Findings Of Fact On or about July 9, 1987 an application for conditional use approval to allow off-premises sale of beer and wine (2APS) was filed on behalf of Petitioner for property located at 2030 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on August 4, 1987. At that hearing, the Petitioner's representative was not allowed to give rebuttal testimony, although the Board's by-laws do allow the applicant to rebut testimony in opposition to the application, and rebuttal is, in fact, usually allowed. The Petitioner's representative did not specifically request an opportunity to rebut the opponent's testimony, but assumed he would be given an opportunity to speak before the Board voted. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 3-2 to deny conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioner on August 18, 1987. With this application, Petitioner seeks approval to sell beer and wine at a 7-11 convenience store. By subsequent application and approval of the Planning and Zoning Board on September 1, 1987 Petitioner has been granted a conditional use for 1APS, package sale of beer only. However, this 1APS application and approval is not at issue in this case. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of a church and several residences.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the evidence sustains the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) to deny the application of the Appellant, Richard P. Levy, d/b/a T-Shirt Factory, for a four parking space variance at his property located at 1498 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, at the junction of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Highland Avenue and Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. (The variance is required as a result of his desire to convert 877.5 square feet of storage space in his building on the property to retail use.)
Findings Of Fact Appellant, Richard P. Levy, d/b/a T-Shirt Factory, owns part of lots 5 and 8, and all of lots 6 and 7, Block G, Boulevard Heights, at 1498 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, at the junction of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Highland Avenue and Court Street, 0.24 acres, more or less, Clearwater, Florida. The T-Shirt Factory utilizes back-out parking into Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue. This type of parking for retail use is a traffic hazard and does not conform to the requirements of the City of Clearwater Land Development Code (the Code), but the property enjoys the benefit a having its retail use "grandfathered" under the Code because the prior owner also used the property and parking for retail sales at the time the Code was adopted. Gulf to Bay Boulevard is a busy and fairly high speed traffic artery. Highland Avenue also is a busy street. They meet at an acute angle with the Appellant's property inside the angle. Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Court Street, also a busy and fairly high speed traffic artery, meet at an acute angle just across the street from the Appellant's property, further complicating the traffic pattern in the vicinity of the Appellant's property. The Appellant filed its application for a four parking space variance to allow him to convert 877.5 square feet of storage space in his building on the property to retail use. The Appellant can make reasonable use of his property without the additional retail space. The Appellant's primary purposes in increasing retail space are to directly increase revenue and profit and to make the retail displays in his store more attractive and more spacious, in large part to prevent shoplifting and thereby indirectly increase revenues and profit. As now planned, unless advertised, the existance of additional retail space in the store would not be readily apparent to passers by not already familiar with the store. Nonetheless, the Appellant did not prove that the additional retail use will not lead eventually to additional use of the existing back-out parking on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue. Even if the retail space were expanded as planned, and not advertised, the expansion eventually could lead to an increase in retail business, one of the Appellant's primary long term purposes.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether four agency memoranda describing policy on mitigation for dredge and fill projects are unpromulgated rules and were relied on by the agency in violation of Section 120.535(1), F.S. During the hearing, and afterwards in writing, Petitioner sought leave to amend its pleadings to incorporate other policies allegedly relied on by the agency in the process of the dredge and fill application review. That request was denied in an order entered on August 23, 1993. Those policies are addressed in the recommended order in DOAH #93-3367.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SIP Properties Limited Partnership (SIP) is the record owner of the parcel at issue, approximately thirty-five (35) acres located in the southwest area of Orlando, Orange County, Florida. SIP proposes to prepare the site for commercial and office use by developing the site into separate parcels or lots with proposed uses such as restaurant or fast food establishments, offices and retail stores. Development of the site requires the construction of compensating storage ponds that will act as retention/detention ponds and filling the site. The proposed improvements will result in the filling of 7.47 acres and dredging of 0.42 acres of wetlands claimed to be jurisdictional by DEP. Based on statements made to SIP by staff regarding department "mitigation policies" applicable to SIP's dredge and fill permit application, SIP believed that department policy memoranda were applied during permit review. SIP attached these various memoranda regarding mitigation to its Petition for Administrative Determination of Violation of Rulemaking Requirement dated May 27, 1993, and identified these memoranda as nonrule policies utilized by the department. The department retains on file and makes available for use by its staff the identified memoranda. However, in this case the department did not rely on or apply the mitigation guidelines contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. Instead, it applied Part III of Chapter 17-3120, F.A.C. In Part III of Chapter 17-312, F.A.C., the agency has adopted rules addressing the mitigation issues contained in the memoranda in SIP's Petition. For example, the agency has adopted guidelines in rule 17-312.340(2), F.A.C., for applying ratios when mitigation involves creation of state waters, as in this case. The department presently relies on these rules when reviewing mitigation plans, and does not rely on the policy memos referenced in the petition. Determining the mitigation needed to successfully offset impacts from a project is difficult and depends on many factors, including hydrology, soils, planting methods, and monitoring plans. Determining what is needed to reasonably assure successful mitigation must be done on a case by case basis. Not enough is known about the subject to apply any particular set of directions and expect success. DEP is presently in the process of developing rules to further address most aspects of mitigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue its Final Order granting SIP's dredge and fill permit #48-2086169, with the mitigation proposed by the applicant, and establishing an expiration date and monitoring and evaluation plan for determining success of the mitigation as provided in rules 17-312.320 and 17-312.350, F.A.C. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4.-6. Adopted in paragraph 7. 7.-8. Rejected as unnecessary. 9. Adopted in paragraph 8. 10.-11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 13.-16. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in paragraphs 11 and 12. Rejected as unnecessary. 19.-21. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 24.-25. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 16. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 17, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as immaterial. The agency witnesses established that the vegetation along the canal evidences the physical connection and there is evidence that water flows from the site into the canal. Rejected as unsubstantiated by reliable competent evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. 36.-40. Rejected as unsupported by reliable competent evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary, and as to characterization of merely "relic" wetlands, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected (the conclusion of jurisdictional limit) as unsupported by the greater weight of evidence. 45.-53. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. 54.-56. Adopted in paragraphs 33 and 34. 57. Adopted, as to the limited function, in paragraphs 22 and 23. 58. Adopted in paragraph 26. 59.-60. Adopted in paragraph 23. 61. Rejected, as to the absolute conclusion of "no function", as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 62. Adopted in paragraph 25. 63.-64. Adopted in paragraph 26. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 30 and 34. Adopted in paragraph 31. 71.-73. Adopted in paragraph 33. 74.-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78.-79. Adopted in paragraph 31. 80.-81. Adopted in paragraph 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 33. 84.-90. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 15. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 16. 4.-5. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as unnecessary and as to "binding" effect, unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. 11.-15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and inconsistent with proposed findings #18 with regard to the constant level in the canal. 17.-18. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 21 and 23. 19.-21. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. 22.-26. Adopted in summary in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in part in paragraph 16. That the forests are "healthy and viable" is rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Adopted in part in paragraph 25; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 33.-34. Adopted in part in paragraph 27; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-37. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 38.-43. Rejected as unnecessary. 44. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The stormwater management plan and mitigation will restore the stormwater treatment functions. 45.-47. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. Rejected as substantially contrary to the greater weight of evidence (as to the negative impact). Adopted in part, as to water quality problems generally, but rejected as to the ultimate conclusion, as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 51.-52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 31. 53.-54. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 55. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ronald M. Schirtzer, Esquire Martha H. Formella, Esquire R. Duke Woodson, Esquire FOLEY & LARDNER 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire John L. Chaves, Esquire Rosanne G. Capeless, Certified Legal Intern Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has an option to purchase property located at 301-307 Island Way Boulevard, Island Estate, Clearwater, Florida, on which he proposes to construct ten townhouses. Initially Petitioner asked for two variances. The first variance was for 25.12 feet to allow construction on a lot only 124.88 feet wide. This variance was granted for this nonconforming lot. The second variance, for 13.24 feet to allow construction of the ten townhouse complex 12 feet from the side property line, was denied by the Clearwater Code Adjustment Board. The Board concluded the variance requested did not meet the requirements of Section 45.24 of the Clearwater Land Development Code. Petitioner presented evidence that if the lot had been 150 feet wide they would have had 90 feet to build on without requesting any variance. However, since the lot was nonconforming, in order to have 89 feet on which to place the building, the requested variance would be necessary. Petitioner also presented evidence that the construction of ten townhouses on this lot is necessary for the project to be on a solid economic basis. Subsequent to the denial of this variance by the Development Code Adjustment Board, Petitioner submitted plans, which have been approved by the City of Clearwater, to erect nine townhouses on this property without any variance needed. However, these townhouses would be smaller than would be the ten townhouses initially proposed and would provide a lesser return on the capital invested.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frenchy's Rockaway Grill, Inc., is the owner and operator of a restaurant and alcoholic beverage establishment located at 7 Rockaway Street, Clearwater, Florida. Petitioner purchased the property in 1991. Michael Preston is president of Petitioner. Petitioner's establishment is immediately adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and Clearwater beach on the west, to the north is a public parking lot, to the east is a motel, and to the south is the Clearwater Beach Hotel, which is owned and operated by Hunter Hotel Co., as indicated above. On the beach side of Petitioner's establishment there is an existing 972 sq. ft. wooden deck. The existing deck was initially constructed on or about 1987 by prior owners without receiving appropriate variance approvals. Subsequent alterations to the deck occurred between 1987 and 1991, also without appropriate variance approvals. In 1991 Charles and Ypapanti Alexiou/Anthony Alexiou, former owners of the subject property, filed an application for variance approval with the Board seeking three variances relating to the construction of the deck at the 7 Rockaway establishment. Specifically, the variances sought were: "1) 55.5 ft. to permit deck seaward of the coastal construction control line; 2) 15 ft. to permit a deck zero feet from a street right-of-way; and, 3) seven parking spaces to permit a 1,338 sq. ft. deck at 7 Rockaway Street, Miller's Replat, Lot 2 & vacated beach Drive on W and Lot 3, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial) & OS/R (open space recreation)." At public meeting on August 8, 1991, the application was considered by the Board. At that time Mr. Cline, as counsel for Hunter appeared in opposition to the application stating that approval of the variance requests would adversely impact the Clearwater Beach Hotel, that the request was for economic gain, that any hardship was self-imposed, and that development and traffic in the area was already heavy. The Board, however, granted the variance requests as to variances number 1 and number 2., and as to the third request, the Board denied the proposed 1,338 sq. ft. deck, but approved a variance of five parking spaces to permit the existing deck of 972 sq. ft. On or about July 13, 1993, a variance application was filed with the Board by Howard G. and Jean B. Hamilton and Palm Pavilion of Clearwater, Inc., seeking approval of four variances required for an 800 sq. ft. expansion of an existing deck at a restaurant at 10 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater Beach, Florida. The Palm Pavilion applicants were also represented by Mr. Cline. Like Petitioner's establishment, Palm Pavilion is a beachfront restaurant, which is located directly across the public parking lot to the north of Petitioner's establishment. Unlike Petitioner's establishment, Palm Pavilion is bordered by parking to the south and the east, and is not immediately adjacent to other buildings. On August 26, 1993, the Board granted the Palm Pavilion variance application for expansion of an existing beachfront deck with certain conditions. On October 6, 1994, Petitioner submitted its application to the Board requesting five variances required for a 650 sq. ft. expansion of the existing wooden deck at 7 Rockaway Street. Specifically, the variances sought were: 1) 13.22 ft. to permit a lot depth of 86.78 ft. where 100 ft. is required; 2) 8.2 ft. to permit it a rear setback of 6.8 ft. where 15 ft. is required; 3) 14 percent to permit 11 percent of open space where 25 percent is required; 4) three parking spaces to permit zero parking spaces where three additional are required; and, 5) 52.14 ft. to permit a structure seaward of the coastal construction control line. The subject property at 7 Rockaway Street is properly zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). Any scrivener's error indicating that the property is zoned OSC (open space recreation) has been corrected. Petitioner's restaurant, Frenchy's Rockaway Grill, is a popular beachside establishment. It is one of very few freestanding restaurants fronting the Gulf of Mexico on Clearwater Beach. Some patrons particularly enjoy dining on the open air deck adjacent to the beach. During peak hours, there is often over an hour's waiting time for tables on the deck. Petitioner is currently unable to accommodate the demand for seating on the beachside deck. Petitioner would sustain an economic benefit if more patrons could be accommodated on an expanded deck. Because of the size constraints of the lot and the establishment's location directly on the beach, development and improvement of the facility is highly restricted. The back of some residential rooms of the Clearwater Beach Hotel are immediately adjacent to the south of Petitioner's establishment. There are small bathroom windows from these residential rooms that face Petitioner's establishment. Petitioner's proposed expansion of the open air deck would place the proposed deck in very close proximity to the back of these residential hotel rooms. The City's staff reviewed the Petitioner's application and recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within 12 months; 2) the applicant shall obtain the necessary building permit within 6 months; 3) there shall be no outdoor entertainment and no outdoor speakers; 4) the applicant shall obtain the requisite alcoholic beverage separation distance variance from the City Commission. Petitioner agreed to the conditions recommended by staff. The recommendations of staff are not binding on the Board. In addition to the application for the five variances filed with the Board, Petitioner also filed a conditional use request with the Planning and Zoning Board. The conditional use request was approved on September 13, 1994, and imposed certain other conditions including the construction of a six foot wall on the south side of the proposed deck to buffer the adjoining hotel. Petitioner agreed to the conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for conditional use approval from Respondent for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor (4-COP) at 2779 Gulf-To-Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, on or after September 4, 1987. The subject property is zoned general commercial (CG), and conditional use approval is required for package sales on property zoned CG. Conditional use approval was previously granted for this property on June 30, 1987, to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages, but this prior approval is not under review in this proceeding. On October 13, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny Petitioner's application for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor. Petitioner has timely sought review of the Planning and Zoning Board decision. It is undisputed that the subject property is less than 500 feet from an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which constitutes the residence of approximately 300 persons. Frank Pascoe, the President and representative of the ACLF, testified about the residents' concerns about security, and the adverse impact of this application on the general welfare of their neighborhood. Paula Harvey, Planning Director, testified about the adverse impacts of this application on neighborhood noise, traffic and parking. Ordinance 4470-87 applies to this application since said Ordinance, by its terms, governs applications filed subsequent to September 3, 1987. Petitioner offered no evidence in support of its application. Specifically, there is no evidence in the record favorable to the applicant concerning noise, parking and the compatibility of this application with the neighborhood.
Findings Of Fact Lior Hason is the owner of Britt's Cafe, a restaurant which occupies property owned by the Petitioner's Stanislaw and Kasimiera Budzinski. On or about December 19, 1995, Harry S. Cline, an attorney for Mr. Hason and the Budzinskis, filed an application for a variance from the City of Clearwater's Development Code, for the purpose of eliminating three required parking spaces from the front of the subject property for the construction of an outdoor cafe at 201 South Gulfview Boulevard. The Code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, and a variance was required to remove three existing parking spaces from the unit's parking space inventory. The matter was brought before the City's Development Code Adjustment Board at its January 11, 1996 meeting. Mr. Cline appeared at the meeting on behalf of the applicant and presented the project. No one else was present to speak in support of or in opposition to the request. However, four letters in opposition from neighboring business owners were submitted. Notwithstanding these objections, the Board determined that the applicant had substantially met all standards for approval listed in the City's Land Development Code; and upon vote of the Board, the application was approved, subject to certain conditions, by a three to two majority. Mr. Hason entered into discussions with City officials to determine what was necessary. Official City reaction was initially favorable. Mr. Hason was advised of the requirements for the project and had plans drawn which called for a deck with a 35 to 36 inch railing with landscaping around it, and with posts and lights. When the plans were submitted to the City officials, the only change suggested was to raise the railing height to 45 inches, which was done, after which the City approved the plans and the permit was granted. The deck was then constructed exactly according to the approved plans. At some time during 1996, Mr. Hason discussed with some City employees putting an awning over the deck. During these discussions, the City employees sent Mr. Hason a copy of Section 41.221(1)(c), Clearwater City Code, which provides for awnings to be removable. Mr. Hason considered the sending of this Code provision to be tantamount to a favorable reply to his inquiry, and, based on that, he finalized his plans for the installation of a removable awning. The proposed awning is designed in such a fashion as to be extendible and retractable on a frame, capable of easily being pulled up against the front of the building like a drapery. With a minimum of further effort, consisting of the removal a several bolts, the entire awning construction can be removed from the frame. Mr. Hason submitted his application for the variance to install the awning on February 2, 1997. In the interim, the City employees with whom Mr. Hason discussed the project changed their position from favoring the project to opposing it. He was ultimately advised in December 1996 or January 1997 that the awning could not be permitted because an awning could not be approved over a deck for which a permit should not have been issued and for which the issuance was a mistake. Though the Board had not yet voted on the application, no information was given to Mr. Hason as to what he could do to make the project approvable. His application, on February 2, 1997, was submitted because, Hason claims, he had been told, by someone not further identified, that applying for a variance for the awning would make everything right. The Variance Staff Report submitted to the Board by the appropriate City employees acknowledged that the frame over which Mr. Hason proposed to put the awning does not meet code because it was constructed within a required setback area from South Gulfview Boulevard, but since the frame was built pursuant to a City-issued permit, consistent with City policy, the City accepted its existence. In its final recommendation to the Board, the staff concluded that notwithstanding the encroachment into the setback area, the project "appears to comply with all standards for approval, provided attention is given to the external appearance of the cafe:" The staff then went on to recommend approval of the project subject to certain conditions, all of which, Mr. Hason accepts and agrees to. Nonetheless, the Board denied the permit by a vote of four to one. Mr. Hason contends that the Board vote was an attempt by the Board to get back at him because of what it perceived as his failure to comply with the conditions placed upon the issuance of the first permit and his alleged misrepresentation of the scope of his project at the time. Mr. Hason, however, categorically denies he has done anything contrary to the dictates of the City. He went back to City officials many times during the construction of the deck to make sure the project was built as required. The majority of the Board members believe, however, that the deck as constructed, goes far beyond the limited structure approved by the granting of the parking space variance in January 1996. This animosity toward the project can be seen from a review of the audio record of the February 13, 1997, Board meeting where, during a colloquy between a Board member and Mr. Hason, it appeared the member was somewhat put out by the entire situation. His analysis indicates a less than complete recollection of the matter, however. Whereas one of the conditions to the issuance of the initial permit was that the area of the outdoor cafe should not be greater than 25 percent of the indoor area of the restaurant, this member pointed out that the 69 outdoor seats were far in excess of 25 percent of the 115 or so indoor seats. This constituted a confusion of seating as opposed to area. No evidence was presented concerning whether Mr. Hason had violated the area constraint. In the main, however, while it appeared that a majority of the Board members were unhappy about the way the project developed, and expressed the opinion that the project did not conform to what they had intended to approve, there was no indication any member s vote was motivated by anything other than a sincere belief in the correctness of his position. There was no indication of any inappropriate or vindictive action by anyone on the Board or its staff. Stephen Sarnoff, a central permitting specialist with the City reviewed the plans for the initial construction and for the current application. As he recalls, the plans for the initial deck construction did not show any support beams, fans, overhead structure or latticework fencing, and the deck, as built, does not conform to the plans as submitted. City Code requirements call for a railing of from 30 to 42 inches high. The current railing of 45 inches does not conform to that standard, and Mr. Sarnoff is not aware of any request from the City that the railing be raised to that height, as Mr. Hason claims. By the same token, while there is no requirement in the ordinance that a deck be of a certain height, anything higher than 12 inches is considered a structure and a waiver is required. This deck was approved for 12 inches. A certificate of occupancy is usually issued for a deck, but in the instant case, such a certificate has not been issued because the deck, as built, is not in compliance with the 1996 approval. If it is brought into compliance, it will be approved. Sarnoff is aware of and familiar with other outdoor restaurant decks built at various locations in the Clearwater area, as indicated by Mr. Hason. Some are not within the CR-28 zone and do not come under the same standards as are applicable here. Others, which must conform to the instant requirements appear to have movable awnings which are acceptable. Still others are in a different zoning district with different set-back requirements, and some were initially denied, but were subsequently approved when they were brought into compliance with the requirements. John Richter, a senior planner for the City, was the individual who prepared the staff report on the instant project and initially recommended approval, contingent upon changes to the external appearance of the facility. He made suggestions and has discussed the project with Hason on his several visits to the property. He did discuss an awning with Hason at some point, but their discussions did not deal with its mobility. All in all, Mr. Richter concluded that the project appears to meet the standard for approval, provided attention is given to the external appearance of the cafe. David S. Shuford, the City's central permitting director and development code administrator indicated that the variance required for the awning, which was an integral part of the structure already built, was not automatically granted with the granting of the permit for the deck structure. Section 42.221, Clearwater City Code, was adopted to promote a more festival atmosphere in some of the outdoor tourist areas. The intent of subsection (l)(c) of that provision was to require the use of moveable items and to design structures that would meet wind requirements and not interfere with pedestrian traffic. The term "moveable" means what it says, and in Shuford's opinion, from the plans he saw, the proposed awning would not be easily moveable on a daily basis. The Clearwater City Code establishes the area in question as one where, once guidelines are developed, they will be adopted and be complied with. Mr. Shuford opines that the current deck, in the rafter area, goes beyond what was proposed at the time the project was submitted for the parking variance and was approved. This is what appears to be the source of the difficulty the Board members have with it. However, if designed to comply with the guidelines, this awning could be approved. He would agree with the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation so far as they relate to painting and architectural matters.
Findings Of Fact Fred Thomas owns a home and lot on the beach in Clearwater at 730 Eldorado Avenue, Mandalay Subdivision, Block 2, Lot 8, now zoned RS-8 (single family residential). The Thomas house was built 30 years ago when front yard setbacks for the area were only 10 feet and there were no open space requirements. Now the front setback in the area is 25 feet, and Section 135.029(8) of the Clearwater Land Development Code now requires lots in RS-8 zones to have a minimum open space of 35 percent of the lot and 40 percent of the front yard. There are many properties in the area of the Thomas house that maintain pre- existing non- conformities to the current setback and open space requirements. The Thomas property, in addition to the pre-existing setback non-conformity, had only 26 percent open space overall and no open space at all (all concrete) in the front yard. In 1987, Thomas undertook renovations to his house. During construction, Thomas' concrete front yard deteriorated from additional cracking, and he decided to replace the concrete with brick pavers. He removed the concrete but then was required to get a building permit for this work. The building permit was not granted because the placement of brick pavers in the front yard violated the open space requirements. Thomas applied for a variance to replace the concrete with brick pavers and later modified the application to be allowed to have 29 percent lot coverage and 12 percent front yard coverage with open space. The modified application was denied by the DCAB after hearing on February 11, 1988, and Thomas took this appeal. Thomas also filed another variance application to be allowed to have 30 percent lot coverage and 16.8 percent front yard coverage with open space. This application was heard on March 10, 1988, and this time the DCAB granted the application. The only open space required under the granted variance not required under the denied variance application is a 10' by 10' square on the far left side of the front yard (facing the house). Thomas claims that this open space requirement prevents him from using a narrow concrete alley to the left of the house (and perhaps the concrete apron in the back of the house) for guest parking, leaving him with a two-car garage and the brick paved area directly in front of the garage that could accommodate two cars but would block the garage. Lack of guest parking would create a hardship of sorts on Thomas. There is no on-street parking in the area, and the Clearwater Police vigorously patrol and ticket violators in the area. The brick paved spaces in front of the garage could be inconvenient to the owners of the vehicles parked in the garage (probably the Thomases) and conceivably could block the cars in the garage temporarily under some circumstances. However, Thomas is incorrect in his presumption that guest parking in the alley and back of the house would be blocked by the 100 square feet of open space required under the granted variance but not under the denied variance application.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns property located at 1315 N. Betty Lanes Lots 8 and 9, Block E, Pine Ridge Subdivision in Clearwater, Florida. This property is zoned "CO" (general commercial) The consumption of alcoholic beverages on, premises is not permitted on premises zoned "CO," and therefore requires conditional use approval. Petitioner applied for conditional use approval on or about February 20, 1986 and on March 18, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Board disapproved Petitioner's application for conditional use. Paula Harvey, Planning Directors recommended approval because her review of the application indicated the location was suitable for a restaurant and lounges and the police department indicated no reason for disapproval. She did condition her recommendation on Petitioner demonstrating that all parking requirements of the Land Development Code would be met. A 6,000 square foot; two-story building is located on the subject property, but Petitioner only intends to use 2500 square feet for a restaurant and lounge. Petitioner currently operates a bar serving beer and wine directly across Overlea Lane on Beverly Lanes about forty feet away from the subject property. He testified he intends to close his present bar if he obtains this conditional use approval and opens his restaurant and lounge on the subject property. At his present locations Petitioner serves beer and wine; but not food. On the subject property, he would not sell alcoholic beverages without food, except to 7 persons waiting to be seated in the restaurant. Other than Paula Harvey's testimony that the subject property does not have sufficient parking spaces for the utilization of the entire 6,000 square foot building as a restaurant and lounges there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record as to the number of parking spaces on the property. It cannot be determined if there would be sufficient parking if Petitioner used only 2,500 square feet for the restaurant and lounges and the remainder of the building for some other commercial purpose. The neighborhood surrounding the subject property includes a church, residential, shopping and commercial areas. In addition to Petitioner's present barb there is also one other bar in the neighborhood. Public testimony evidences neighborhood concern about noise, litter, traffic and fighting associated with Petitioner's present bar and Petitioner offered no testimony as to how he intended to control noise, litters traffic and fighting which can reasonably be expected to occur if he opens a 2500 square foot restaurant and lounge with seating for more than 150 people compared to his current 1,600 square foot beer and wine bar.
