Loading...
03/14/1991 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD March 14, 1991 Members present: Thomas J. Graham, Chairman Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman John W. Homer Alex Plisko Emma C. Whitney (arrived at 1:03 p.m.) Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Sandy Glatthorn, Planning Official Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:03 p.m. in the Commission Chambers in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two (2) weeks. He noted that Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM A - (continued from 9/27/90, 10/11/90, and 1/10/91) Stanislaw and Kazimiera Budzinski (Britt's Restaurant) for a variance of 23 parking spaces to allow 2560 sq ft restaurant with 2-COP State alcoholic beverage license at 201 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd White Skinner Sub, Lots 48-52 and Lot 98, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 90-123 On February 6, 1991, the hearing officer reversed the denial of a conditional use by the Planning & Zoning Board. The hearing officer felt the Development Code Adjustment Board should be the proper body to determine whether City parking requirements should be met, as opposed the Planning and Zoning Board. This item will also require an alcoholic beverage separation distance variance which is scheduled before the Commission on March 21, 1991. The Chairman read a letter from the applicant's representative stating he wishes to amend the request by reducing it from 23 parking spaces to 17 parking spaces. The applicant no longer wants to pursue the increased floor capacity. The Planning Manager stated code requires all alcoholic beverage facilities located within a CR-28 district to either be within a hotel or motel with a 4-COP-S license or within a restaurant deriving 51 percent or more of its revenue from food and non-alcoholic beverage sales. City code makes a distinction in parking requirements between restaurant uses and uses which may or may not be taverns or nightclubs. There is a 51 percent food sales requirement for 2-COP facilities in CR-24 and CR-28 districts which is not present for 2-COP facilities in other zoning districts. Discussion ensued in regard to why the applicant did not present this request on May 24, 1990, when he appeared before the Board for a parking variance. Attorney George Greer, representing the applicant, stated he did not represent the applicant back in May of 1990. He said, at that time, the applicant was under the impression that First Street would be vacated and there would be sufficient parking. He distributed a list showing parking requirements for various license designations noting that in a CR-district all are required to meet the 51 percent minimum food and non-alcoholic beverage sales requirement. Mr. Greer stated the code is requiring that the applicant operate as a restaurant while requiring parking as though operating as a tavern. He said this is a "catch 22" situation created by the food sales requirement for 2-COP facilities in CR-28 districts. He said there would be no additional parking pressures created by this establishment. In response to a question, it was indicated there would be no outdoor seating. One citizen spoke in opposition to the request expressing concern that traffic congestion would be increased due to the number of parking variances already granted in this area. She said the request is not the minimum and no hardship is shown. Mr. Greer said there is a glitch in CR-28 districts regarding alcoholic beverage facilities. He said the applicant would supply documentation of the establishment's annual gross sales. A question was raised as to whether or not the variance granted back in May for two parking spaces would have been granted if this request had been made then. James B. Mayes, owner of establishment, said obtaining a variance for the two parking spaces was a stipulation for obtaining the certificate of occupancy and occupational license for the establishment and rumor was that First Street would be vacated. He said he intended to serve beer and wine all along. Discussion ensued in regard to a building permit for Britt's Restaurant being issued after staff mistakenly counted four illegal parking spaces along First Street as legitimate non-conforming off-street parking. In response to a question, it was indicated the conversion of the subject motel to non-motel uses is not regarded as a change of use because the primary or principal use of the property remains a motel. Concern was expressed regarding "back out" parking along Gulf Boulevard. Discussion ensued in regard to the 51 percent food sales requirement for 2-COP facilities in this zoning district. In response to a question, it was indicated there were no immediate code changes that might affect alcoholic beverage requirements. Discussion ensued in regard to the parking requirement being increased for an establishment when alcoholic beverage sales are added even though the seating capacity remains the same. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the hardship was caused by the owner or applicant; the variance is not the minimum; the request for the variance is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property; the granting of the variance would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood; and the granting of the variance would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney and Messrs. Homer, Plisko and Graham voted "aye;" Mr. Gans voted "nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM 1 - Lechmere Realty Ltd. Partnership, Clearwater Collection Association and Dayton Hudson Corporation (Target Stores) for a variance of 8 parking spaces to permit a 1460 sq ft addition and deletion of one parking space at 21600 - 21870 U.S. 19 N., Clearwater Collection First Replat, Lots 1-4, zoned CPD (commercial planned development) and AL/I (aquatic lands/interior). V 91-15 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating Target Stores has decided to make this location their district office which involves additional floor area to accommodate the needs of the district personnel. Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, stated the small administrative office would accommodate approximately seven employees. He said wetland areas and detention ponds are required onsite and the City's Environmental Department will not allow vaulting of the ponds to acquire additional parking. Discussion ensued regarding locating the office elsewhere in the shopping center. Alan Thomas, representing Sembler Company, said Target had asked their assistance in obtaining a variance. He said every last inch of their 100,000 square foot facility would be filled with merchandise with no room for an office. In response to a question, he indicated there is vacant space on the site; however, the applicant felt it important to locate the office on their own property making it more convenient for business purposes. Discussion ensued in regard to this request being minimal and the logic in having the office part of the Target Store. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, more specifically because, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by lack of facilities for a regional office subject to the conditions that (1) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six months from certification of the requisite site plan; (2) the requisite amended plan shall be certified within six months from the date of this public hearing; (3) the additional facilities shall be limited for Target Store regional offices only; (4) it is recommended that employees be encouraged to park in "non-critical" areas; and (5) the Board feels that parking is at its maximum level and discourages further variance applications. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney and Messrs. Gans and Graham voted "aye;" Messrs. Homer and Plisko voted "nay." Motion carried. Request granted. The meeting recessed from 2:35 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. ITEM 2 - Estate of Victoria Capeluto/Roland Fox, Guardian for variances 1) to delete off-street loading space and 2) of 4.5% interior landscaping to provide 1.5% interior landscaping at 648 S. Gulfview Blvd., Bayside Sub, Blk B, Lots 6, 21 and 22, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 91-16 The Planning Manager explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a 8053 square foot retail building on the south end of Clearwater Beach. The subject property consists of three existing undeveloped lots in the Bayside Subdivision No. 5. Attorney Roland Fox, representing the applicant, said the subject property has been in the family for 30 years and is the last commercial piece on the south end of Clearwater Beach available for development. He said the dimensions, the size and the angles of the property present a problem in designing a building to fit on this site. Barry Alhman, architect for the project, stated he wants to utilize the property to the maximum in providing retail space of a small nature for his client. He said the property has a double road frontage and feels it beneficial to front the building on both sides of the road. This would result in two parking lots. Going to the side yard setback creates a problem regarding the retention areas. A double retention pond is proposed to provide for the first half inch of rainfall over the entire site. He said he has been working closely with staff to work out an acceptable layout. The irregularity of the site creates difficulty in designing a parking lot to work efficiently and meet the 6 percent interior landscaping requirement. Additional landscaped buffer areas are being provided between vehicle use areas and adjacent property which is over and above the required side yard buffers for landscaping. He said, when the variance application was submitted, he was not aware of the new landscape ordinance requiring additional setbacks and has tried to compensate for that change by downsizing the building. To efficiently put in a 12 foot by 35 foot loading dock space and to be able to maneuver in and out is difficult without a double driveway. He said they wanted to connect with the Walgreen driveway; however, Walgreen has not been receptive. He said deliveries could be done in small vans. Mr. Fox said the applicant has negotiated with a major beachwear store and an upgraded clothing store. However, he has no signed leases. He said the applicant has also been approached regarding a restaurant; however, is not interested due to parking requirements. He is looking towards small beach retail stores. One citizen stated that Clearwater Beach needs more landscaping and expressed concern in going wall to wall on the setbacks. In response to the above, Mr. Fox said more landscaping is being provided along the interior where it can be better seen in exchange for eliminating a small portion of the interior. Discussion ensued in regard to there being no open space requirement in the beach commercial zoning district. Concerns were expressed regarding delivery vans and trucks blocking traffic and not using off street loading spaces. Concern was expressed to overdevelopment of the site. It was felt the hardship was self-imposed as there has been an attempt over the last 20 years to combine the parcels. Discussion ensued in regard to recent changes in detention requirements. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the potential use of the property subject to the condition that the requisite building permit be obtained within six months from the date of this hearing. There was no second. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code because there is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the variances are not the minimum; the granting of Variance #1 would be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the neighborhood; the granting of Variance #2 would detract from the appearance of the community and substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding property; and the granting of the variances would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Mrs. Whitney, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and Graham voted "aye;" Mr. Homer voted "nay." Motion carried. Request denied. ITEM 3 - Robert E. Malke (Rose Garden Restaurant) for a variance of 14 seats to permit 2-COP licensed establishment with 36 indoor seats at 348 and 348-1/2 Coronado Dr., Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 118-119, zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). V 91-17 The Planning Manager explained the application stating City code requires a minimum of 50 seats to limit the potential for small scale alcoholic beverage sales establishments. Discussion ensued regarding requirements for this site and the difficulty in making a decision regarding a variance without a parking plan. Concern was expressed in regard to the applicant circumventing the rules due to the fire code limiting the amount of seating. Attorney George Greer, representing the applicant, said he is not requesting a parking variance. He said a request is being made to permit a structure to be utilized as is and the applicant wants a smaller number of seats for the "ambience". The establishment will be an Austrian type bistro serving reasonably priced food. He said the building behind the restaurant will be used as a residence by one of the principals of the corporation. In response to a question, Mr. Greer indicated the Fire Marshall has restricted the seating with the current configuration and he said the applicant is not trying to circumvent the rules by asking for a lesser amount of seats. The Board expressed their desire to see a total scheme of the site before making a decision. Mr. Homer moved to continue this request to later in the meeting until a site plan could be obtained. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Staff obtained a site plan and presented it to the Board. In response to questions, it was indicated there would be enough parking for a 50-seat establishment if approved by the Fire Marshall, all other code requirements have been met and the percentage of food sales and non-alcoholic beverages is monitored in this zoning district. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Plisko moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code, more specifically, because the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the requirements of the Fire Marshall subject to the conditions that (1) there shall be no package sales; (2) approval of any separation distance variance(s) shall be obtained from the City Commission; (3) the business closing time shall be 11:00 p.m.; and (4) that the requisite building permit and occupational license shall be procured within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request granted. ITEM 4 - An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 136.016, Code of Ordinances, relating to fences and walls, to add standards and regulations for hedges; providing standards for materials; providing for easement and right-of-way restrictions; providing height and setback regulations for fences, walls, and hedges; providing an effective date. The Planning Manager stated this proposed amendment creates location, height and setback requirements for hedges; it also revises fence and wall requirements to accommodate swimming pool fencing requirements (by insurance carriers) and to permit taller fences and walls adjacent to street rights-of-way from which the property is not addressed. Discussion ensued in regard to multiple street frontage fence restrictions and concern was expressed in having 6-foot high fences on corners and side streets. A question was raised regarding whether there are special rules for fences in the downtown district and it was indicated only chain link or opaque fences are allowed but not in the front. There are no building setback or landscaping requirements in the downtown. The Board had no problem with double frontage interior lots having 6-foot fences along the street to which the property is not addressed. It was indicated the Board would like to see uniformity with subdivision entrances with triple frontage lots and would like to address triple frontage lots individually. Discussion ensued in regard to the amendment addressing what the Board has already been granting. It was indicated landscaping would be required with a 6-foot high fence. The Planning Manager suggested the following change on page 3(3) amend to read "For interior double frontage lots in single family residential districts, fences, walls and hedges shall be permitted to a maximum height of 6 feet within a structural setback area from a street right-of-way where the property is not addressed from such right-of-way. In all other instances, fences, walls and hedges shall be 4 feet within a structural setback area from a street right-of-way where the property is not addressed from street right-of-way." In response to a question, it was indicated landscaping requirements are addressed on page 4(h) of this amendment. The Assistant City Attorney left the meeting at 4:05 p.m. Discussion ensued in regard to proposed height requirements for hedges within setback areas, and it was indicated height restrictions would address traffic and pedestrian sight concerns. Concern was expressed regarding a 48-inch high hedge being allowed on corner lots. There was discussion regarding treating hedges as structures. It was felt that some of the older hedges in neighborhoods used as fences were attractive. It was felt that hedges should be restricted only in areas where traffic is obstructed. A question was raised regarding the City's removal of plants in the right-of-way and it was felt there should be language in the code requiring the City of Clearwater to notify the individual in writing if they plan to remove them. The Planning Manager indicated there is no provision in the code that provides that property owners be notified before plants or trees are removed from the right-of-way. He said he would investigate what is required by the City when work is done in the right-of-way. Discussion ensued in regard to allowing temporary fences for a limited period along the waterfront to address safety concerns for small children. Discussion ensued in regard to waterfront setback requirements and protecting the view corridor. It was indicated an owner should have reasonable use of his property and a right to privacy. There was some discussion regarding fences, walls and hedges located within ten feet of a swimming pool. To address concerns and questions by the Board, it was recommended that this item be continued. Mr. Homer moved to continue this item to the next meeting of March 28, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued in regard to issuing City identification cards to the Board members. This has been tentatively scheduled for March 28, 1991 at 12:00 p.m. at the Police Department. There was discussion regarding the Development Code Adjustment Board recognizing past board members by presenting resolutions. It was indicated it is City Commission policy to issue citations of appreciation for past board members. Discussion ensued in regard to providing each board member with an informational packet containing a calendar of meeting dates, a list of board members, standards for approval, etc. for each meeting. Consensus was to provide packet. There was discussion regarding the parking variance previously granted to MacDonald's. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.