Loading...
07/05/1991 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER July 5, 1991 - 9:07 a.m. Stanislaw and Kazimiera Budzinski / Britt's Restaurant Hearing Officer: Veronica E. Donnelly Also Present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Steve Doherty, Development Analyst Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II Issue: Stanislaw and Kazimiera Budzinski (Britt's Restaurant) for a variance of 23 parking spaces to allow 2,560 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 Case 91-2124 Appearances: George W. Greer, Attorney Representing Appellant Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney James Mayes, Owner, Britt's Restaurant Exhibits Submitted: 1. Tape excerpt, Development Code Adjustment Code hearing, May 9, 1991, Caraco, (Lucia by the "C") 2. Area map showing location of public parking lots in relation to the subject property. 3. Table comparing parking requirements for various types of alcoholic beverage licenses. George Greer, representing the applicant, stated his client no longer wishes to enlarge the restaurant and is reducing the request from 23 parking spaces to 17 parking spaces. The Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) heard this case March 14, 1991, and denied the variance because it was felt the applicant had not met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code. Mr. Greer gave a brief history of the case stating Mr. Mays formerly operated a similar restaurant a short distance north of his present location for which he obtained parking variances but was denied a conditional use permit by the Planning and Zoning Board. A Hearing Officer reversed the Planning and Zoning decision and granted the Conditional Use for alcoholic beverages. He stated an almost identical variance request was granted in the Caraco case by the Development Code Adjustment Code and appellant exhibit #1 was submitted into evidence. Mr. Lance stated a decision of the Development Code Adjsutment Board should not be reversed unless there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to justify the decision or the applicant has been deprived of due process of law. He indicated the Development Code Adjustment Code had substantial evidence and reason to deny the variance as requested and the conditional use for beer and wine sales was denied because of the back-out parking which was not a factor in the Caraco case. Mr. Mayes, in response to questions, stated his restaurant opened in May, 1990, has under 2,200 square feet of floor space, seats 84 people, serves breakfast, lunch and dinner and serves three complimentary beers per day to each customer in order to compete with competitors who serve beer. He indicated he had a license to sell alcoholic beverages in his former location which had 120 seats and ten parking spaces that adequately met his customers' parking needs. Mr. Mayes said he conducted a survey which indicated 80 percent of the approximately 1,200 people surveyed walked to his current restaurant from the beach. There are 11 parking spaces in his current location, and ample public parking nearby. Mr. Mayes estimated there are several hundred motel rooms within walking distance of his establishment, did not feel the granting of the variance would increase the number of drive-up patrons. There is no room in the immediate area for additional parking spaces. In response to questions, Mr. Mayes indicated serving free beer costs money, he went into business knowing he could not sell alcoholic beverages and he knew variances cannot be granted for financial gain. He stated before he opened his business he was under the impression it was zoned for an SRX license but was not aware of the need for a parking variance until after opening the restaurant. Mr. Mayes stated his former restaurant was 80 percent food sales to 20 percent alcoholic beverage sales. Mr. Shuford, in response to questions, explained various zoning requirements relating to parking and sales of alcoholic beverages, stating the parking requirements are two-and-a-half times greater than required for an SRX license. On Clearwater Beach the parking requirement is only half of what is required elsewhere in the City. He indicated parking requirements for 4 COP SRX remain the same whether or not alcoholic beverages are sold. Discussion ensued regarding Code requirements for parking in relation to alcoholic beverage sales. It was indicated the alcoholic beverage regulations are in need of modification. The Police Department had no negative comments regarding the application. The applicant has agreed to close at 11:00 p.m. and will not have outdoor seating. Mr. Doherty stated he informed the applicant a beer and wine license would be difficult to obtain due to the large number of additional parking spaces required for a 2 COP license. It was pointed out that if First Street was closed, additional area for parking might become available because a vacated right-of-way is usually divided between adjoining property owners. In closing, Mr. Greer indicated the additional parking requirement is not needed and is a hardship for the applicant to provide parking for a bar instead of a restaurant. The Development Code Adjustment Code has historically recognized that the Code indicates the additional parking is not necessary, and has granted parking variances. In his opinion he feels the application was denied because it appeared the appellant was trying to pyramid variances. He requested that he not be precluded from requesting outside seating at a later date. Mr. Lance, in closing, indicated back-out parking was a large factor in the Board's decision to deny the subject variance. He feels the request is based on economic convenience, not survival. Any proposed orders should be submitted to the Hearing Officer and postmarked within ten (10) days and final ruling on the case will be within thirty (30) days.