endorsement ofOrdmance No 5769-95 to the City
COmm]SSlOl1 The motIOn was duly seconded arid c'arned unammously It was requested that the
citizen's letter receIVed m support of the proposed amendment accompany the board's
recommendatIon of endorsement to the CI!Y CommisSion
. t l 1 t
There were no ChaIrman's or Director's Items for consIaeratlOn
The followmg are Board and Staff commen~s
The POSSibIlIty of mcreased enforcement and ll1Vestigati'on of the background of applIcatIOns was
questiOned Mr RIchter said recent vanances 'rllll be ]IKJuded m the staff report and dIscussed He
Said, however, long tcrm history of properties is dIfficult to research, but all relatIve mformatiOn
avaIlable will be brought to the attentiOn oftbc board
t \~ ~ P. ~
I
For the mformatIOn of the board, a eopy of OrdI1nanec'5754-95, creatmg a new appeal process
whereby the City CommissIon will hear condih6hal'~ise appeals regardmg alcoholIc beverage
reqlllfements, was mcluded wIth their packets ~ ..'
~ ~ ~ \
The nced to enforce ordmances relative to problems wIth bIcycles and dogs on the beach was
, .,.;, \
menlloned The dIfficulty of deterrnmll1g whether an area of the beach ]s public or pnvate was seen as
.. \\ ......
a pOSSible Impediment to enforcement !" ,,, , , '
"
There bemg no further busmess, by motIo~ duly seconded, the meetmg adjourned at 3 39 pm
J t ..., ......
mmDC02b 95 1002/23/95
Ask me about ISYS
~---- -~~~- -~ -
~) ..1-
~ I Jo ~ l~1 ~ r",~ .
"
I '
II "'1
[~ ".II
> ,
~;\~
l ....1... l
tl, 1...Ir
'1" t ... "'\ t
ttr "...i ~\
... t ~ .. :! J \f
, .,
, .,., .
\ I r~ 4- ... ....
, .
.. I ~ ~ ~ I
http //199227233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/3/doc
12/17/99
~
WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADTUSTMENT BOARD
Page 1 of6
~ '
, .
t '
WinWord Document: DEVELOPMENT
CODE ADJUSTMENT,BOARD
Pre\' IOUS Next I[ilst I Natlvc VICW Back to New IHelRI
Document Document Hit WmWord Image Results Query
- ~
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
'\
WIllIam Schwob VIce ChaIr
"
~-
~ ~ ...",
'-.. /~ :. ~~ -:..
Wliham Johnson Board Member
~'
~
~ 1 ~ ..
, , ,
.,'t I~""{- ...............
Ron Stuart Board Member
Leshe Dougall-SIdes ASSistant CIty Attorney'
John Richter Semor Planner
...
Gwen Legters Board Reporter
Absent Mark Jonnattl Board Member
The meetIng was called to order at 1 00 p m m City Hall, followed by the InvocatIOn, Pledge of
Allegiance, meetmg procedures and explanation of the appeal process
,
To prOVIde cont1l1UIty for research, Items are hst~d m agenda order but not necessanly dIscussed m
that order , ; ','~ ,',
, ..>
Contmued Vanance Requests
I .. 1 ~
'.....
Bl Olen K & Pamela A Marks, Jr for the folloWIpg vananees (1) a lot wIdth vanance of 5 07 feet
to allow a width of 94 93 feet where a nlll11mum of 100 feet IS reqUIred, (2) a setback vanance of 7 5
feet to allow a proposed house and detached garage 7 5 feet from the northerly side property Ime and
7 5 feet from the southerly property Ime where a rnmlmum 15 foot setback IS reqUIred, and (3) a
heIght vanance 0[3 5 feet to allow a wall 6 feet hIgh where a maXImum heIght 0[2 5 feet IS
pernlltted at 906 DrUId Road South, Harbor Oaks Sub, Lot "G" and submerged land No 17492,
zoned RS-2 (smgle Family ResIdentIal) VR 96-82
In a letter dated October 8, 1997, archItect Alex Phsko requested a time extensIOn due to delays
caused by the appeal process The City has filed a petItIon to appeal the Admll11stratlve Law Judge's
{ , .
http //199227233 29/1S YSquery/IRL504 tmp/2/doe
I ~ J". I
12/17/99
WInWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE AOmSTMENT BOARD
Page 2 of6
, '
deC1SIOI1 to overturn the Marks' vanance approval
Member Schwob moved to grant a one-year time extenSion to December 12, 1998 The motion was
duly seconded and carned unaI1lmously ~, ,~
C New Vandnce Requests
"
, I
Applicants were advIsed an affirmatIve vote of three members IS reqUIred to approve vanances and
contInuance to the next meetmg may be reques~ed', '
Alexandros, Stamo, & Nick Gahatsatos (Alex Family Restaurant) for the followmg vanances (1) a
parkmg space vanance to allow fewer parking spdces than reqUlred, and (2) a structural setback
vanance to pernnt a kItchen additIon within the structural setbdck from a Side property lme dt 305
Coronado Dr, ColumbIa Sub No 2, Blk A, Lots 1 &'2, zoned CR 28 ( CommercIal Resort) V 97-63
1
Mr Richter presented background InformatI011 and wntten staff recommendatIons, stating the
applicant proposes to build a 418 square foot addItIOn to enlarge an eXisting restaurant kltehen He
detaJied site configuratIon, parkmg, and setbaek reqUirements Staff felt conditIOns support the
request and recommended approval wIth seven condItIons
.'
Anthony A10Izakls, a owner/applicant, stated th'e restamant needs a bigger kitchen The expansIOn
will elImmate parkmg spaces, but 14 off- site spaces will be mamtamed for restaurant use The
addltlon will align with the eXlstll1g bmldmg along the Side pIOpel1y Ime Mr AlOlzakls had no
problems with recommended condItIons regardmg design, dumpster location, and landscapmg He
,
estimated 95 percent of hiS clientele walks from surroundll1g hotels, because the parkmg lot IS rarely
filled He has operated the busmess 11 years General discussIOn ensued regardmg dumpster 10cdtIon,
trafflc engll1eer approval for handicapped parkll1g, and ?ff-slte employee parkmg
No verbal or wntten support or opposItIon was, expressed Board members noted the proposal's
tropical seascape theme and additIonal landscapmg treatments wIll Improve the beach without
economic gam by the applIcant ," ,
Member Schwob moved to grant the vanances as requested because the applicant has substantially
met all of the standards for approval as hsted 111' Section 45 24 of the Land Development Code,
subject to the followmg conditions 1) ThiS vanance IS based on the vanance application and
documents submitted by the appltcant, ll1eludmg,maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted m support ofthe applIeant's vanance 'request DeViatIon from any of the above documents
submitted m support of the Vdnancc request regardmg the work to be done WIth regard to the site or
any phYSical structure located on the Site, will r~sult, 111,th,ls variance bemg null and of no effect, 2)
the reqUIsIte bUlldmg penmt(s) shall be obtame4 wIth111 one year from the date ofth1S public hearmg,
3) Pnor to the Issuance of a bUlldll1g pern1It, t)1e applIcapt shall contact Centrdl Permlttmg staffto
reVIew tropical seascape deSign cntena proposed, for Clearwater Beach, 4) Pnor to the Issuance of d
buIidmg penmt, the applIcant shall contact CentraLPenmttmg staff to coord mate relocatIOn of the
dumpster, 5) Pnor to the Issuance of a buIldmg permit, the applicant sha11 contact the City traffic
engmeer to ascertall1 whether parkmg can ~e p.ro~llded to the east of the eXlstmg handicapped space
If determll1ed feaSible by the engmecr, parkmg sha11 be'provlded In thIS area pnor to approval of a
final1l1spcctIon, 6) Pnor to approval of a final nlspectJon for the additIOn, dense landscapmg shall be
prOVided 111 the area 111 front of the restaurant where pavIng IS to bc removed "Dense landscapll1g
shall consist of shrubs and one shade tree tha( at tmittffIty, will completely fill thiS area SelectIOn
and specIfi.catlOns for plant materIals shall be reViewed and approved by the EnVIronmental Officlal
pnor to ll1stallatlOn The plants shall be ma111tamed m a healthy condition, failure to do so shall
render vanance approval VOId, and 7) Pnor to approval of a finalmspectIOl1 for the additiOn, a solid
, l
landscape buffer shall be prOVided on the north dnd west Sides of the green space located north of the
restaurant SelectIOn and speCIfications for plant, ma~~nals shall be reViewed and approved by the
EnVIronmental Offic13l pnor to ll1stallatlOn Th'6 pl'ants'shall be mamtamed 111 a healthy condltJon,
tj. ~ I "t.....~
1 ~ ~"'" ]I 1[1"j \ 'l.~~' 11 jll Jt!,1 L
hup //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmpl2/doc, " '. '"
12/17/99
",
... !I- ~ ~
, '
WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 3 of6
~ "'\11
'r' "'.......
fmlure to do so shall render varIance approval ~OldJ'The motIon was duly seconded and camed
unal1lmously
, 1
,'--" t , I
"CLDavId LIttle for the followmg variances (1) lhe ~tructuraI setback variance reqUired to permit a
stamvay wlthm the structural setback from a side property hne (-<<J south fj> sIde), and (2) [or parkmg
space vanances to _~ ,__ _ _ ~ 'If_~_ . ___-_ __ ___ ___--
allow fewer parkmg spaces than the IeqUlred at. 333.. S~J'!(l .. ill Guljjlew" C>>Blvd _,)
Lloyd- White Skmner Slib, I1>C67, zoned CR28 (Resorf Co~mmercJal) V 97 -4:r----------
I
Mr Rlchtel presented background InfonnatlOn and wntten staffrecommendatIOlls, statIng the
eXlstmg bUlldmg IS occupied by a mix of coml11c[(;13I, office, and residential uses The applicant
wishes to locate a restaurant on the second floor, adchng a 272 square foot bndge and stair lift
EXlstmg ground floor retail space wIiI be realloc,~ted to"expand an eXIstIng lce cream store Setbaek,
parkmg and landscapmg reqUirements were summarized Circumstances supportmg vanance
approval were noted 1) the lot IS small, 2) the propos~1 wIll upgrade, not redevelop the site, 3) the
difference m parkmg reqUirements for eXlstmg and'proposed use IS only 14 spaces, 4) the property IS
compactly developed with no opportumty to add parkmg, 5) the parkmg variance IS reasonable as
much of the clientele IS pedestnan onented and'a lmge public parkmg lot IS located across the street,
6) the property IS 110t slgmficantly different from properties m the Beach Commercial zone to the
north where change of use does not reqUire added parkmg, 7) the bndge and staIr 11ft will ahgn With
the garage, 8) the proposed restaurant will enhance ambIance and appeal of the property and
Clearwater beach, and 9) the application IS an,opportumty to vastly Improve the property and
neighborhood by removmg back-out park)ng, enha\lqmg pedestnan and vehIcle safety, and mcreasmg
visual appcal With dense landscapmg The request 'appears to comply wlth all standards for approval
plOvldmg paved parkmg spaces m front o[the pQrch are removed and pavement m front of the
proposed stmr lift IS replaced With dense landscaplllg Staff reeommendcd approval With four
conditIOns ' "
j
ClarIfication was requested regardmg prevIous and proposed uses, Site upgrade vel sus total
redevelopment, and amount of floor space Illcrcase It was mdlcated elImlllahon o[ front parklllg and
Il1creased landscapmg are not shown on the pl~n ,submitted wlth the applicatIOn Updated plans will
be submItted today An attorney representlllg a tlmd party requested OPPOrtulllty [or cross
exammatIon eoncernmg the staff report A decIs)on was made to follow the board's customary order
of presentatIon ~ I M-\ ~ -,. '-<~ \
Hany Clme, attorney representing the owner/apphcanJ,\dlstnbuted caples of a plan showmg removal
of the front parkmg spaces He provIded an overvlcw ofparkmg conditions and the stamvay faCility
He detailed Site history regardmg ownership, constructIOn, orlgmal and subsequent zonmg, prevIOUS
uses, and proposed tropical seascape theme The, south stanway will not extend farther southward
than what currently eXIsts The footprmt will not crange,wlth the addItIon orthe 272 square foot open
bndge connectmg the stairway to the seco~ld noortrqst.~l}rant The connection WIll prOVide a second
eXit to meet fire code A staIr lift WIll provld~ hJ.pdlcapped patrons rare access to a second floor view
o [the water The bndge WIll not run the length, of the bUlldmg and open bamsters follow the seascape
deSIgn Pnnclpal market will be beach tounst p'e.destnan traffic A slgmfieant public lot eXists across
the street He detaIlcd how the req uest mcets each of the standards for approval He requested
reconSideration of the landscapmg conditions, notIng a tree m the suggested location would not
survIVe and would adversely Impact the view
.' \
In response to questIOns, Mr Cline reIteratcd all baq.k-out parkmg onto South Gulf view Boulevard
will be elimInated from the site Cars parked III two spaces servmg the reSidentIal use at the rear of
the property will have adequate space to turn around 011 SIte DIScusSIon ensued regardmg two storage
UllltS to be constructed at the rear ofthe site < , '
H ~ 1.
Steve Fowler, architect representmg the appjlc,;uit, t',tqr;::d tIe has worked extensively WIth staff dunng
the slimmer to resolve the SIte ISSUCS H e 9,I~played:a, sJte plan and detailed 1) location of two
~ ~ ~ J
t
hUp 11199 227 233 29/lSYSquery/IRL504 tmp/2/doC'l_ ' - "
II ,
t~ , -' r
"
12117/99
-. ~ ./,!: 'r1~ ~
Wm W OJ d Doeument DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
, ,
Page 4 of6
",
b l.r 1
I)l : or J
remalI1mg parkmg spaces servll1g the resldentl<ll:use, 2) 10cat1On of the stairway, hft, and desIgn
ratIOnale, and 3) landscapmg and amemtIes proposed to convert the former back~out parkll1g area mto
a pedestnan plaza resemblmg Pelican Walk' I'
. ,
.... ~ ... ~
One member suggested pnvate dnve slgnage to pretent cars from mIstakenly turnmg mto the
dnveway and havmg to back out Concem was expressed the pedestnan plaza contams no stoppmg
area for vehicles carrymg handIcapped passengers Pullmg mto the dnveway would necessItate
backmg mto traffic Dlscuss]on ensued regardmg how to accommodate handicapped patrons arnvmg
m vehlcles Mr Fowler submItted photographs of s!aIr JlftS D]SCUSS1On ensued regardmg the south
elevatIOn, use of the deck for outdoor seatmg,,287 'squg.'re foot total floor space lI1crease, Ice cream
store expanS10n mto eXlstmg retail area, current'usc of the proposed restaurant arca, and changmg
uses wlthm the ex]stmg footpnnt " '-
l
, '
DaVid Little, Property owner smce 1972, r,elated the property's history He wishes to Improve the
property wIth a commercial use He noted restaurants m the V]CmIty report empty parkmg spaces,
even when there IS an hour Wait for a table, because ofJieavy walk-up patronage He has met wIth
CIty Economic Development Keller and other restaurant owners about the proposal He explamed a
number of reasons he anticipates the parkll1g m1pact will be less than the prevIous real estate use He
has considered outdoor seatmg on the bndge, >>,hlch w)lll be attractive and funct]onal No hquor or
pool tables WIll be proVIded He expects the restjlur:~mt ,busllless WIll be the Canary Island Cafe
Seating capacIty Will be about 55 to 60, with nO' marc than beer, wll1e and light CUISllle menu, s]mIlar
to Hyde Park, or Sarasota's St Annand's CIrcle He responded to questIons about parkmg
reqmrements for the resldent]al/office use of the rear um t
\
One letter was submitted m support of the appl]c,at;on, pralsmg the owner for mamtammg and
]mprovmg the property 111 a manner conslstent1wlthJhe, accepted tropIcal seascape theme
-'.I'- ~ 1'. r "" ~ \." ""l
Ed Armstrong, attomey representmg the owner of surroundmg property to the north, south and east,
spoke m oppOSItIon to the request He cross- eX'ammed Mr RIchter at length regardmg vanance
hIstory, eode parkmg and setback reqmrements, zomng prOVISions III the subject and adjacent zones,
staff's ratlonale forrecommendmg approval, and1how the four standards for vanance approval relate
to the proposal wIth regard to phys]calul1Ique;ness ,Qf:t}11 property, reasonable use, economIc gam,
and safety The surroundmg property owner feyls th~,~ppltcant ]S overbmldmg the sIte by changmg to
a lIse that doubles the parkll1g reqmrement Hs:, l!rged,cod.e adherence or request for amendment In
response to questIOns, he smd hIs chent fears,rcstaurant,patrons would park on her lot to the east, on
the vacant lot to the south, and that the proposal,woJ..lld,negatIvely Impact her vIew Ifshe were to
develop hcr vacant lot He noted thc apphpant IQoes.not need vanances to remove dangerous back-out
parkmg, prOVide handIcapped accommodatlOn"Improve. the subject property and enhance
neIghborhood aesthetics In response to a,questIOn; ,Ms' Dougall-S]dcs Said the publIc hcanng notIce,
havmg been mailed mne days pnor to today's heanng, was reasonable notice Mr Armstrong stated
he would not have prepared hIS case differently had he,been gIven more tlme, but suggested a code
amendment to estabhsh a speCific pubhe heanng notIficatIOn tune penod
I .
Iii', , i '\ " ~l I
In summary, Mr Chne saId great care was gIv~n to, t~e,well prepared staff report, which adequately
detmls the request and adherence to the standards for approval DISCUSSIon ensued regardmg hmes
and avaIlab] lIty of pubhc parkmg, and the apph~arit's "dU3cussIOns wIth other pIoperty owners m the
~ 'I- ) \l! 'l.llit
V1Cll1Jty ; it' \.. \,
, ,
"Il l _ ..
Board members praIsed Mr RIchter's clear, c.onclse, and well conSIdered responses to today's cross
exammatIOn They appreciated hiS eareful atte~Jl5m to 9qde reqmrements 111 hIS recommendatIOns to
the bOdrd Most could not see where the propo~<}' w9.l\14Ihave a negative Impact on surroundmg
property It was felt approval based on thc, boan~~s 1I~~~i:p,[etatlOn, usmg the code as d gUIde, would
have a posItive Impact on the beach D]sC:l!sslon ~nsueq regardmg CIty and ADA handIcapped
pmkmg reqmrements One member d]sag!~ea ,with th,e proposal to trade parkl11g spaces for
landscapmg, statmg lfthe adjacent property oW_I1~r fe~ls the proposal will be II1Junous, she ]S
... t , ~ ~}l r1}<\ .... II
: .....,.~1 J j . ~1 )
i I (j 1 ~...r
I
hUp //199 227 233 29/fSYSquery/lRL504 tmp/2/doc '
( II j ,1
12/17/99
, '.
,
, ~ ,
WInWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUS,TMENT BOARD
Page 5 of6
, ~ I 1
probably rIght One expressed concem the board has no authorIty to grant a 1 equest that does not
meet all the standards for approval One reIterated extra parkmg ]S not needed 111 thIs locatIOn due to
the presence of heavy pedestrIan traffic DIScussIon ensued regardmg companson ofparkmg
reqUirements for a change of use In the Beach Commercial dIstnct
, "
I
Member Schwob moved to grant the vallances <IS r~quested because the applicant has substantIally
met all of the standards for approval as II sted 111 SectIOn 45 24 of the Land Development Code,
subject to the followmg conditIOns I) This va~lance IS b'ased on the dpplIcatlOn for d varIance and
documents submitted by the applIeant, mcludm'g n\!aps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submItted m support of the applicant's req'uest for a varIance DeViatIon [rom any of the above
documents submitted m support of the request for ~YdfJa'nce regardmg the work to be done WIth
regard to the sIte or any physical stmcture located on the site, WIll result m this varIance bemg null
and of no effect, 2) the reqU]Slte bUlldmg permlt(s) shall be obtamed wlthm one yedr from the date of
thIs public hearIng, 3) Pnor to approval oflhe finalmspectlOn, the paved parkmg spaces m front of
the porch and the pavement 111 front of the propqsed staIr-lift shall be removed and replaced With
dense landscapmg "Dense landscapmg" shaH qmslst of shrubs and one shade tree that, at matunty,
will completely fill this area Selection and speCIfications for plant materIals shall be Ievlewed and
approved by the EnVironmental OffiCial prIor to nistallahon The plants shall be mdll1tamed 111 a
healthy condition, failure to do so shall VOid !h,IS van?p,ce approval, 4) Pnor to the Issuance of a
buIldll1g penmt, the applicant shall contdct Central Permlttmg staff to reVIew tropIcal seascape deSign
cntena proposed for Clearwater Beach, and 5) The'area near the chair lift shall be made mto a
handicapped 10admg/unloadll1g area, posted With slgns:and stnctly enforced The motIon was duly
seconded ' ,I
, ,
, "
One member requested separate motlOns for the'vanances, statmg he would not approve setback
vanance at the expense of neIghbOrIng property owners' and felt the applicant needs to do more pubhe
relations work Member Schwob WIthdrew: the ni.obon The seeonder concurred
~ '" IF, Ii l ~ +.._
,
Member Johnson moved to grant the sJde se,tb~p,k Vana\ly'e dS requested because the apphcant has
substantially met all of the standards for aRn.rov~1 as, listed Il1 SectIOn 45 24 of the Land Development
Code, subject to the above condItions The r110tH;m was duly seconded Members Gans, Sehwob, and
Johnson, voted "Aye," Member Stuart votep ~'Nay ,"JMotIon eamed
~ J I J
Member Johnson moved to grant a total parkmg~vall<:Ince of29 spaces, because the applicant has
substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed 111 SectJon 45 24 of the Land Development
Code, subject to the above conditions Members Schwob and Johnson voted "Aye," Members Gans
and Stuart voted "Nay" ~e to the tie vote, the liequest was automatically cont1l1ued to the next
regular meetmg on October LJ, 1997 c
-- ~ ~
, .
Board members suggested the applicant talk With the 'adJdcent property owner regdrdmg the
application It was clan fled only the parkmg vallance will be addressed at the next meeting
SubmlSSlOJ1 of an dccurate Slte plan was request~d < "
.. I~ 1 .J ~
"
Member Schwob moved to commend Mr RIchter, and t'o,bnng to the attention of Ins supenors, Mr
R1chter's outstandmg answers to today's cross-',examll1_atlOn, hiS careful analYSIS of the proposal, and
log]cal recommendatIons to the board regardm'g'ltem C2, DaVid LIttle, V 97-43 The motIon was
duly secon$ied and camed unammously :" "l;~ 1,-' h; j"J
":.If~ 't' J'; 1 I ;..~'!.,r t
MInutes Approval September 25, 1997
, ,
\.t.... ... t...
~ ~ I 1 ~
. ,
Mrs Legters reported the board's second condlt'lOn of approval for Item C3 had been deleted [rom the
motion on page four madvertently She corrected the lTIll1utes to add the conditIon 2) In the event the
condltIonal use request IS demed, the vanance Is;rescmded
. ~ ,
Member Johnson moved to approve the mmutes'as'eOlTected The mot]on was duly seconded and
" '
~l- \ I
http //199227233 29/ISYSquery/lRL504 trnp/2/dbc'
J , it
12/17/99
WinWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 6 0[6
earned unanul10usly
< ,
Board and Staff Comments
. ,
. ,
1-
DISCllSSlOn ensued regardIng schedulIng cases for the; next meetmg Consensus was to schedule
today's continued ltem In the customary posltton1at the begnmIng ofthe agenda The ChaIr requested
mformatIOl1 from staffregardmg settmg time 111mts for/the presentatIOn Consensus was to allow 20
mInutes for the appheant's presentation "
. 1
Adjournment
The meetmg adjourned at 3 57 P m
I
f l ~l Ji
mde 1 Od97 6 10109197
\ ~ ~
/111' !!!.e about ISr~
"~
"l~\ 1 r-~+ ill ~
t:
i~i l1~p~~,~
"
.
~"\ ~ I
\.c
r..J I'L....< I-
,I:
,
\ i'}1n.
,',
. "
I.
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/2/doc ,
12/17/99
~ ,
(
WInWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 1 of 5
~~
i
, <<~~ I
.... -:-. .... -:: <<
WinWord Document: DEVELOPMENT
CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
PrevIous Next IFlrst I Native View Back to ~~
Document Document Hit WinWord Image Results Q!!m !mQ
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
~ber2~
Present Otto Gans Chair
Wilham Schwob Vice Chair
Wilham Johnson Board Member
Ron Stuart Board Member
Mark Jonnattl Board Member
Leshe Dougall-Sides ASSistant City Attorney
John Richter Seruor Planner
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
The meetIng was called to order at 1 00 P m In City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of
Allegiance, meeting procedures and explanation of the appeal process To provide contInUity for
research, Items are listed In agenda order although not necessanly discussed In that order
B CONTINUED VARIANCE REQUESTS
1 (Cont'd from 9/25/97) City of Clearwater (Kings Highway Rec Center) the structural setback
vanance reqUired to permit an addition to an eXisting bUilding which IS Within the structural setback
from a street nght-of-way (Heaven Sent Lane) at 1175 Kings Highway, Sec 2-29-15, M&B 33 02,
zoned OS/R (Open Space/Recreational) V97-60 WITHDRAWN
In response to a question, Seruor Planner John Richter stated Case V97-60 has been WIthdrawn by the
City DISCUSSIons ensued regarding the outcome Mr Richter said he did not know, but would
research the matter and report to the board at a future meeting
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/1/doc
12/1 7/99
. WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 1 of 10
WinWord Document: DEVELOPMENT
CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
I
PrevIous Next I Fi_rst I Native View Back to ~~
- ~ ~- -~-- ~ ~ -- Help
Document Document Hit WlQ.Wor~L Image Results QucrY
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
,
I
November 13, 1997
Present Otto Gans Chair
Wilham Schwob Vice Chair
Wilham Johnson Board Member
t j '.. -
, y,
, ~,
"
....i ..... t
Mark Jonnattt Board Member
Ron Stuart Board Member
'i
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
.
,>
John Richter Semor Planncr
Gwen Legters Board Reporter
The meetmg was called to order at 1 00 P m 111 CIty Hall, followed by the InvocatIOn, Pledge of
Alleglance, meetmg procedures and explanation of the appeal process
To provIde contmUlty for research, Items are !Jsted I n 'agenda order although not necessarily discussed
111 that order '
B Requests for ExtenslOn, Dcferred and Contlluled Items
~ \ t><r.
Jt ...~_...
, ,
, 13 !(20nt from-1 0/09 &-1 012-31-9-7)-DaY!~t LJttl~Jor'p~mgJ!P~ce variances to allow fewer parkmg
spaces than the req Ulred at <~t3}3_~ ~ ~Ollt" ... '*' Glllf)ll~rA> Blvd, Lloyd- Whl te Sk11111cr Sub,
Lot 67, zoned CR 28 (Resort -- ~--;~--:-
Commercial) V 97-43
, ;
The parkmg vanance was contmued from October 9 due to a tie vote and from October 23 at the
apphcant's request AppIrcant's representatIve, attorney Harry Chne, requested deferral oftlus Item
until after Item C1, below, to allow time for presenters to arnve Attorney Ed Arn1strong,
representmg the OpposItIon, requcsted the Chair to allow equal amounts ofhme for the apphcant's
presentatlOn and opposmg arguments Ms Dougall- Sides concurred the board's mles reqUire equal
tr I ,
, '
,
http /1199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/4/doc
f ~ ~ ...~
12/l 7/99
WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADmSTMENT BOARD
Page 2 of 10
, ^,
time limits for both sides She requested mcorpo~ahon of testImony, exhibIts, and mmutes from the
prevIous heanngs mto today's record
, '
Mr Richter summanzed background mformat!()ry and wntten staff recommendatIOns regardmg the
proposal to locate a restaurant on the second floor, constmct a 272 square foot bndge and stalr-hft on
the south side of the bUlldmg, and reallocate ground floor retail space The park1l1g vanances, eight
factors supportmg approval, and staff's recommended condItIOns of approval were discussed In
response to questions, It was mdlcated Traffic Engmeenng would be unhkely to allow a passengeI
drop-off area that blocked the dnveway, sldcwalk, and South GulfvJew Boulevard traffic willie the
drop-o [f was occurnng
,
,"
Harry Cline, attorney representmg the apphcant,'stated It IS ImpossIble to prOVide any parkll1g on the
Site He submitted for the record the resume and credentIals of an expert Witness, land planner
RIchard Dutter Whtle encouragmg board members'to take the resume mto account, Ms Dougall-
Sides stated the board has no rules of procedure requlflng quahfieatlOn o[wltnesses She CIted a
Flonda Statute, statmg that board members are not reqUJred to deCide whether WItnesses are
q ualtfied
,
Richard K Dutter, AlCP, Kmg Eng1l1eenng, detailed/hIs credentials and expenence m the planll1l1g
and zonlI1g field He stated It IS necessary for the board to evaluatc all cntena to sustam theIr charge
of ensunng all standards for approval are met Maps, charts, draw1l1gs, and stattstlcal data were
displayed for tllustratIOn He spoke at length regardll)g how the apphcant's proposal meets each of the
standards for approval, furthers the City's Compl)ehenslve Plan, and IS consistent WIth
recommendatIons from the Clearwater Blue RlbQon Task Force, Planmng and Zonmg Board, and
CIty admmlstratlve staff DISCUSSion ensued ~eg?rgmg"a,~tudy of peak usage tImes m the adjacent
public parkmg lot )'.
"
Upon cross exammatlon by Mr Arnlstrong, Mr Dutter responded adherence to deSign theme,
alchltectural style, and pedestnan onentatIOn,are not part of the standards for approval, but such
factors ale relevant to Clearwater beach DISCUSSIOn ensued regardmg othcr Slnltlar vanance requests,
whethcr the proposal was for economic gam, and I~yk.o[ a forula] deSign theme for Clearwater beach
Mr Dutter stated hiS profeSSIOnal opl1llon, based on 'years of expenence, the proposal would have no
quantItatIve affect on the surroundll1g properttes DISCUSSIon ensued regardmg vehicular access to the
subject and adjacent lots Mr Clme did not Wish to I edlrect
DaVid LIttle, the owner/apphcant, thanked staff for their support of hiS parkmg vananee request He
addressed comments dunng the prevIOus heanng aqout the potential Impact on adjacent property, and
read from a prepared statement regardmg history of property and uses m the general VICll1lty He has
supported the adjacent property owner's Improvements through the years, and tned unsuecessfully to
contact her regardmg thIS Issue He felt the proposed ca(e would benefit surroundmg hotel uses and
have much less Impact than the fornler real esta~e o,ff~~e:use He dId not feel fears that overflow
parkmg would occur on the adjacent lot we.reyahd,,:1,s tile lot IS barneaded and vehicles parkmg there
by mistake are towed He noted peak use of the publJC lot IS about 3 00 pin, whereas restaurant
r.,. .. ~..... ...
bUSiness IS more active dunng evel11ng hours He submitted an aenal depictIOn of the beach area
contam1l1g the subject property, and detm1cd the reasons he mvested 111 the plOperty He stated the
proposal IS the best and most reasonable use"and WIll be good for the property, neighborhood, and
C " ,
Ity , . , ,
. l.. l
.1 \II .' I'" I,," .... ~.... I
In response to questiOns, Mr Dutter reiterated d.etails o[.charts tllustrat1l1g the amount of parkmg
avaIlable 111 the vlclmty at vanous times He lI1(hpai,e~,1)y_ could submIt the matenals for the record If
reqUlred '-
l f/'t' 1 r'" ~
DaVid Little responded to cross exammahon by Mr Armstrong regardmg prevIous testImony on
amount of avatlable parkmg at vanous pomts 111 ,the h.lstory of site use, compaJ.lson to nearby Julie's
lesta.urant regardmg parkmg, number ofuscs, square footage, lot Size, and bUSiness operahon
> , "
!
I t l .... I ... ~ :
http //199 227 233 29!ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/4ICloc' ,J'~
,l "'; ),~~'f~~!\
12/1 7/99
H.. I~
. I ~ I
. WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 3 of 10
, ~
/....;, ~l ~
Rcspondmg to Mr Armstrong's assertIOn that tIle proposed use would be three times the Size of
Juhe's, Mr Little stated hIS property IS threym11esJa~ger than Iuhe's
rt ~~
Sumrnanzmg the testimony, Mr Chne stated'the standaJ,ds for approval are met and the use ]S
Inhercntly reasonable
Two persons spoke In support of the proposal, cxpressmg praIse for 1) the subject property's
aesthetIc Improvements, 2) use of the desIgn theme recommended and wIdely accepted for the tounst
onented area, 3) creatIon of another restaurantJo serve the two nearby hotels wIthout restaurants, 4)
Mr LIttle's vISion m ploneenng Improvements stmlllar,to what was begun m Ft Lauderdale tcn years
ago In response to questIOns, It was mdlcated the publ.1c lot always more parkmg available at 6 00
P m than at 3 00 P m
Mr Annstrong Introduced expert wltncss, urban'planner CynthIa Hardm Concems were expressed
with cxceedmg time hnnts for rebuttal and cross examination
"'" \ l .... J'"
, ,
CynthIa Hardm, AICP, Engelhardt, Hammer & ASSOCiates, drstnbuted caples of her resume detaIlmg
her crcdentlals and expenence as a practlcmg p~~nner She responded at length to questions from Mr
Armstrong regardmg non-confonnlty of the subject property, vanances haVing allowed mcremental
Improvements resultmg In overbUilding, and,assessmen,t of Impact on surrounding propertIes She
mdIcated the proposal does not meet the st,ancta.rds for approval as no specml circumstances eXist that
do not apply gencrally to other properties 111 the ,VlymIty.,~the property has no remammg histoncal
sigmficance, demal would not depnve the apphcant of reasonable use because he already conducts
multIple uses on the property, the request.Is based on economiC gam, the proposal IS not m harmony
WIth the Land Development Code, or COI\lprel~ersIye,Plan as It could be matenally lllJunous to
surroundmgs or pub llc wel fare She mdlcatcd t~c lac~ ,o~ parkmg W] 11 negatl vely Impact nelghbonng
propertIes becausc It wIll mcrease the need for qan}cades and towmg She stated the board docs not
havc the authonty under the current codeJocapplOve.qff~slte or shared parkmg agreements She said
multiple reasons eXIst why patrons might not want to walk the distance to the restaurant, and did not
agree that a restaurant could be vmble In her opmlOn, grantmg vanances to allow a restaurant With
mrxed uses and no parkmg prOVISIOn would set a precedent and open the City to more such requests
,
~ ~...~ ,
In response to a questIOn, Ms Dougall-Sldcs 1ll1crpretcd the word "use" III the second standard for
approval to mean use of the land or bUJldmgs)n~'general, and could favor multIple uses on a property
Mr Annstrong reiterated the applicant has been depnved of nothmg
'.
t''IJ~ r .....~
In summary, Mr Clme stated the restaurant US1:;IS JustIfied, conSistent with the high denSIty resort
zomng, meets the standards for approval, and 9upports<the spmt and mtent ofthe Code He did not
agree With the OppOSItIOnS' square footage cal~ulatl?ns .tIe noted Ms Hardm IS from Tampa and may
not be famJ\mr WIth the local neighborhood .' <- ~~1~,/,S. ,I
"
Board dISCUSSIOn ensued One member agreed a.restaurant at thiS location will work Without
addItIOnal parkmg One member did not see any, ,reason to thmk the proposal will negatIVely Impact
adjacent propertIes In response to a questIOn, Ns Dougall-Sides sard the board does not have an
ll1terpretalIon of what constitutes reasonable use. hlt)1e,absence of case law, she encouraged the
board to mterpret the Issue to the best of the]r.abl IIty "S,he stated the language does not speCIfy
whethcr "reasonable use" applies to eXistJi1g or:proposed use One member did not support the
proposal due to the adjacent property owner's obJe9tJon, and felt the applIcant currently has adequate
reasonable use One member expressed concerns a natural economiC evolutIOn eXists for beach and
other City propertIes that IS not reflected m the Land Development Codc and Comprehenslve Plan
He felt It IS a dIsservice to property owners, board mj::l11bers, and the commumty that thcrc IS not a
clear means by which to gUldc beach property'bwn'ersland enable deCISIOns WIth a common goal m
illll1d He supported the proposal pnmarlly because,]t Will resolve an unsafe back-out parkmg
SItuatIOn, as stated III correspondence from Central Penmttmg D]rector Scott Shuford One member
expressed concems that hardshIp and other speEI~S l.i1n~uage regardmg grounds for vanance approval
- to, , I
.... ~""I~:=;. ",,~l~; ...~...-
, ,
http //199 227233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/4/doc 1\ ,<'."
12/17/99
."
.... 1 I ....' ~
. WinWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADr0STMENT BOARD
" \
Page 4 of 10
t ~14 ~
were ellmmated from the Code, leavmg four noti-speclfic general standards for approval While
concerned that development on south Clearwater beach has progressed Without adequate attention to
standalds, he deCided to support the request because' he was Impressed by staffs charactenzatlOn of
the Issue, and felt It Important to vote for pI ogress
! r I I ..... ~ l
"-
~~ , ~\ ~ .. If ~ It
Member Johnson moved to grant the vanancc as requested because the applIcant has substantIally
met all of the standards for approval as lIsted m'.SectlOr1 4524 of the Land Development Code,
subject to the followmg condItions 1) ThIS vanance IS based on the applicatIon for a vanance and
documents submItted by the applIcant, mcludlng maps,- plans, surveys, and other documents
submItted In support of the applIcant's request for a vanance DevlatlOl1 from any of the above
documents submItted m support of the request for a VallanCe regardmg the work to be done WIth
regard to the sIte or any phYSical structUle locat~d pn the Site, will result m thiS vanance bemg null
and of no effect, 2) The requlSlte bluldmg penmt(s) shall be obtamed WIthin one year from the date
of this publIc heanng 3) Pnor to approval of the' finalmspectlon, the paved parking spaces m front of
the porch and the pavement III front of the propo?ed staIr-lIft shall be removed and replaced With
dense landscapmg "Dense landscapmg shall cO,nslst, of'~hrubs and palm trees that, at maturIty, will
completely fill thiS area Selection and specifications for plant materIals shall be reviewed and
approved by the EnVIronmental OffiCial prIor to'mstallatIon The plants shall be mamtamed III a
healthy condItion, failure to do so shall VOId ~lps,vanan~~ approval The applIcant shall work WIth
City Traffic Engmeenng staff to proVIde adequate 5ade\\~alk configuration 111 front of the property,
and 4) Pnor to Issuance of a bUlldmg penmt, the'applIeant shall contact Central Penmttmg staff to
review tropIcal seascape deSIgn cntena pr9pq~eq for,Clearwater beach The motIon was duly
seconded Members Gans, Schwob, Jolmson, and JonnattI voted "Aye," Member Stuart voted "Nay"
MotIon earrled ," ,"
J,,-r~ 1 ~ t... ~
... j ~ (
C New VarIance Requests
,
"
Cl Wesley C & Myrna L Curve for a height 'VarianCe of2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high wlthm
the setback area from the Tlmbercrest CIrcle Edst flght-of-way where a maximum heIght of 4 ft IS
reqmred at 2361 Millwood Lane, Woodgate of:<;;;ountryslde, Umt 1, Lot 193, zoned RS 8
( ReSIdentIal Smgle Famlly) V 97-68 ,L" ' "
~ j"< h "
Mr Richter presented background mfoffilatIon and :wntten staff recommendatlOns, statmg the
apphcant Wishes to place a SIX foot high wood,fepce on ,the wcst Side ofthe smgle family home Staff
felt condltIons support the request and recommended'dPproval WIth three condItions In response to a
question, Mr RIchter stated It appears sl1mlar nonconformmg fences m the VICInity are
grand fathered ,', . '" ":,"
\
Myrna Curve, the owner/apphcant, stated she wlsh,es' to ~eplace a five foot cham link fence budt m
1974 The old cham fencmg has been remo~ed 'Board members praised the home's attractive
landscapmg \ I" /-, i,
",
\. l ... ~1.
"
No verbal or wntten support or oppOSitIOn was expresse'd
I
,
-'
Member Schwob moved to grallt the vananee as requested because the applIcant has substalltJally
met a\l of the standards for approval as lIsted m SectIon 4524 of the Land Development Code,
subject to the followmg conditions 1) ThiS VanallCe ]S based on the vanance applIcation and
documents submitted by the applIcant, mcludll1g'maps;,plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted III support of the applicant's vanance reques( DeVIatIOn from any of the above documents
submltted III support of the vanance request regardmg the work to be done WIth regard to the site or
any phYSical structure located on the Site, WIll rssuH m thiS vanance bemg null and of no effect, 2)
the leqUlslte bUlldmg penmt(s) shall be obtamed,wlthm,one year from the date of this publIc heanng,
3) The property owner shall, wlthm 30 days,after,ll1stallatIon of the fence, plant a landscap1l1g buffer
outSide the fence parallel to the TImbercrest CIrcle East nght-of-way The buffer shall conslst of
shrubs at least 18 mches 111 height at the tlme'ofplantmg The plants shaH fonn a eontmuous, solId
1";'1 ::: ~ ... ~
I ~) l ~ I \l
http //199 227 233 29/TSYSquery/TRL504 tmp/4/doc '
$) 1 ,
12/17/99
, , -
i J Li. 14 ,l L
. WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 5 of 10
~ r ~ ....
screen at matunty Pnor to 1OstallatIOn, a landscapc:plan shall be submitted to the CIty'S
Environmental OfficIal and shall be subJeet to approval by thc Official Failure to ma10tam the buffer
10 a healthy condition shall vOId the vanances The mohon was duly scconded and carned
unammously , r ; >.'
,
The mectIng recessed from 3 45 to 4 01 pm.', \ "
'~~ I >.. I:'...
C2 John L & Pamela A Lux for a heIght van~!lce q.f,2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high wlthm the
setback area from the North Terrace Dnve ngl}t;-'of-way,where a maxImum height of 4 ft IS reqUired
at 1778 Audrey Dr, Pmellas Terrace, Lot 64, zoned RS 8 (Residential S10gle Family) V 97-69
l.,~ .1 ~ l ~ 't
M r RIchter presented background 1OformatIon'land-wntten staff recommendatlOns, stat111g the
appl1cant proposes a SIX foot high wood fence cnclosmg the Side and rear yard, adjacent to North
Terrace Dnve He detailed fence height, setback and slte.condltlons Staff felt conditions support the
request dnd recommended approval WIth four conditions
\ f 1 "1
t ,~ ~ ",.. \
John Lux, the owner/applicant, outlmed hIS plan, submlttmg caples of an ammal control report and a
color drawll1g of the enclosure area Board,members praised the eXlstmg shrubbery along the fence
lme and gcneral discussIon ensued ':~' , l.~'
l j ~) if I
The applIcant submitted a petitIOn WIth ten sIgn~tures mdlcatmg no objection to the proposal No
verbal or wntten oppOSitIOn was expresscd
Member Schwob moved to grant the vanance' as' requested because the applicant has substantially
met all o[the standards for approval as listed m ~ectIon 45 24 ofthe Land Development Code,
subject to the follow1Og condItions I) ThiS vm,jance'!'s based on the vanance applicatIon and
documents submItted by the applicant, mclud10g maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted III support of the applIeant's vanance request DeVIatlOn from any ofthe above documents
submitted In support ofthe vanance request regardmg the work to bc done With regard to the site or
any phYSical structure located on thc Site, wlII result Ill~trls vananee bemg null and of no effect, and
2) the requIsIte bUlldmg permIt(s) shall bC1obtamed'>wlthm one year from the date of this public
hearmg, 3) The fenee shall be located south of the cXlstIng hedge that parallels North Terrace Dnve,
and 4) The property owner shall mamtall1the eXIstmg,hedge Il1 a healthy condItIon In the event the
hedge IS not mamtall1ed III a healthy condllIonl It sh'all be replaced WIth a ncw hedge that shall form a
contInuous, solid screen at matunty, or thecv,anance shall become VOId The motion was duly
seconded and camed unal11mously , ,_ l,/ <"
> ,>
C3 Bay Anstoerat Vlllage Home Owners AssoclatIon,'Inc !Howard & Maxme Moorehouse [or a
sctback vanance of2 5 ft to allow a room additIon,; ~ tt from the West SIde property Ill1c where a
ml mmum setback of 10ft IS reqUired at 18675 US 19 N #263, Sec 20-29-16, M&B 31 01, zoned
RMH (Mobile Home Park) V 97-70
, ,
Mr Richter presented background mformatlOn ,and wJ.lttcn staff recommendations, stat111g the
applicant Wishes to construct a 99 square foot asldl!IOn. on the west Side of an eXlstmg moblle home
Setback, lot Width, and SIte layout were detalleA St~ff felt conditions SUppOl t the request dnd
recommended approval WIth two standard cOI)dltlon~ ,-:I,'
~itl ,II )~ f
PatncIa A Barnett, mobIle home Village manager \iepresentmg the applicant, submitted aenaJ
photographs of the attractive neighborhood, She'saJd"thelhomeowners aSSOCIatIOn highly
recommends approval of the request to Improve ~he property Board members praIsed the appearance
of the mobile home park, notmg ItS long~sta.ndmg reputatIOn as an attractive locatIon
11 .r ~
No vel bal or wntten support or opposItion was expressed
~~-~~
. ,
1 !. 1 ~
'k' ~t ~ ~.-'( .:r:.jfl
http 1/199227233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 trpp/4!doc'
12/1 7/99
. WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE AD IUSTMENT BOARD
\
Page 6 of 10
'"r
t - ,
..j
Member Johnson moved to grant the vanance as requested because the applIcant has substanttally
met all of the standards for approval as hsted m SectIOn 4524 of the Land Development Code,
subject to the followmg conditions 1) Th]s vanance]s based on the appltcatlOn for a vanance and
documents submitted by the apphcant, mcludmg n1'al)5, plans, surveys, and other documents
submltted III support of the apphcant's request for a vanance DcvlatlOn from any of the above
documents submItted m support of the request'for a 'vanance regardmg the work to be done with
regard to the site or any physical structure located 'on the' site, WIll result m this vanance bemg null
and of no effect, and 2) The reqUIsite butldmg pem1It(s) shall be obtamed w]thm one year from the
date of this public heanng The motIon was ddly. seconoed and carned unammously
C4 Bay Anstocrat VIllage Home Owners Assobatlc>"rr;lric INlck & Ilah Polhck, for a setback
vanance of 6 ft to allow a wood deck 4 it from the Soilth (rear) property Ime where a mlmmum
setback of 10 it IS reqUired at 18675 US 19 N'#259, See 20-29-16, M&B 31 01, zoned RMH (MobIle
Home Park) V 97-71
Mr Richter presented background mformatlOn and wntten staff recommendatIOns, statmg the
apphcant wishes to construct a deek on the west SIde of an eXlstmg mobile home Setback, lot Width,
and site layout were detatled Staff felt conditIOns support the request and recommended approval
wIth two standard conditIOns
PatncIa A Barnett, mobIle home Village manager, represented the appltcant She detatled the reasons
for the proposed deck 10eatlOn, statmg the prop6sea deek'wIll be on supports so It can be moved m
the future Bnef d]SeUSSlon ensued regardmg ownyrshlp of the property to the south
""'10 .... "I.
Member JonnattI moved to grant the vanance {ls}~.quested because the apphcant has substantIally
met al] of the standards for approval as hsted 1f!:Se~ct]()li., 45 24 of the Land Development Code,
subject to the followmg COnd]tlOns I) Thl's.vafl'an~e-ls based on the apphcatIon for a vanance and
documents submItted by the apphcant, mcludmg'maps, 'plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted In support of the apphcant's request fot a va'fl'ance DeViatIOn from any of the above
documents submitted m support of the request for a vallance regardmg the work to be done wIth
regard to the site or any phYSical stIucture located on the Site, Will result m thiS vanance bemg null
and of no effect, and 2) The requISIte bUlldmg penmt( s) shall be obtamed WI thm one year from the
date Oftl11S pubhc heanng The motIOn was duly seconded dnd camed unammously
j
, ,
C5 Lee & Salomea JakubOWICZ (Ivy League Motel) [01 the followmg vanances (1) a setback
vanance of 8 96 ft to allow a second .ooor addition 3 99 ft [rom the East Side property Ime where a
lTIllllmUm setback of 12 95 ft IS reqUired, and (2) a lot Width vanance of 81 6 to allow a WIdth o[ 68 4
ft where a mmlmum of 150 ft IS reqUIred at 600 Bayway Blvd, Bayslde Sub No 5, Blk A, Lot 6,
zoned CR 28 (Resort Commerc13l) V 97-72 ~:,- -I
i.~...I (.",1 I"
\I' 'J ~ ~....
Mr Richter presented background informatIOn and wll~ten staff recommendatlOns, statmg the
apphcant proposes to enlarge the manager's ul11!-of'an eXistIng motel The 650 square foot second
story addltlOn Will contam two bedrooms, a bathro'O.1J1Jloq stOlage area He detailed setbacks, lot
Width, and site configuration Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval
WI th three conditions " ,,'. "i \'1/":- F,
, "
\ t, j I j \ ~ I
Lee JakubOWICZ, the owner, applicant, stated.tlle motel had seven rental U111tS when he purchased It
The bedrooms are needed for hiS two chtldren, as the .umt"currently has only one bedroom He
expressed concern With delays to hIS project due,to nuscomrnumcatlOn 111 the CIty zonmg department
He hoped the rough construction can be fimshed before hiS guests arrive 111 two weeks Board
members apologized on behalf of the City and eneouragcd staff to work With the applicant to
expedite the permlttmg process ; 1
"
No verbal or wntten support or opposlhon1was expressed
~.. '" \...,
http 11199 227 233 29/ISYSqueryIIRL5041mp/4/doc
I , ,I'i
12/1 7/99
, WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 7 of1 0
"..J'
,
\,'- l j ""
Member Johnson moved to grant the vanance,<',lsJ~que?ted because the applicant has substantially
met all of the standards for approval as listed m-Sectlon 45 24 ofthe Land Development Code,
subject to the followmg conditIOns 1) ThIS vanance Is.based on the application for a vanance and
documents submItted by the applicant, mcludltlg m<}p';i,~ plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted In support of the applicant's request for alvanance DeviatIOn from any of the above
documents submItted In support of the request for a vanance regarding the work to be done with
regard to the site or any phYSical structure loc'at~d 19nJ]1~"slte, will result m thiS vanance bemg null
and of no effect, and 2) The reqUisite bUlldlhg pernllt(s) shall be obtamed w]thm one year from the
date of thIs pubhc heanng, and 3) Pnor to IS's4al1Ce of'l lSUlldmg permit, the applIcant shall contact
Central PermIttmg staff to review tropIcal seascape desIgn cntena proposed for Clearwater beach
The motion was duly seconded and earned una11l1TI0usly
1 ~ ~ ...
C6 Helen A & Paul A & Mary H Gelep for the followmg vanances (1) a parkmg van ance of 1
space to allow zero spaces where 1 space ]S required, (2) a bUlldmg coverage vandnee of 10 percent
to allow 85 percent where a maximum of 75 percent. is required, and (3) an open spaee vanance of 5
percent to allow zero percent where a mmlmum of 5 percent IS reqUired at 30/32 Papaya St &
442/444 Mandalay Avc, Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 80-85, zoned CB (Beach Commercral) V 97-
74 -
"'~{ .
In a letter dated November 12, 1997, the applIc'a~ts' jep.resentatIve requested a contmuance to allow
tlmc to finalize negotIatIOns concemmg tenant;f,eqY'lreinents No verbal or wntten support or
oppositIon was expressed \'1. $~' ;.7, ~
.. ~l~ l
..I", Iou-- t _~ 'l ~ ~..... ~
Member Schwob moved to contmue Item C6, \1,97-74,10 the meetmg of December 11, 1997 The
motIon was duly seconded and earned unamrnollsl;y t:d'k:
1 ~ ~ I'" ...~ I~ ~ ...<'...
1 "
C7 Dayton Andrews, Inc for a setback van~l;ce of20' 42 ft to allow an auto ramp 4 58 ft from the
Gulf-to-Bay Blvd flght-of-way where a mmlmum,sctback of25 fi is required at 2388 Gulf-to-Bay
Blvd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 2406, together with Gulf-to-.Bay Estates UllIt 3, Lots 594-597, zoned CG
( General Commercral) V 97 -73 , .
. ,
\ ~ ~ "' l ~ ';I
Mr R]chter presented background mformatJOn and wntten staff recommendatIons, statmg the
apphcant uses a vehIcle display structure currently'locdted 4 58 feet from the nght-of-way wlthm the
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard setback Concerns were expressed the structure presents an unattractive, stark
appeaIance, and poses a safety hazard by dImlliIshmg vlslblhty for motonsts leavmg the Site Staff
recommended movmg the structure back ten feet from the nght-of-way, providmg sklrtmg to screen
the under strueture, and mstallmg low shrubs to,softel\Its appearance Staff recommended approval
With SIX conditions . I;' ....' :
~ -.( ., f''''
11;~ L ~ r I
Blll Adams, eonstruct]on contractor representing the\applIcant, SaId such display ramps are common
at auto dealerships The applicant plans to Jandscape,a1mIg the flght-of-way m frol1t of the ramp 111
conjunctIOn WI th construction 111 the rear for whIch ,vanances were prevIOusly obtamed He stated
addltlOnallandscapmg would be difficult because the are bcneath the ramp IS totally paved He dId
not feel the ramp obstructs view any more than'tpe 'automobiles displayed for sale m the area He
submitted a photograph of conditIOns on th.e.lRroperty along the nght-or-way, notmg the view of the
ramp IS obscured by a SIgn He felt the owner rrfIght object to movmg the ramp back to ten feet from
the nght-of-way DiScussIon ensued regardmg,b~e ,ofthe, ramp fm automoblle storage and display
One member suggested allowmg adequate tIme to rcsolve vanous Issues assocrated WIth the request,
and tIme frames were dIscussed
t !l ...
n 1 j
No verbal or wntten support or OpposltlOn was 'expressed
, , '
Member Jonnattl moved to grant the vanance a:s.requ~sted because the apphcant has substantially
met all of the standards for approval as listed 111 SectIOn 45 24 of the Land Development Code,
IJ t 1'~'" F......
I,l j .... "'"......1.:
12/17/99
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery1IRL504 tmpl4/~oc' ','~
l. .....'f t 11 1'""",,;..1::'
, , -
"
. WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUS'TMENT BOARD
Page 8 of 10
11.....,,; I
subject to the followmg conditions 1) TI11s vananc~ IS Based on the applIcatIOn for a vanance and
documents submitted by the applicant, mc1udlhg rnaps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted m support of the applicant's reqtiest for ,rvamlnce DeViation from any of the above
documents submItted 111 support of the requestJqr a'vanance regardmg the work to be done with
]egard to the site or any physical stmcture locateD on the site, WIll result m thlS vanance bemg null
and of no effect, 2) The reqUISIte bmldmg perml't(sj'shall be obtamed wlthm 30 days from the date of
thIs publIc heanng, 3) The stmcture shall be reloeatid wlthm 90 days to prOVIde a mml1TIum 10 foot
setback from the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard nght-01f-way,'4) Wlthm 90 days, the structure shall be
outfitted With sklrtmg that IS complementary, to the structure's appearance, 5) WIthm 90 days, pavmg
shall be removed from m front of the structure to pro\lJde a penneable stnp for landscapmg whIch
measure at least 10 feet m Width, and 6) Wlthm 120 days, landscapmg shall be mstalled In the
aforementIOned 10 foot stnp to provide 100 percent coverage The buffer shall consIst 0 f shrubs at
least 18 mches m heIght at the time of plantmg Pndr tef'mstallation, a landscape plan shall be
submitted to the CIty'S EnVIronmental OffiCIal and shall be subject to approval by the OffiCial
Failure to mamtam the buffer m a healthy condltlOn shall VOId the vanance The motion was duly
seconded Members, Schwob, Johnson, JonnattI,and, Stuart voted "Aye," Member Gans voted "Nay"
MotIon camed " "
C8 Breezeway, lnc for a parkmg space vananc~ of 8f spaces to allow zero spaces where 8 spaces are
reqUIred at 602 PomsettIa Ave, Mandalay Replat Ul11t #5, Blk A, Lot 5 less the S Yz of the W 1;2,
~ I i l
zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial) V 97-66 ~~",
... ~ ... ~
I i~ } J I~ J II I'
M r Richter presented background mformatIOn ,and',wr,lttep staff recommendatlOns, stat] ng the
applicant proposes an addition to the northwest of four bluldmgs compns1l1g a ten Ul11t motel
complex ExtenSive renovations are propos~d to!prpmo.te the tropIcal seascape theme encouraged on
CleaI water beach, prOVide a umfornl appearance, for the bUlldmgs, remove pavmg, and proVIde open
space Parkmg reqUIrements were dIscussed : 1~ ,
\,
l( .1
Han y Chne, attorney representmg the applicant, 'stated an Austnan mterest purchased the property
five years ago They have developed an older, European clientele that generally VISitS three to four
weeks at a tune, rentmg cars when needed for SIte speCific VISItS Cars are not generally parked on
sIte He presented a photographic compOSIte of,exlstIng condIttons and drawmgs of proposed
Improvements DISCUSSion ensued regardmg thelsIte plan, eXIstmg sIgnage to be Iemoved, roof
deSign, elevatIOn drawmgs, the remodeled exten_or., and proposed matenals
I ~. ,
D]SCUSSlon ensued regardmg the parkmg provIsion and needs It was not known whether a Wide
landscapmg stnp between the curb and property hne could support parallel parkmg Concem was
expressed wlth thc practice ofparkmg cars acr6'ss t!l,ejsldewalk In front of the front doors
. -
"
No verbal or wntten support or OppOSItIOn v.;as gXPIe,ss,~d
~ 1.~1t' lS~/"";!).
Member Schwob moved to grant the vandnce,as;requested because the applicant has substantially
met all of the standards for approval as hsted1mSectJon 4524 of the Land Development Code,
subject to the follOWIng conditions 1) Thls'vdnance IS based on the application for a vananec and
documents submitted by the applicant, Includmg maps,: plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted 111 support of the applicant's request for a vanance DeViatIOn from any of the above
documents submItted 111 support of the request for a vanance regardmg the work to be done wlth
regard to the SIte or any phYSIcal structure .located on the SIte, wtll result m thiS vanance bemg null
and of no effect, 2) The reqUIsite butldmg permlt(s) shall be obtamed wlthm one year from the date
of thiS public hearmg, 3) The concrete apron between the new addition and thc Juamta Way nght-of-
way shall be rcmoved and replaeed wlth grass and/orJandscapmg, and 4) The applicant shall submIt
elevdtlon drawmgs and plans for review by the'Dev,elopment Code Adjustment Board whIch
accurately and completely display the proposed Improvements for thIS property These plans will be
mcorporated mto the offiCial record, and vananc~ approval IS contmgent upon executIOn and
construction ofthe work shown on these documcnts 'the motIOn was duly seconded and camed
'VI ! It.>..o: ... .t~..l
~ ......1 \. r ~ r ~ ~;:;.
""
http 1/199 227 233 29/lSYSquerylIRL504 tmp/4/tlp9>: -J,T'
i" \ 1 111'"
..... t"1
,t J
12/17199
~l l". ,
. WinWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE:ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 9 of 10
unanuTIously
. ,
~) l l ~ J f; ~ 1''''1
..... \ ~}t
C9 Betty Jones/Joyce SIiver/St Matthew:s FlrsJ MIsslOnary Bapt]st Church for the followmg
vanances (1) a parkmg vanance to allow up to 52 reqUIred parkmg spaces on a non-adjacent site
(proposed address 807 North Myrtle Avenue, Morton Plant Mease Healthcare Famlly Practice
Center), and (2) an open space vanance for the lotrofthlrteen percent to allow 22 percent where a
mmmlum of35 percent IS reqlllred at 710 N Myrtle Ave, H Padgett's Sub, Blk 1, Lots 5 & 6, Blk 2,
Lots I, 2 and part of Lot 3 together with part of proposed vacated Alden Ave, zoned RS 8
(ReSidential Smgle Family) V 97-76
In a letter dated November 12, 1997, the applIcants: representative request a contmuance to December
11 to allow time to resolve an Issue regardlllg parklllg space reqUIrement No verbal or wntten
support or oppOSItion was expressed "
...-! H r ~ ~,
Member Stuart moved to continue Item C8, V 9'7-v6 t,o the meetmg of December 11, 1997 The
motion was duly seconded and earned unammously 7 ,
C 10 Damel & Annette Macre (Macre Constr~ctlOn) for the folloWlllg vanances (1) a height vanance
of 120 ft to allow a tc1ecommumcatIon tower 180 ft heIght where 60 ft IS the maxImum height, (2) a
setback vanance of 80 ft to allow a telecornmul1lcat]on tower lOft from the South Side property Ime
where a minImum setback of 90 ft IS reqmred,\ (3) a,setbaek vanance of 825ft to allow a
telecommUnIcation tower 75ft from the East,s]de property lme where a mllllmum setback of 90 ft ]S
req Lllfed, and (4) a setback vanance of 82 5Jt to ,allow a' ,telecommUnIcatIon tower 75ft fro111 the
West Side property hne where a mllll111um setback of 90 ft IS reqUired at 1231 N Hercules Ave, Sec
12-29-15, M&B 13 06, zoned IL (Ll111lted,Industnal) V 97-75
....;. ~ 1 j ~
Mr Richter presented background mformatIon and WrItten staff recommendatIons, stating the
apphcant proposes to replace an eXlstmg 154 foot tower m the center of the property WIth a 180 foot
tower III the southeast eorner The new structure ,will be stronger to support addItional
telecommUnIcation carners Mr Richter related,the proposed locatIOn, zomng, current development,
height and setback reqmrements He noted concerns regardmg the heIght m proXImity to the
Clearwater Airpark, and appearance of the tower The aesthetic IS due to the visual Impact of the
three-legged desIgn when a slender monopole deSign IS less easily seen Staff has addressed these
concerns to the applicant DISCUSSIon ensued i~gardmg, the City's height and hOl1zontal distance
reqUIrement m relatIOn to the airport, the flight path and runway approach An airport approach zone
map and a boundary survey o[the subject property were submItted for the record
... J _ll '-
" I ;'~"',"
Lee Barnard, tower contractor representmg tl1e 'JpplIcanJ, dIscussed FAA regulatIOns compared to
C1ty zonmg reqUirements, the owner's use oJth~l,exlstll1g, tower, and plans to co-locate othel
telecommUl11CatlOl1 camers The stronger !9Y..:CfrWI]] support addItIOnal wmd 10admg No reSIdentIal
uses eXist wIthm the tower fall zone The new locatIon IS farther from the road wlthm an mdustnal
area In response to questIOns, he smd a mopopql,e 15 not as structurally strong as a three-legged towel
and could hold only the eXlstmg antennas wlthP4t ~xpaI;1slOn He did not feel a monopole tower could
carry the reqUIred number of coaXial cable~ WIthout mcrcasmg the WIdth from four to five feet at the
base, addmg conSiderable expense He was wlllmg- to reduce the height to 155 feet, but suggested
amendmg the code Il1stead ofreducmg tower heJghts Dlscuss]on contmued Iegardmg tOWel he1ght
and deslgn Staff expressed coneems With the a~esthetlcs of large Circular antennas on a tower
depIcted 111 a brochure Mr Barnard smd those.ITllcrO\yave dlshes wIiI not be used on the proposed
tower DIScusslon ensued regardmg proposed language for a motion to satisfy staffs concerns
, -
"I "~ ~
One member did not feel the requested setbac~,yafl,ance? were Justified, but was wIl1mg to
compromise by approvIl1g a monopole tower ~~~r ,,1.ySS ~Isuallmpact He felt It would be a dlsservlce
to the CIty not to 1l1VestIgate co.locatlon on s~y~~al other, towers eXIstmg wlthm the mdustnal park
DISCUSSion ensued regardmg the ments ofbUl,ld1l1g more,monopole towers carrymg less eqUipment,
versus havmg fewer but stronger towers able' to support more carners
,-
'I
~ :1, ;".'\ .-
, ,
\ '" tl......
12/1 7/99
http / /199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/4/doc .,.,
,
. , !
, '
~ 1 t...
, ,
1."\ ! 1 I
. WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 10 of 10
, .
I ,
, '
~ J .... ~
~ f: 1 41 i"~ J'
"I ,
Concern was expressed wIth approvmg someth!ng\wlthput seemg It A contmuance was requested to
give the applIcant an opportumty to provl~e' a;sk,et~h",Qftthe proposed tower's appearance under
maximum usage ~" ,
,
Member Jolmson moved to contmue Item Cl 0, ill 97-75, placmg ]t first on the agenda of December
11, 1997 The motion was duly seconded and carn~d .unammously
~ ~ It ~
MlIlutes Approval -- October 23, 1997
,'11' ~::, (, ';
, I
Member Johnson moved to approve the mlllutc~ as submItted III wntmg to eaeh member by the Board
Reporter The motion was duly seconded and carned.unal1lmously
Board and Staff Comments
.1 l l
, J
; i. ~ 1 r:':;
Regardmg the Kmg's HIghway RecreatIOn Center vanance request, Mr Richter said the City IS
lIlvestlgatmg options and has not deCided which alternative will be selected He reported the concern
about debns at the McDonald's restaurant has been forwarded to Code Enforcement along with a
copy of the mlllutes requestmg cleanup Broke;n tiles have been repaired at Pehcan Walk The City
Manager has postponed hiS VISit to the board's next meet111g Mr Rlchtel requested the bomd to
review the proposed 1998 meetlllg schedule for' adbpflOn at the next meetmg He noted fourteen cases
are scheduled for December 11, plus the three contl,nued from today's meetmg
t I I \..
\ '
Bflef diScussion ensued regardmg whether to 'selledule a holiday luncheon Two members mdlcated It
would be difficult for them to attend (,;-, -, r't
~ .'
Mr Stuart suggested groupmg a number ofvamlnce requests together, SImilar to the City
CommissIOn's consent agenda Ms Dougall~Sldes mdrcated no procedure IS m place for such a course
of action as each case IS an advertised publtc heaflng \- I
~ -:~1 -kl ~ ~ ~~ .
1 -
Adjournment
1 .
The meeting adjourned at 6 14 P m
:( J. (!l. j..... ....
~ !... ........ h..
mdc 1197 12 11/13/97
.t 1 ~ ~ I ...
"\L,.;....1!...1 ~Jo}o.l;jJ ~ I ,~ ...
4
,~ ,
, ,-
~ LA 'l
<. _ II
\~ 'I l,f <J..li ~
: of ;~ ,~
A~k me about lSYS
~ ~.t .) 'f
'\~ :..,~l
J.' /"
(to T'~ )...
,-1 - ~'
, f
I ;.~!
,
IjchllJ
II, f.....J
t~l\ ~I I~.t......~
~ ,;~~ ~\' ~ ..J :1J~l
"
1 "
) j ld
~ ! ,\,
\1 .....-d. '...; t I l )
~ t ~H D
, ; ,
J (;.. f... ~ ~~t I
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/4/qoc
12/1 7/99
WIn Word Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADmSTMENT BOARD
Page 1 of12
WinWord Document: DEVELOPMENT
CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Prcvlous Next IFiG'! I NatIve VICW Back to New IHelf!1
___~_w -~-~
Document Document Hlt WInWord Image Results Query
- --
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADmSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
. ,~
Present Otto Gans Chair
WIllIam Schwob VIce Chair
Wilham Johnson Board Member
... - ....-
Mark JonnattI Board Member
Ron Stuart Board Member
'r\t
, 'i
LeslIe Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney -
1)\ \ t}
John Richter Semor Planner
Gwen Legters Board Reporter
The meetIng was called to order at 1 00 pm In City Hall, followed by the InvocatIOn, Pledge of
Allegiance, meetmg procedures and explanatIOn of the appeal process To proVIde contmUlty for
research, Items are listed m agenda order although not necessanly discussed m that order
A Time ExtenSIOn Requests
Al Jolm Hancock Mutual LIfe Insurance Co (Wmn DIXIe) for the follOWIng vanances (1) a parkmg
space varIance of 84 spaces to allow expansIOn of a shoppmg center where 69 new spaces are
reqUIred and no new spaces are prOVIded, and 15 eXlstmg spaces are displaced, and (2) an open space
vanance for the lot of 9 3 percent to allow expansIOn-of a shoppmg center where 0 3 percent of the
reqmred open space for the lot IS displace at 25,14 McMullen-Booth Rd, Sec 28-28-16, M&B 33 02,
zoned CC ( CommerCIal Center) & OL (Ll~mted-Office) VR 97-04
In a letter datcd November 25, 1997, the appltcants"attorney requested a SIX month tune extcnSIOn to
allow tIme for the mterested parties to close the]r transactions, and for the new owner to submn the
penmt request \
Member Johnson moved to grant a SIX month tune extenSIon to July 9, 1998 The mot1On was duly
~ t ~ 1 ~ d
http //199227233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/5/doe
12/1 7/99
WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 2 of 22
seconded and carned unanimously
B Contmued Vanance Requests
B 1 (cant from 2 II 13197) Daniel & Annette Macre (Macre Construction) for the follow1l1g vanances
(1) a height vanance of 220 ft to allow a telecommunIcation tower 180 ft height where 60 ft IS the
maxImum heIght, ( 2) a setback vanancc of 80 ft to allow a telecommunicatIOn towel lOft from the
south sIde property Ime where a mmUTIum setlJ~ck' Of 90 ft IS reqUIred, (3) a setback variance of 82 5
ft to allow a telecommunIcatIOn tower 75ft [rom the east side property l1l1e where a mll11mUm
setback of90 ft]S reqmred, and (4) a setback vanance of82 5 ft to allow a telecommu11lcat]on tower
75ft from the west side property l1l1e where'a mlmmum setback of90 ft IS required at 1231 N
Hercules Ave, Sec 12-29-15, M&B 13 06, zoned IL (LimIted Industnal) V 97-75
Mr R]chter presented background mformatlOn and wnttcn staffrecommendatlOl1s, statmg thIs Item
was contmued from the prevIous meetmg due to aesthelIc concerns regardmg a proposed three-legged
tower The applicant has amended the design to a monopole tower, and provided drawings at the
boa]d's request The applicant has consented to reduelng the proposed height as recommended by the
City, due to aIrcraft safety concerns at thiS location near the Clearwater A]rpark Staff felt condItIons
support the request and recommended approval with SlX standard condltlOns
Lee Barnard, tower contractor representmg the applicant, stated the three- legged tower desIgn was
replaced by a monopole placed further toward the back of the property The apphcant will meet the
CIty recommendatIOn to ensure the tower does not excced 221 feet above mean sea level A survey
will determme the elevatlOn dIffeIence bctween1the alrport and the subject property He felt It ltkely
the filllshed tower wIll be 150 feet tall and capable 'ofholdmg equIpment for three to four major
te1ecommUnICatlOn ca:mers As thIS figurelwas,9?tIl11at,ed usmg computer software, It IS not known
whether the applicant will sacnfice capabIl]ty,by changll}g to a monopole structure In response to
questions, Mr Barnard was wIllIng to state m \xnttng)he applIcant's mtentlon to pUlsue co~locatIon
of other telecommUnIcatIOn carners' eqUIpment Currently the applIcant has commItments from
PnmeCo and Sprll1t, ll1 additIon to his eXlstmg.t%-way radio setup He noted three shaped on the
drawmg are attachment hardware All wifing will be contamed w]thm condUit runmng through the
center of the tower
No verbal or wntten support or opposition' was expressed
Member Schwob moved to grant the vanances as requested subject to staffs recommended SlX
conditIOns The motIon was duly seconded Amendments were requested to ensure precise tower
helght and the applicant's intentIOn to pursue co-locatIOn are documented for the record DISCUSSIOn
ensued regardmg eomparatlve elevatIOns, and thc code requnement that the finished tower height at
the subject locatIon not exceed 150 feet above the airpark elevatiOn Member Schwob w]thdrcw the
motion The seconder coneurred '
~~ ... ':...... 't j"-
~ L1 ~ f' (:.
Member Schwob moved to grant the vanance as,requcst~d because the applIcant has substantially
met all standards for approval as listed m SectIon 4~ 24 of the Land Development Code, subject to
the followmg conditions 1) ThIS vanance ]S ba~ed on tpe, vanance applicatIon and documents
submitted by the applicant, mcludmg maps, plans,tsurveys, and other documents submitted m support
of the applicant's vanance request DevratlOn from any o(the above documents submitted m support
of the vanance request regardmg the work to,be done with regard to the site or any phYSical structure
located on the SI te, Will result m this vanance bemg null and of no effect, 2) The req UISI te bUlldmg
pem1It(s) shall be obtamed wItlun one year from the date of thIS public heanng, 3) The submitted
perml t drawmg Will mdlcate the precise tower heIght, which shall not exceed a height of 221 feet
above mean sea level, 4) The tower shall be a monpP91~ lower, 5) There shall be no microwave
antennas affixed to the tower, 6) The eXlstmg tower shall be removed wIthm 60 days after City
approval of the final Inspection for the new towel, and 7) A letter shall be subnlltted to the CIty
mdlcatmg the tower IS avaIlable for co- locatIOn by, o~her telceommumcat]on calTlers The motIon
" ,
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/lRL504 tmp/5/doc
12/1 7/99
WinWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 3 of 12
was duly seconded and carned unammously
Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides was requested to prepare and submIt the board's final order m
wntmg for the Chair's SIgnature Consensus was' board.adoptIon was not necessary
J 'I.. f I
+1' ... ~ l ~I
B2 (cant from 11/13/97) Helen A & Paul A & Mary' H Gelep for the fo Ilowmg varIances (I) a
parkmg vanance of 1 space to allow zero spaces wheIe I. space IS reqUIred, (2) a buddmg coverage
varIance of 10 percent to allow 85 percent where a maximum of 75 percent ]s reqUIred, and (3) an
open space vanance of 5 percent to allow zelo percent where a mmImum of 5 percent IS reqUIred at
30/32 Papaya St & 442/444 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 80-85, zoned CB (Beach
Commercial) V 97-74 '
In a letter dated December 8, 1997, the appltcant's archItect requested contmuance to allow tune for
the owners to finalize negotIations concemmg tenant reqUirements No verbal or wntten support or
opposItion was expressed
, '
Member Schwab moved to contmue Item B2 to ~he meetmg of January 8, 1998 The motion was duly
seconded and earned unammously
B3 (cont from 11/13/97) Betty Jones/Joyce SIlvel/St Matthew's First MISSIOnary Baptist Church for
the follow1l1g vananees (1) a parkmg vanance,t9 allo\.v'up to 52 reqUIred parkmg spaces on a non-
adJacent site (proposed address 807 North Myrtlej~venue, Morton Plant Mease Healthcare FamIly
PractIce Center), and (2) an open space vanance for, the lot of thirteen percent to allow 22 percent
where a mlmm um of 35 percent ]s reqUIred at 7,10 N Myrtle Ave, R H Padgett's Sub, B Ik 1, Lots 5
& 6, Blk 2, Lots 1,2 and part of Lot 3 together WIth part of proposed vacatcd Alden Ave, zoned RS
8 (Resldentlal Smgle Family) V 97-76 '"
... ~ ~ 1 l 1 1
Mr RIchter presented background 1l1formatIon and wntten staffrecommendat]ons, statmg thiS Item
was contmued from the prevIOus meetmg at the apphcants' request Morton Plant Hospital proposes
to use the property as a parkmg lot to serve a new medical office bUlldmg located diagonally across
Myrtle Avenue Mr Richter stated detaIled park1l1g calculat]ons, statmg a new parkmg lot plan has
been submitted, negating the need for the open space vanance Staff felt the economic and health care
benefits to the neighborhood from the faCIlIty outweigh the safety concerns With locatmg a parkmg
lot across an artenal street Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval With
four condItlOns
Mark Marquardt, attorney representmg the apphcant, Withdrew the open space vanance rcquest, for
the record He stated employee parkmg IS needed to accompltsh placmg the hospital's famIly practIce
program and UmversIty of South FloTlda/Mort9}1 Rlant Medical School rcs]dcnt housmg faclhty Jl1
the area The faCIlity wIll help meet economlS develop]nent and health care needs of the
neighborhood's residents Tn response to quest~o)1s, It 'Yas md]cated employee hdndlcapped parkmg
spaces WIll be provlded on the faCIlity site ,MI 1Mal;q,Ua\~t mdlcated Morton Plant works With the
State and chanty orgamzahons to prOVIde J1eaJth certa111 'care services at low or no cost to help low to
moderdte Illcome cItizens m the area
, ,
- "
DISCUSSion ensued regardmg one member's concem that the parkmg lot property could be sold m the
future, leavmg the medical faCIlIty With madequate parkll1g area Mr Marquardt responded the
applicant agrees to a Umty of TItle for the two properties One member supported the request
because the lots are small, and development needs must be reevaluatcd as an area changes
~ I JI
No verbal or wnttcn support or opposItion was expressed
Member Schwab moved to gIant the vanance as requested because the applicant has substantIally
met all standards for approval as listed 111 Section 45 24 of the Land Development Code, subject to
the followmg conditIOns 1) ThIS vanance IS based on the vanance applicatIon and documents
..., j _r..... ... f~~-\
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery1IRL504 tmp/5/doc< .L,
12/17/99
, ,
WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 4 of 12
"
,
submitted by the applicant, mcludmg maps; plaris,'-surveys, and other documents submitted m support
of the applicant's vanance request DevlatlOn from any of the above documents submItted m support
of the vanance request regardmg the work to be'dorie\vlth regard to the Site or any physical structUle
loeated on the sIte, WIll result m this vanance bemg nOun and of no effect, 2) The reqUlsI te bmldmg
penmt(s) shall be obtamed wIthm one year from the date of this pubhe heanng, 3) The off- sIte
parkmg lot shall be hmlted to 45 spaces, and 4)'The open space vanance shall be null and vOId Thc
motion was duly seconded and carned unammously
C New Vanancc Requests
, 1 ~ ... 1 I
, ,
Cl Judy Lee Colteryahn for a height vanance of2 ft t6 allow a wood fence 6 ft high wlthm the
setback area [rom thc Maxima Avenue nght-of- way where a maximum height of 4 it IS reqUired at
3275 Sdn Bernadmo St , Del Oro Groves, Lots 476,477,478, and part of Lot 475, zoned RS 4
( Smgle Family Residential) V 97-77 '
Mr Rlchter presented background Information a~d'wf]tten staff recommendations, statIng the
applicant proposes to enclose an eXlstmg screened sWimming pool area to the rear ofthe smgle
family home Staff felt eondltIons support the request and recommended approval with three
conditions " J - ;"
Judy Colteryahn, the owner/applicant, stated the'{erlc'e IS needed for safety, aesthetics, and to protect
neighborhood children It wlll match a fenc~ locate"d on property dcross the stIeet
, '( , :
No verbal or wntten support or OPPosltIon'\~aslexpress'ed
,I '
,
Member Jonnattl moved to grant the vanance as r~quested because the applicant has substantIally
met all standards for approval as listed In SectlOn 45 24 of the Land Development Code, subject to
the followmg conditions 1) This vanance IS bascd on, the vanance apphcatlOn and documents
submItted by the applicant, mc1udmg maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted m support
of the applicant's vanance request DeViatIon from any of the above documents submitted m support
of the vanancc request regardmg the work to be'done With regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the SIte, WIll result m thIS vanance bemg null and of no effect, 2) The reqUIsite bUlldmg
pem1It(s) shall be obtamed wlthm one year from the date of thIS public heanng, and 3) The property
owner shall WIthIn 30 days after mstallatton of the' fence, plant a landscape buffer on the outSide of
the fence parallel to the MaXima Ave Ilght-of-\vay The buffer shall conSist of shrubs at least 18
mches m height at the time ofplantmg The plants shall form a contmuous, sohd screen at matunty
Pnor to Installation, a landscape plan shall be submItted to the CIty's EnvlrolU11ental Offielal and
shall be subject to approval by the Officlal Failure to mamtam the buffer m a healthy condition shall
VOId the vananees The motIon was duly seconded an~l' camed unammously
"'j"r ' f
City Manager Michael Roberto addressed the board regardmg direction of future development m the
communIty Hlghhghts are reflected m Board, and StaffDlscusslOn, below
... l ~ ~ ~
The meetmg recessed from 1 58 to 2 09 p m to allow tune for pubhe dlSCUSSlon With Mr Roberto
, ,.
C2 Thomas C & Kathleen M Shennan for a '~ctback vanance of 135ft to allow a bUlldmg faSCia
15ft from the GardenIa Street nght-of-way where a mmlmum setback of 15 ft IS reqUlred at 850
Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 7, Lot 1 and,npanan nghts, zoned RS 8 (Smgle FamJiy
ResIdential) V 97 -78
l,
Mr Richter presented background mformatlOn and wntten staff recommendatlOI1S, statmg the
applicant proposes a mansard overhang around 'an open deck at the southwest comer of the smgle
family home The mansard will enhance the home 9Y plovlclmg architectural detdIl Staff felt
conditiOns support the request and recommende~ ap[)foval With two standard condItIons In response
to a question, It was mdlcated the proposal will, mcredse an eXlstrng nonconformity to a mITIor extent
- 4' ~ t..,~
"
r ~! l I r;~ ~",,""'~
12/17/99
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/5/doc' "
! I ~t 1,
, "
~ ~ t i
, WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE' ADmSTMENT BOARD
Page 5 of 12
"
Code reqUirements for self-supportmg over~~l;g projections mto the nght-of- way were discussed
, .
Thomas Sherman, the owner/applicant, Wishes to cbritl'nue an eXIstmg mansard, wrappmg around the
slde of the house fac111g the pubilc beach access adjacent to the home The proposal wlll not Impact
anyone's pnvacy or home The overhang will proteet an'exlstmg hurncane shutter, help shIeld the
south side of the home from the harsh elements, and complete a decorative deSign feature He
subml tted a photograph of the eXIstmg mansard and the area m wl11ch the proposal wIi I extend
No verbal or written support or opposItion was ;expressed
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as reques'ted because the applIcant has substantially
met all standards for approval as \tsted m Section 45 24 of the Land Development Code, subject to
the followmg conditIOns 1) TI11s vanance IS based on'the vanance applIcation and documents
submItted by the apphcant, 1l1clud1l1g maps, pldns, surveys, and other documents submitted 111 support
of the applIcant's variance request DeViatIOn from'lany ofthe above documents submltted m support
of the vanance request regardmg the worK to"be'oone With regard to the Site or any phYSIcal structure
located on the Site, wIiI result 111 thiS variance bemg null and of no effect, and 2) The reqUisite
buddmg permI1(s) shall be obtamed wlth1l1 one year from the date of thiS publIc hearing The motIOn
was duly seeonded and camed unammously " ,
C3 Ronald J & MlreJlle Pollack for the followmg ,vanances (1) a setback vananee of 55ft to allow
a sccond floor room addItIon 95ft from the South sldc property Ime where a mmllnum setback of 15
ft 1S reqmred, and (2) a height vanance of,S 5 ft to allow an addition 355ft (average height of the
surroundmg bmldmgs) where a maximum height of30 ft IS reqUIred a11104 Drmd Rd S, Harbor
Oaks, Lot M, zoned RS 2 (Smgle Family Resldenhal) V 97-79
Mr RIchter presented background mfonnatlOl1' and written staff recommendations, statl11g the
applIcants WIsh to construct a seeond story addition to theIr smgle famJly home, enlargl11g the
basement and first floor to take fuller advantage of the large waterfront lot He detalled setback and
bmldmg helght reqmrements A study by a plannmg co,nsultant shows the proposed height IS
cons] stent WIth other homes In the VIC1l1Ity Staff felt CO,ndItlons support the request and
lecommended approval With two standard con\;lItIons II} response to a question, Mr RIchter said the
RS (s1l1gle family residentIal) zomng docs not allow more than one family dwellmg umt on the
propel1y Because vanance approval IS tled to documents submitted With the applIcation, one member
felt It would be m the apphcants' best mterest to d1l11Ein~IOn theIr drawmgs or submlt a survey,
shOWing the additions 111 relatIon to each other, the eXlst1l1g home, and the pIOpcrty Imes
Ronald Pollaek, the owner/applicant, clanfied the additIons and the second floor plan will alIgn With
the eXisting first floor wall Thc two story'plan;'moderately sloped roof, and bUlldmg height are
conSistent With others In the nelghbOlhood _ The pnmosaJ WIll expand the basemcnt laundry and guest
rooms and expand the first floor slIghtly to accomnlodale the second floor addItion to make more
room for the groWll1g family ~, r
r
"
No verbal or written support or opposItion was expressed One member noted the proposal does not
lllcrease the eXlstll1g non-conformity, and 1t malw good, structural sense to alIgn the first and second
floor walls The vananees are JUStified due to the speCial circumstances of the varylllg lot elevatIOns
Member Johnson moved to grant the vanance as,requested because the applIcant has substantially
met all standards for approval as lIsted In SectlOrl45'24, of the Land Development Code, subject to
the followll1g conditions 1) ThiS variance IS based on the vanance applIcatIOn and documents
submltted by the applicant, l11cludmg maps, plaI].s, sUl<veys, and other documents submItted m support
ofthe applicant's vanance requcst DeViation from any'ofthe above documents submItted 111 support
of the vanance request regardmg the work to be done wl1.h regard to the Slte or any phYSIcal structure
located on the Sl te, WIll result 111 thiS varlance,bemg mll J, ~md 01 no effect, 2) The reg UlsIte buildmg
penmt(s) shall be obtamcd wlthm one year from the date ofthlS publIc heanng, and 3) Thc addItIons
" ,
~ i .. II ~
1 ~ ...,. """" \ l 1 .,
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/5/doc ..; ,
12/17/99
fi/~ t~~ 1-1";,\
1
WinWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADmSTMENT BOARD
Page 6 of 12
shall align with the eXisting house walls on the south side The motIon was duly seconded and carned
unammously , .
I,
C4 Jerry W & Maureen E DI1cher for the followmg vanances (1) a setback vanance of 41ft to
allow a sereen room 109 ft from the rear property [mc where a mmlmum setback of 15 ft IS reqUIred,
and (2) an open space vanance for the lot of I 3 percent to allow 43 7 percent where a mlfllmum of
45 percent IS reqUIred at 3138 Sandy Ridge Dr, CountrysIde Tract 55, Umt 1, Lot 11, zoned RS 6
(Smgle Family ResidentIal) V 97-80
, '
...0...{ 'l!1
\d "' I
Mr Richter presented background mformatlon and 'wntten staff recommendatIOns, stating the
applicants propose to construct a new screen rooln extendll1g from the rear of the sll1gle family home
alongSide the cXlstmg pool enclosure He related' se~b'\lc~k and open space reqUirements Staff felt
conditions support the request and recommendevd approval wIth two standard conditions
P-, ~ J ~ t
Jen'y DIlcher, the owner/apphcant wishes to enlarge the screen enclosure to accommodate a hot tub
needed for medical reasons, and facilitate hiS orchid growll1g hobby
No vel bal or wntten support or OppOSItIOn was expressea
f ..... '1 L
Member Schwob moved to grant the vanance as requested because the applicant has substantIally
met all standards for approval as hsted m SectIOn 45 24 of the Land Development Code, subject to
the followmg conditIons 1) ThiS vanance IS based on the vanancc appl1catIOl1 and documents
submItted by the applicant, mcludmg maps, plan?, surveys, and other documents submitted 111 support
of the apphcant's vanance request DeViatIOn from' any of the above documents submitted 111 support
of the vanance request regardmg the work to be aone wIth regard to the slte or any phYSIcal structure
located on the SIte, will result m thiS vanance bemg null and of no effect, and 2) The requIsite
bulldmg permlt(s) shall be obtall1ed wIthm one Y,eaf from the date oftl11s public heanng The motIon
was duly seconded and earned unanlmollsly ,,, 1 ,I
"
. 1 '
C5 Charles H & Beverly Searbrough for the followmg vanances (1) a structural setback vanance of
15 ft to allow a earport lOft from the Howard Street nght-of-way where a minImum setback of 25 ft
IS reqUired, and (2) a setback vanance of 042 ft to allow a carport 4 58 ft from the east Side property
Ime where a mmllllum setback of 5 ft IS rcqUlred at 1132 Howard St , Carolina Terrace Annex, Lot
13, zoned RS 8 (Sll1g1e Family ReSidential) V 97-8'1
MI Richter presented background Il1foTlnatron and .wntten staff recommendatrons, statmg the
dpplicant has constructed a new alummum prefabncated carport that IS non-conformmg to setback
requirements Many homes 111 the area were platted m 1925 and do not comply WIth current setback
leqUlrements The addition IS consistent With the neighborhood and appears to roughly dhgn With the
eXlstll1g earport Staff fclt condItIons support the request and recommended approval With two
condItions
Charles Scarbrough, the owner/appheant, authonzed R1Ck Massey as representative
- , t
Mr Massey said the carport was built to protectthc home from the enVlrOlUnent He said drawll1gs
were approved October 16, the structure IS por.taple and IS bolted to a concrete slab, not dttached to
the home He sublmtted two photographs showmg th9 Cdrport m relatIon to the home and the adjacent
property In response to a question, he satd a conJrac,tocbUllt the carport about 12 months ago
f ,
ji I I
It was lI1dIcated the Central Pem11ttll1g Department'lssu'ed a stop work ordcr on October 16, 1997 for
construction wlthout lI1spections or bmldmg pcnll1t 'Boaro members relteratcd a standmg concern
that property owners are charged a tnple pem11t'fee'for unpermltted constructIOn, when contraetors
who are presumably more familiar With the bUlldmg code should be held responSIble Ms Dougall-
SIdes noted staff forwards documentation ofunpenmttcd:work to thc County hcensmg boards for
review of the such sItuatIons " ,; \, .
, "
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/5/doc I
12/17/99
, WmWOld Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 7 ofl2
No verbal or wntten support or opposItIon was expressed
" . ,
Member JonnattI moved to grant the vanance as'requested because the appl1cant has substantIally
met all standards for approval as hsted m SectlOp 45 24 of the Land Dcvelopment Code, subject to
the followmg condltlOns 1) This vanance IS based on the vanance apphcatlon and documents
submitted by the applicant, mc]udlllg maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted III support
of the apphcant's vanance request DeviatIOn from any of the above documents submitted ll1 support
of the vanance request regardll1g the work to be doi}e"WIth regard to the SIte or any physical structure
located on the site, Will result III this vanance bemg null and of no cffect, and 2) The reqlllslte
buildmg perr11lt(s) shall be obtamed wIthm 30'days fIOn) the date of thIs public heanng The motion
was duly seconded and earned unam1110usly "
C6 R Nathan & Margaret Day Hightower for a 'rear setback vanance of 125ft to permIt a garage
25ft from a rear property hne where a 15 'ft setback IS reqUIred at 301 DrUId Rd W , Harbor Oaks,
Lots 30 and 32, zoned RS 6 (Smgle Fanuly ResltlentHfl) V 97-82
Mr Richter presented background mformahon and wntten staff recommendatIOns, statmg thc
applieants Wish to replace an eXlstmg earport WIth a new garage of the same SIze and footpnnt He
related setback reqUIrements, statmg staff felt conditIOns support the request and recommended
approval With two standard conditions
Nathan Hightower, an owner/applicant, stated a wall to, the south m the eXlstll1g carport wlil align
WIth the rear of the new garagc The old structu~e neeos replacement due to ItS poor conditIOn
, '
, ,
No verbal or wntten support or oppositIOn was expressed A board member comphmented the
apphcants' landscapmg " . , "
rlt.' J
Member Jolmsonmoved to grant the vanance 'as reCi~ested because the apphcant has substantially
met all standards [or approval as listed ll1 Section 45 24 of the Land Development Code, subject to
the followll1g condItions 1) This vanance IS based on the vananee applicatlOn and documents
submitted by the appl1cant, mcludmg maps,:plans, surveys, and other documents submitted ll1 support
of the appheant's vanance request Devlahon from any of the above documents submItted m support
of the vanance request regardmg the work to'be'(]dne With regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the site, WIll result m thIS variance bemg null and of no effect, and 2) The reqUisite
bUlldmg permlt(s) shall be obtamed wlt11ln one year from the date of this pubhc heanng The motIOn
was duly seconded and carned unanimously
C7 Gary H & Mary L Dworkm a structural setback vanance of 3 ft to allow a pool screen enclosure
4 ft from the rear (South) property lme where a ml11lmUm setback of 7 ft IS requlled at 415 Magnoha
Dr, Harbor Oaks, part of Lots 78 & 80, zoned RS ,6 (~mglc Family Resldent13l) V 97- 83
, .
MI Richter presented baekground In formatIOn and wn tten staff recommendations, statmg the
applicants Wish to construet a water feature to the rear o(thelr smgle famlly home, surrounded by a
screen enclosure The enclosure Will altgn wlth an eXlstl'ng pool house along the reat property lme
He related setback reqUirements, statmg staff felt condItIOns support the request and recommended
approval With two standard conditIons "~ :" ": ,
,~ ,
Alex Pllsko, architect represcntl11g the applicant, submitted a letter of authonzatIon He relatcd the
history ofvanances for the Site, statmg th.e enc)osure IS needed to protect the applicants' fish from
raccoons m the neighborhood The back of,the h0use IS bel11g pamted dark green to blend WIth the
neighbor's landscapmg to the rear The apphcant owns 'one adjacent lot, and owners of the two
remammg properties have no ObjectIOns ' '
ho.( .....
-,
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/5Jd'oc , ,
12/17/99
"
~ '
· WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Pagc 8 of 12
<'
"
No verbal or wntten support or opposition was' cxp~essed
Member Schwob moved to grant the vanance as' requested because the applicant has substantially
met all standards for approval as listed m Section 45'24 of the Land Development Code, subject to
the followmg condltlOns 1) ThiS vanance IS based on the vanance applIcation and documents
submitted by the applicant, meludmg maps, plaris, surveys, and other documents submItted m support
of the applicant's variance request DeviatIOn from any of the above documents submItted m support
of the vanance request regarding the work to be done wIth regard to the Site or any phYSical structure
located on the Site, will result m thiS vanance being null and of no effect, and 2) The reqUISite
bUIlding peITmt(s) shall be obtamed wIthm one'year from the date of this pubhc heanng The motion
was duly seconded and carned unamTI1ous]y > ,I
~ j \ , 01 1
C8 Kenneth D & Ann T Schild a structural setback vanance of 25ft to allow a shed 25ft from the
redr (South) property lme where a mlmmum setback of 10ft IS reqUIred at 1753 Greenlea Dr, Sunset
Lake Manor, Lot 83, zoned RS 8 (Smgle Family Residential) V 97-84
Mr Richter presented background mfoffi1atlOn and wntten staff recommendatIOns, statmg the
applicants have placed a shed m the rear yard wlthm the rear setback A large tree restncts placement
of the shed farther from the rear property hne He related setback reqUlrements, statmg staff felt
conditIons support the request dl1d recommended approval wIth two conditIOns
. '
'.I
Ann Schild, an owner/applIcant, stated the sheoil's aimost Imperative for storage Movmg their pool
equIpment out of the garage WIll create offstreeLparkmg [or one of their fOllr cars In response to
questIOns, Ms SchIld said a boat parked In front of the house IS 16 feet long
,
i1.. ! .I
No verbdl or wntten support or opposition was expressed
~ ,.. I II '""!o
Member JonnattI moved to grant the vanance as reejuested because the apphcant has substantIally
met all standards for approval as listed m SectlOl1 45 24.ofthe Land Development Code, subject to
the followmg condItions 1) ThIS vanance IS based on the vanance applIcatIon and documents
submItted by the applicant, mcludmg maps, plan's, surveys, and other documents submitted m support
of the apphcant's vanance request DeViatIon from any of the above documents submitted m support
o[the vanance request regardmg the work to be done WIth regard to the sIte or any phYSICal structure
located on the SIte, will result m tlus vanance bcmg null dnd of no effect, and 2) The reqUisIte
bUlldmg penmt(s) shall be obtall1ed wlthm 30 days from the date of this public heanng The motIon
was duly seconded and earned unammously '".-
I l .t J t j ~ \.
C9 The Kimberly Home, lnc for the followll1g vanances (1) a setback varIance of 225ft to allow a
second story addItIon 28ft from the NE Clevelahd Street nght-of-way where a mIl11mum setback of
25 ft IS reqUIred, (2) a setback vanance of 5 8.ft1to,'allow a second story additIOn 42ft from the
Westerly SIde property lme where a mll1lmum $etback, oLiO ft IS reqUired, and (3) a parkll1g vanance
of 7 spaces to allow zero spaces where 7 spaces,dre requ'lred at 1189 NE Cleveland St , Bassadena,
Blk D, Lots 4,5, and 6, zoned OL (Limited Office) ,V 97-85
,
Mr Richter presented background ll1[om1atlon and wIltten staff recommendations, statmg the
dpplIcant proposes a second story addItIOn to the eXlstll1g office bUIldll1g used as a cnsls pregnancy
counselll1g center The addItlOn will align 'vertically WIth the first story He related setback and
parkll1g reqUIrements, statll1g the apphcant leases adJolTIll1g CIty-owned land for supplemental
parkll1g Staff felt conditIOns support the reque;st and recommended approval With two standard
conditIOns
" ,
\ ~ 4 ~
~-
Patti Stough, architect representmg the applicant, corrected the non- profit orgamzatlOn's name [or the
record The applIcant needs addItIOnal space and, the leakmg roof needs replacement It IS beheved
the bUIldmg was deSIgned for a seeond story Offices will be moved upstairs to allow for ground floor
L
" -
, ,
http 11199227 233 29/ISYSqueryIIRL504 tmp/5/doc " .'~
12/17/99
JJ. ~It/~\ '~~II,l.........
~ .i I
, W1l1Wmd Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Page 9 of 12
, .
storage and safer access to donated baby [ummire 'The second story WIll be stepped back [10m the
most vIsible traffic area An elevation drawmg ofth'e proposal and a photograph of the eXlst1l1g
bmldmg were submItted The proposal will enhance t~e'property and surroundmgs
" ,
, \ ..,. ........l'
KIt Kelly, facIlity dIrector, stated m respons~ to'a question that parkmg 111 the unpaved City lot IS not
a plOblem dunng heavy ram DISCUSSion ensued regard1l1g whcther the lot IS legal [01 parkmg
No verbal or wntten support or opposItion was cxpressed One member found It mterestmg such Wide
setbacks are reqUIred m thIS commercial area It was felt the proposal IS good for the applicant, the
City, and IS consIstent with surroundmgs Dlseusslon ensued regardmg prevIOus uses of the former
rental property ,I
Member Johnson moved to grant the vanance as requested because the apphcant has substantially
mct all standards for approval as lIsted In Secn'on 45 24 of the Land Development Code, subject to
the followmg condltlOns 1) ThiS vanance IS bascd on the vanance apphcatlon and documents
submItted by the applIcant, mcludmg maps, plans, 'surveys, and other documcnts submitted m support
of the applicant's vanance request DeViation from any of the above documents submitted m support
of the vanance request regardmg the work to bc'done with regard to the site or any phYSIcal structure
located on the Site, will result 111 thiS vanance bemg null'and of no effect, and 2) The reqUIsite
bmldmg penmt(s) shall be obtamed wlthm one yeaflfrom the date ofth]s public heanng The motIon
was duly seconded and carned unammously , '~," _:-', :,>:-"
l 1 ~ ..
CIO Addcam II (The Hampton Inn/Howard Johnson's) a setback vanance of20 ft to allow a
canopy/drop-ofDpICk-up area 155 ft from the centerlme ofU S 19 North where a mmllTIum setback
of 175 ft IS reqUIred at 21030 U S 19 North, See 18-29-16, M&B 1401, zoned CH (Highway
Commercial) V 97-86 " .
I l,. f
Mr RIchter presented background mformatJon ,and wntten staff recommendations, stating the
applicant proposes to construct a porte cochere (canopy) at the mam entrance to an eXlstmg motel
undergOing major renovatIOn The proposal will rcplace an old structurc III a different location on
site Staff felt conditions support the requcst and recommended approval With two standard
conditIons In response to a questIOn, Mr Richter stated the setback IS measured flOm the centerltne
of US Highway 19 '). ;
Jk ,\ -( I
Patti Stough, architect representmg the apphcant, stated the proposal will not adversely affect the
property or surroundmgs She displayed colored conceptual rendenngs, photographs of the eXisting
bUlldmg showmg the old porte cochere to be Iemo~cd, a flom plan and ltst of hotel amcmtIes The
appheant hopes for a March openmg , .: '" ~, ~
...-J 1,..1.... :"1
No verbal or wntten support or opposItion was exprcs'sed
. ,
,
., ,
Member Schwab moved to grant the vanaf!ce a~ requ~sted because the applicant has substantially
met all ofthe standards for approval as hsted m-SectIOn 45 24 of the Land Development Code,
subject to the followmg conditIons 1) ThiS vanance IS based on the vanance apphcatJon and
documents submitted by the applicant, mc1udmg maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submItted m support ofthe applicant's vanance request DevmtIOn from any of the above documcnts
submitted m support ofthe vanance request regardmg the work to be done With regard to the Site or
any phYSical structure located on the Site, WIll result m thiS vallancc bemg null and of no effect, and
2) The reqUIsite bmldmg penmt(s) shall be oblamed wlthm one year from the date of thIS public
hcanng The motIOn was duly seconded and carned unammously
ell Ruth Ceraolo a parkmg vanance of 5 spaces to allow 9 spaces whe]e 14 spaces are reqUIred at
1359 S Ft HarrIson Ave, BelleaJr, Blk 15, Lots;10.and 11, zoned IL (Lll111ted Tndustnal) V 97-87
l ~ ...( f j w !
MI Rlchtcr presented background mfonnatlOn and wntten staff recommendatIons, statmg the
\
,.,. ~! _..II ~ ~ ~~..,.# I
http 1/199 227 233 29/TSYSquery/lRL504 tmp/5/doc I ;. ~,
, ,
12/17/99
, . ,
· WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE '~DJ,u'StMENT BOARD
Page 10 of 12
applicant proposes a 672 square foot fast fo'Od' ;'est~u~ant near the Pmellas Trail He related parkmg
reqUirements, stat111g a fast vehicle turnover rate IS expected due to the extremely limIted seatmg area
Staff felt conditions support the request ahd recommended approval with three condItions
Michael Baldndge, representmg the apphcant'lstat~d hiS Iestaurant wIll offer take-out servIce simIlar
to an old fashIOned Dairy Queen wIth no mdo01.se~at111g' Addmg outdoor plcmc tables f01 traIL users
will mcrease the parkmg reqUIrement from mne',to, fo~rteen spaces He stated m response to questIOns
the menu WIll consIst of hamburgers, rotIssen~ chI~ken, soft drmks, Ice cream, etc The name and
hOUIS of operation have not been decIded
~ L~~ 1 '"
No verbal or wntten support or opposItIon was expressed It was felt the proposal will work well
along the traIl M r Baldndge was cautIOned to ~9wwe; ~f customers creatmg a litter problem
, ,
Member Johnson moved to grant the varIance as'requested because the applIcant has substantially
met all of the standards for approval as hsted III Section 4524 of the Land Development Code,
j.1l' l
subJeet to the followmg conditIOns 1) ThIS ,vanance IS based on the vanance apphcatIOn and
documents submitted by the applicant, mcludmg maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submItted m support of the applicant's vanance request DeVIatIon from any of the above documents
submItted m support of the vanance request regardmg the work to be done wIth regard to the site or
dny phYSical structure located on the Site" wIll,resu1t 111 th1S vanance bemg null and of no effect, 2)
The reqUISIte bUlldmg perrmt(s) shall be obtamed wlthm one year from the date of this publIc
heanng, and 3) The dumpster shall be located to make It accessIble to solid waste collectIOn vehicles
The motion was duly seconded and carned undmmously
~ I
\ !. I( f~
C 12 Pete and Shorty's of Clearwater, lnc for vimances of (1) a lot Width vanance of 18 16 ft to
allow a Width of 81 84 ft where a mlmmum 100 It IS reqUIred, (2) a setback vanance of 7 83 ft to
allow placement ofa new roof and support column 17 17 ft from the DaVid Avenue nght-of~ way
where a minimum setback of 25 ft IS reqUired, (3) a h~lght vanance of 4 ft to allow a new 8 ft high
fence wlthm the setback area from the DaVid Ayenue nght-of-way where a maxImum height of 4 ft IS
perm ltted, and (4) a heIght varIance of 2 ft to allow a new 8 ft high fence where a maximum height of
6 It 1S permItted at 2820 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Gulf to Bay Gardens, Lots 1,2, and 3, zoned CG (General
Commercial) V 97-88 " ',' ,',
. I
t I ...,~ ...l.t Y..... 11
Member J onnattl declared a conflict of mterest \y,lt1l r~gard to th1S case He remamed avaIlable to
answer questions , _
, ...1 ,,' I
MI Richter presented background Il1formahol1 and \vntten staff recommendations, stating the
apphcant proposes to construct a roof over and a fence around a service area as part of a current
restaurant remodeling project He related lot wldth,'setbacks, and fence height reqUirements Staff felt
conditions support the request and recommended approval With four condItIons In response to
questIOns, the area IS loeated west of the eXlstmg bUlldmg along DaVid Avenue WhIle additional
landscapmg IS not reqUIred, It was felt to be:desnable and not unreasonable, m view of the City's
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard beautificatIOn efforts I,' II
~.t a} / f j I
Lee Ufilton, Pete and Shorty's preSident, stated ,the, property was purehased m August, 1997 A major
rehabilitatIOn IS underway to make a pOSItive statement along the City's enbyway comelor He owns
and manages several other restaurants The cov.ered and fenced service area WIll proVide a samtary
and secure stagmg area for garbage until It IS taken to the dumpster at the end of the 111ght He wants
an aesthetic appearance because patrons will park behmd the bUlldmg He mdlcated a hedge along
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard IS deSIrable for nOise buffenng and ambIance NeIghbors arc happy WIth hiS
extensive cleanup of the hedgerow along Davld'Avenue He deSCrIbed the bUlldmg's exterIor
appearance and submitted caples of the prppos:ep, l!l,el~~ .9cneral diSCUSSion ensued regardmg the
bUlldmg renovation and busmess operation Under c6ntract to Hooters management, the restaurant
will offer Midwestern US CUlSIlle and atmosphere Mr' Ufilton has applied for a full liquor license
and hopes to open January 26, 1998 : <, , \ , "
" 'I. ;
.tr..1.,,~ J ~_~
~,
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/5/eot> .;"
"-I 'OJ I:'" ...':;)1
".
12/17/99
t WmWord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJl:JSlfMENT BOARD
Page 11 of12
...1 j ~ J
, t\'.
No verbal or wntten support or OpposItIon ,was,exp~ess;::d
Member Schwab moved to grant the variance as r~quested because the applicant has substantIally
met all of the standards for approval as hsted 111 ~eGtlOn 4524 of the Land Development Code,
subject to the followmg conditions 1) Th]s vanq,nc:.e IS based on the vanance applIcation and
documents submitted by the applIcant, mcludmg maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submItted m support of the appltcant's vanance,request DeViatIon from any of the above documents
submJtted m support of the variance request reg~rd,ll1g the work to be done With regard to the site or
any phYSical structure located on the Site, will resu.lt m thiS vanance being null and of no effect, 2)
The reqmsIte bmldmg pcnmt for the roof shall be obtamed wlthm one year and the fence permit for
the fence around the service area shall be obtaIl}ed ,wIthm 30 days from the date of thIS pubhc
heanng, and 3) Pnor to Issuance of the Cert1ficaie of Occupancy, the applicant shall contact the C1ty's
Urban Forester for infOrmatIOn regardmg design and sclechon oflandscapmg plaIltS and shall mstall
such landscapmg along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard conSistent With the CIty'S beautIfication plans The
motion was duly secanded Members Gans, Schwab; Johnson, and Stuart voted "Aye," Member
JonnattI abstamed Motion earned
MlI1utes Approval November 13, 1997
" ,
J t I ~ ...
Member Jonnattl moved to contll1ue approval to the next meetmg to allow time for members to
review the mmutes The motion was duly seconde(aqd earned unammously
Board and Staff Comments
'"
1 ,
r ,
, ,
City Manager Michael Roberto highlighted hIS multi-year program for generatmg commumty
redevelopment Ideas through publIc dialog Two Id~as are generatmg a lot of enthUSiasm 1) the "One
City One Future" plan, to be presented to the commllmty next month, and 2) the Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard beautIficatIOn process, a partnershlp'wlth'Pmellas County, FOOT (FlorIda Department of
TrdnsportatJon), property owncrs, and the City "@nc.!f:lt IS ready far kIck-off, Mr Robcrto wlil give
the board a full- blown presentatIOn of the Clty's~ldeas regardmg three premises 1) Promotmg
Downtown as the "East Beach", an extenSiOn1ofrClcarwater beach, 2) Convertmg the bluff from 80%
pavement to 80% green space, doubhng the size of'Coachman park for mteractlve enjoyment of the
waterway, and 3) AchIevmg a Clearwaterrbeacli.--'corlsensus process wherell1 big hotels, small
busll1esses and resldentaIaI properties can work togeth~r
Mr Roberto stated the Land Development Code rewnte IS a huge undertakmg Havll1g been WrItten
when Clearwater was a development commumty, amcndment IS needed to reflect the changes now
that Clearwater 1S a redevelopment commumty ,He,noted the North Greenwood commumty IS an
lmportant area and WIll be most affected by downtown redcvelopment He wlshes to coHeet
commul1lty mput regardmg when, 01 I r, the City should bUild a new home for the PhIl lIes baseball
team "
Mr Roberto stated Clearwater ]S a healthy comn;1U111ty .wlth many excIting opportumtJes He will
enteItam a lot ofpubhc dIalog, and meet In depth With Indlvldual boards to generate diSCUSSIOn that
WIll result In new public polley and encourage eqono1111c development He cIted a recent findmg that
Clearwater beach sharcs the same values WIth do,wntowr He Said the commumty has been wonderful
ta him and hiS family durll1g hIS first SIX month?~as,CI!y,Manager He IS Impressed With City staff
and hopes to mvolve them as much as pOSSIble dunng thiS excltmg tIme
H ,ltl I} \ itC.....lft\~("1t\
Board members thanked Mr Roberto for takmg'tIme,to.attend They were pleased to hear of IllS plans
to attack City redevelopment and the code as ,a 'package1-Mr Roberto agreed government can be
reactive, but It IS Important to take a global VIew, and address changes comprchenslvely While It IS
difficult not to focus on the short term, he stressed the need to focus on the bIg picture Mr Gans had
an opportumty to preVIew the Land Development Code consultant report and was eXCited at the
",
u
http / /199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tIPP/,5/doc, ,
12/17/99
"WlI1Word Document DEVELOPMENT CbDE ADTUSTMENT BOARD
,
Page 12 of 12
directIOn the rewflte IS takmg
Mr Schwob prmsed Mr Richter and Ms Dougall-Sides for their hard work and thoroughness 1I1
servll1g the board Mr Roberto agreed he has been Impressed by Clty staff and their desIre to do the
fight thmg He added It IS Important for everyone t~ be on the same page
.....~... ..I;!I 1~ "'.t "-
I, '
, I'
Ms Dougall-Sides_reported an_adjacent propert)(o";\l~J p,ppe;:,led approvdl of the side setback
"" yar~an~e at ~ 333,... Soutlt ,... Gulfview lit, Boulevard ( I
DavId LJttle; V 97-43-;-IT/13/97JTheparkmg-v]lrTIulc-e approval was not contested
,
In response to questIOns from Mr Johnson,!t ,\yas ,no~ kn,own whether new busmesses are planned for
the former Homestyle Harmony Restaurant and Planet B,ubba locatIons
Mr Gans reported a sohd roof appears to have been bUIlt over the outdoor seatmg area at Bfltl's
Restaurant He requested staff to ll1Vestlgate, take the appropnate actIOn, dnd report to the board
f t , I '"
Mr Gans expressed concern a whlrrmg red lIght III the wmdow of a T-shirt shop at the Amencana
Gulf Hotells confusmg to traffic beeause It looks like a danger slgndl
AdJoununent
~dl
') J
" II , v 1 ,
,
~....-{I"" , " ,
f.... i , , [
. , -
'\ ~ H....~'\' .
."l
,
1 , " , C. l ,
,
" ',' "
.' ,
,
The meeting adjourned at 4 09 p m
mdcl297 14 12/11/97
A yk me about ISYS
~~---~
.,
, .,
~l ""'1" j
',. \
I
"
f "
"
-1::; ~
Go ,..lj
.......-;. r:,....... II,
,-.,
1~'" l
"
,
http 1/199227 233 29/ISYSquery/TRLS04 tmp/S/doc
12/1 7/99
'.
Mr. Ralph Stone, Planning Department
City of Clearwater
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
e - ~15 e%t 64VS'5 @ /ro.A{rr
L./y,;.. ~ /t;tr.. ~;
t {Sf<.. - ~ M-~ to. iil
to<- ct..~ ~ .,I.-(/'lpf./--<-R;
~j~
~
II~~II
:Jill 5 December 1999
II
2.
3.
//~ 4.
/
5.
6.
7.
Re: 333 South Gulfview Boulevard
Dear Ralph:
David Little owns the above referenced property adjacent to the new McDona!d's
restaurant under construction on south Gulfview Boulevard. He requests that the City
waive the parking requirement for a small 600 SF one bedroom apartment located on the
second floor at the rear of the property. The existing driveway under the south side of
the building will be filled in with retail/office space or other permitted use as shown on the
attached drawing. I believe this request may be beneficial to all parties:
1. It eliminates an existing safety hazard created by vehicles backing out across the
sidewalk. The pedestrian and vehicular traffic will certainly increase with the
attraction of McDonald's restaurant next door.
The elimination of this driveway will be more compatible with the City's future
plans for expanded sidewalks and outdoor activities.
The property is unique in that it has been encircled by the adjacent property owner
for over 20 years and has been an existing two story building since 1940.
The expansion of the new space will be within the confines of the existing
building structure.
80% of the total retail area is already under roof.
There will be no negative impact on the adjacent properties.
When complete, the space and building will be a more functional and
attractive design compared to the existing narrow and 'iegmented floor plan.
Please review this request and call with any questions or comments. Thank you for your
continued assistance.
~~~
SRf mr
Enclosure
copy: David Little
FOWLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, INC. AAOO 1665
1421 COURT STREET' CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756' 727-449-2021'
". _ Wm~ord Document DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD - --. .
;.
Page 2 of5
2 (Cont__ from_l 0/9/92) DavIdLlttk-.foLparkmg_sgace ya,nances to allow fewer parkIng spaces than
'the requIred aJ 333 . ~ South ~ ~_GulfYlgw" ~ Blvd J (' f1/1~ ~ fn I
-Lloyd-WhIte Slanner Sub, Lot 67, zoned CR 28 (Resort CommercIal) V 97-43 lllfl 'f 7
It was noted the CIty Clerk's office receIved a request from DavId R LIttle's attorney to contInue Case
V97-43 to the November 13, 1997, meetIng, WIth the understandIng that all 5 board members wIll be
present at that meetIng ChaIr Otto Gans requested members Inform Mr RIchter should they be unable
to attend the November 13th meetIng
ASSIstant CIty Attorney Leshe Dougall-SIdes noted an appeal was filed on October 21,1997,
regardIng the 9 foot south sIde setback vanance thIS Board granted on behalf ofMs Baldog at the last
meetIng The appeal wIll be processed and sent to a Heanng Officer
Member WIlham Johnson moved to extend Case V97-43 to the November 13, 1997, board meetIng
The motIon was duly seconded and carned unammously
C NEW VARIANCE REQUESTS
1 Terry L & Janet M Wolford for a landscape buffer vanance to waIve the reqUIred 3 ft wIde
landscape buffer stnp at 2684 Cascade Ct Northwood estates, Tract C , Blk A, Lot 16, zoned RS 8
(SIngle FamIly ReSIdentIal) V97-64
Mr RIchter presented background InformatIon and wntten staff recommendatIons, statIng the
apphcant WIshes to remove the eXIstIng 6 foot fence adjacent to the Landmark Dnve nght-of-way and
replace It WIth a new fence He detaIled the property locatIOn, SIte condItIons, and setback
requIrements Staff felt condItIons support the request and recommended approval WIth three
condItIOns
No verbal or wntten support or opposItIon was expressed NeIther applIcant was present for the
heanng Attorney Leshe Dougall-SIdes stated If no one was present to express OppOSItIon, Case V97-
64 would be automatIcally postponed to the next meetIng, and the apphcant would be sent wntten
notIficatIon of the postponement DISCUSSIon ensued regardIng consIderatIOn of postporung the case to
a later meetIng, however It was noted there IS only one meetIng In November
Member WIlham Johnson moved to temporanly suspend the rules of Pohcy and ProvIsIon #4 related
to Case V97 -64 In order to dIsposed of the case The motIon was duly seconded and carned
unarumously
Member Ron Stuart moved to grant the vanance as requested because the apphcant has substantIally
met all of the standards for approval as hsted 10 SectIon 45 24 of the Land Development Code, subject
to the followmg condItIons 1) ThIS vanance IS based on the apphcatIOn for a vanance and documents
submItted by the apphcant, IncludIng maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submItted 10 support
of the apphcant's request for a vanance DeVIatIOn from any of the above documents subnutted 10
support of the request for a vanance regardIng the work to be done WIth regard to the sIte or any
phYSIcal structure located on the SIte, wIll result 10 thIS vanance beIng null and of no effect, 2) the
reqUIsIte bUlldmg permIt shall be obtamed wlthm one year, and 3) the property owner shall maIntam
the eXIstIng shrubs In a healthy condItIon and shall keep the shrubs tnmmed so that they do not
overhang or otherwIse mterfere WIth the use of the pubhc sIdewalk along Landmark Dnve FaIlure to
http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL504 tmp/1/doc
12/17/99
Fierce, Lisa
From
Sent
To
Cc
Subject
Stone, Ralph
Thursday, January 20,2000 1054 AM
Fleree, Lisa
Schodtler, John
davld little bUlldmg on beaeh
a mr ken atehmson will be In to pull an oeeup hse for retail sales m the old remax space on davld httle's property on clear
beh , as we dlseussed last week we can sign off on zonmg due to the past use and approvals and the current "maxmg
out" of the site, Ie this use wIll not ereate significant Impaets smce everyone who uses the sIte will have to walk or park
off site anyhow,
1