Loading...
10/09/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER October 9, 1997 Present: Otto Gans Chair William Schwob Vice Chair William Johnson Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter Absent: Mark Jonnatti Board Member 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 but not necessarily discussed in that order. Continued Variance Requests B1. Olen K. & Pamela A. Marks, Jr. for the following variances: (1) a lot width variance of 5.07 feet to allow a width of 94.93 feet where a minimum of 100 feet is required; (2) a setback variance of 7.5 feet to allow a proposed house and detached garage 7.5 feet from the northerly side property line and 7.5 feet from the southerly property line where a minimum 15 foot setback is required; and (3) a height variance of 3.5 feet to allow a wall 6 feet high where a maximum height of 2.5 feet is permitted at 906 Druid Road South, Harbor Oaks Sub, Lot “G” and submerged land No. 17492, zoned RS-2 (single Family Residential.) VR 9682 In a letter dated October 8, 1997, architect Alex Plisko requested a time extension due to delays caused by the appeal process. The City has filed a petition to appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to overturn the Marks’ variance approval. Member Schwob moved to grant a one-year time extension to December 12, 1998. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. New Variance Requests Applicants were advised an affirmative vote of three members is required to approve variances and continuance to the next meeting may be requested. Alexandros, Stamo, & Nick Galiatsatos (Alex Family Restaurant) for the following variances (1) a parking space variance to allow fewer parking spaces than required; and (2) a structural setback variance to permit a kitchen addition within the structural setback from a side property line at 305 Coronado Dr., Columbia Sub No. 2, Blk A, Lots 1 & 2, zoned CR 28 (Commercial Resort). V 97-63 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes to build a 418 square foot addition to enlarge an existing restaurant kitchen. He detailed site configuration, parking, and setback requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with seven conditions. Anthony Aloizakis, a owner/applicant, stated the restaurant needs a bigger kitchen. The expansion will eliminate parking spaces, but 14 off-site spaces will be maintained for restaurant use. The addition will align with the existing building along the side property line. Mr. Aloizakis had no problems with recommended conditions regarding design, dumpster location, and landscaping. He estimated 95 percent of his clientele walks from surrounding hotels, because the parking lot is rarely filled. He has operated the business 11 years. General discussion ensued regarding dumpster location, traffic engineer approval for handicapped parking, and off-site employee parking. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board members noted the proposal’s tropical seascape theme and additional landscaping treatments will improve the beach without economic gain by the applicant. Member Schwob moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact Central Permitting staff to review tropical seascape design criteria proposed for Clearwater Beach; 4) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact Central Permitting staff to coordinate relocation of the dumpster; 5) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the City traffic engineer to ascertain whether parking can be provided to the east of the existing handicapped space. If determined feasible by the engineer, parking shall be provided in this area prior to approval of a final inspection; 6) Prior to approval of a final inspection for the addition, dense landscaping shall be provided in the area in front of the restaurant where paving is to be removed. “Dense landscaping shall consist of shrubs and one shade tree 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 installation. The plants shall be maintained in a healthy condition; failure to do so shall render variance approval void; and 7) Prior to approval of a final inspection for the addition, a solid landscape buffer shall be provided on the north and west sides of the green space located north of the restaurant. Selection and specifications for plant materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Official prior to installation. The plants shall be maintained in a healthy condition; failure to do so shall render variance approval void. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. David Little for the following variances (1) the structural setback variance required to permit a stairway within the structural setback from a side property line (south side); and (2) for parking space variances to allow fewer parking spaces than the required at 333 South Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd-White Skinner Sub, Lot 67, zoned CR28 (Resort Commercial). V 97-43 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the existing building is occupied by a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses. The applicant wishes to locate a restaurant on the second floor, adding a 272 square foot bridge and stair lift. Existing ground floor retail space will be reallocated to expand an existing ice cream store. Setback, parking and landscaping requirements were summarized. Circumstances supporting variance approval were noted: 1) the lot is small; 2) the proposal will upgrade, not redevelop the site; 3) the difference in parking requirements for existing and proposed use is only 14 spaces; 4) the property is compactly developed with no opportunity to add parking; 5) the parking variance is reasonable as much of the clientele is pedestrian oriented and a large public parking lot is located across the street; 6) the property is not significantly different from properties in the Beach Commercial zone to the north where change of use does not require added parking; 7) the bridge and stair lift will align with the garage; 8) the proposed restaurant will enhance ambiance and appeal of the property and Clearwater beach; and 9) the application is an opportunity to vastly improve the property and neighborhood by removing back-out parking, enhancing pedestrian and vehicle safety, and increasing visual appeal with dense landscaping. The request appears to comply with all standards for approval providing paved parking spaces in front of the porch are removed and pavement in front of the proposed stair lift is replaced with dense landscaping. Staff recommended approval with four conditions. Clarification was requested regarding previous and proposed uses, site upgrade versus total redevelopment, and amount of floor space increase. It was indicated elimination of front parking and increased landscaping are not shown on the plan submitted with the application. Updated plans will be submitted today. An attorney representing a third party requested opportunity for cross examination concerning the staff report. A decision was made to follow the board’s customary order of presentation. Harry Cline, attorney representing the owner/applicant, distributed copies of a plan showing removal of the front parking spaces. He provided an overview of parking conditions and the stairway facility. He detailed site history regarding ownership, construction, original and subsequent zoning, previous uses, and proposed tropical seascape theme. The south stairway will not extend farther southward than what currently exists. The footprint will not change with the addition of the 272 square foot open bridge connecting the stairway to the second floor restaurant. The connection will provide a second exit to meet fire code. A stair lift will provide handicapped patrons rare access to a second floor view of the water. The bridge will not run the length of the building and open banisters follow the seascape design. Principal market will be beach tourist pedestrian traffic. A significant public lot exists across the street. He detailed how the request meets each of the standards for approval. He requested reconsideration of the landscaping conditions, noting a tree in the suggested location would not survive and would adversely impact the view. In response to questions, Mr. Cline reiterated all back-out parking onto South Gulfview Boulevard will be eliminated from the site. Cars parked in two spaces serving the residential use at the rear of the property will have adequate space to turn around on site. Discussion ensued regarding two storage units to be constructed at the rear of the site. Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, stated he has worked extensively with staff during the summer to resolve the site issues. He displayed a site plan and detailed: 1) location of two remaining parking spaces serving the residential use; 2) location of the stairway, lift, and design rationale; and 3) landscaping and amenities proposed to convert the former back-out parking area into a pedestrian plaza resembling Pelican Walk. One member suggested private drive signage to prevent cars from mistakenly turning into the driveway and having to back out. Concern was expressed the pedestrian plaza contains no stopping area for vehicles carrying handicapped passengers. Pulling into the driveway would necessitate backing into traffic. Discussion ensued regarding how to accommodate handicapped patrons arriving in vehicles. Mr. Fowler submitted photographs of stair lifts. Discussion ensued regarding the south elevation, use of the deck for outdoor seating, 287 square foot total floor space increase, ice cream store expansion into existing retail area, current use of the proposed restaurant area, and changing uses within the existing footprint. David Little, Property owner since 1972, related the property’s history. He wishes to improve the property with a commercial use. He noted restaurants in the vicinity report empty parking spaces, even when there is an hour wait for a table, because of heavy walk-up patronage. He has met with City Economic Development Keller and other restaurant owners about the proposal. He explained a number of reasons he anticipates the parking impact will be less than the previous real estate use. He has considered outdoor seating on the bridge, which will be attractive and functional. No liquor or pool tables will be provided. He expects the restaurant business will be the Canary Island Café. Seating capacity will be about 55 to 60, with no more than beer, wine and light cuisine menu, similar to Hyde Park, or Sarasota’s St. Armand’s Circle. He responded to questions about parking requirements for the residential/office use of the rear unit. One letter was submitted in support of the application, praising the owner for maintaining and improving the property in a manner consistent with the accepted tropical seascape theme. Ed Armstrong, attorney representing the owner of surrounding property to the north, south and east, spoke in opposition to the request. He cross-examined Mr. Richter at length regarding variance history, code parking and setback requirements, zoning provisions in the subject and adjacent zones, staff’s rationale for recommending approval, and how the four standards for variance approval relate to the proposal with regard to physical uniqueness of the property, reasonable use, economic gain, and safety. The surrounding property owner feels the applicant is overbuilding the site by changing to a use that doubles the parking requirement. He urged code adherence or request for amendment. In response to questions, he said his client fears restaurant patrons would park on her lot to the east, on the vacant lot to the south, and that the proposal would negatively impact her view if she were to develop her vacant lot. He noted the applicant does not need variances to remove dangerous back-out parking, provide handicapped accommodation, improve the subject property and enhance neighborhood aesthetics. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the public hearing notice, having been mailed nine days prior to today’s hearing, was reasonable notice. Mr. Armstrong stated he would not have prepared his case differently had he been given more time, but suggested a code amendment to establish a specific public hearing notification time period.. In summary, Mr. Cline said great care was given to the well prepared staff report, which adequately details the request and adherence to the standards for approval. Discussion ensued regarding times and availability of public parking, and the applicant’s discussions with other property owners in the vicinity. Board members praised Mr. Richter’s clear, concise, and well considered responses to today’s cross examination. They appreciated his careful attention to code requirements in his recommendations to the board. Most could not see where the proposal would have a negative impact on surrounding property. It was felt approval based on the board’s interpretation, using the code as a guide, would have a positive impact on the beach. Discussion ensued regarding City and ADA handicapped parking requirements. One member disagreed with the proposal to trade parking spaces for landscaping, stating if the adjacent property owner feels the proposal will be injurious, she is probably right. One expressed concern the board has no authority to grant a request that does not meet all the standards for approval. One reiterated extra parking is not needed in this location due to the presence of heavy pedestrian traffic. Discussion ensued regarding comparison of parking requirements for a change of use in the Beach Commercial district. Member Schwob moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) Prior to approval of the final inspection, the paved parking spaces in front of the porch and the pavement in front of the proposed stair-lift shall be removed and replaced with dense landscaping. “Dense landscaping” shall consist of shrubs and one shade tree 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 installation. The plants shall be maintained in a healthy condition; failure to do so shall void this variance approval; 4) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact Central Permitting staff to review tropical seascape design criteria proposed for Clearwater Beach; and 5) The area near the chair lift shall be made into a handicapped loading/unloading area, posted with signs and strictly enforced. The motion was duly seconded. One member requested separate motions for the variances, stating he would not approve setback variance at the expense of neighboring property owners and felt the applicant needs to do more public relations work. Member Schwob withdrew the motion. The seconder concurred. Member Johnson moved to grant the side setback variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to the above conditions. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Schwob, and Johnson, voted “Aye;” Member Stuart voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Member Johnson moved to grant a total parking variance of 29 spaces, because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to the above conditions. Members Schwob and Johnson voted “Aye;” Members Gans and Stuart voted “Nay.” Due to the tie vote, the request was automatically continued to the next regular meeting on October 23, 1997. Board members suggested the applicant talk with the adjacent property owner regarding the application. It was clarified only the parking variance will be addressed at the next meeting. Submission of an accurate site plan was requested. Member Schwob moved to commend Mr. Richter, and to bring to the attention of his superiors, Mr. Richter’s outstanding answers to today’s cross-examination, his careful analysis of the proposal, and logical recommendations to the board regarding Item C2, David Little, V 97-43. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval – September 25, 1997 Mrs. Legters reported the board’s second condition of approval for Item C3 had been deleted from the motion on page four inadvertently. She corrected the minutes to add the condition: 2) In the event the conditional use request is denied, the variance is rescinded. Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Comments Discussion ensued regarding scheduling cases for the next meeting. Consensus was to schedule today’s continued item in the customary position at the beginning of the agenda. The Chair requested information from staff regarding setting time limits for the presentation. Consensus was to allow 20 minutes for the applicant’s presentation. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:57 p.m.