Loading...
04/21/1988 - 09:08 AM PUBLIC HEARING April 21, 1988 9:08 a.m. *Present:* J. Lawrence Johnson, Hearing Officer *Also present:* John Richter, Planning Official Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineer Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk *Issue:* Plymouth Development Ltd for a variance of 1 ft 4 inches to permit double row of 90 parking with aisle to be 60 ft 8 inches wide overall, at 2590 U.S. 19 N, Sec 302816, M&B 34.01, zoned CG (general office). *Case No. 880912* *Appearances:* Cynthia Rice, attorney representing the appellant Todd Pressman, representing the appellant Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney, representing the City of Clearwater *Exhibits submitted by City:* Exhibit #1  Notices of Public Hearing of 1/14/88 and 2/11/88 Exhibit #2  Excerpt of minutes of Development Code Adjustment Board meetings of 1/14/88 and 2/11/88 Exhibit #3  Appeal dated 2/11/88 Exhibit #4  Variance request and application Exhibit #5  Drawing and/or maps Exhibit #6  Variance transmittal Exhibit #7  Verbatim tape of hearing on Plymouth Dev Corp Exhibit #8  Letter to appellant from City stating the parking spaces with columns intruding into them would not be accepted Exhibit #9  Letter from appellant to City wherein they accepted the Traffic Engineer's decision *Appellant's exhibits submitted:* Exhibit #1  Brochure of Plymouth Plaza Cynthia Rice stated the presentation will show the appellant met the criteria for granting of the variance and the Board did not have competent substantial evidence to deny their request. The Assistant City Attorney stated the decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board must be affirmed. The appellant did not show a hardship or a necessity for the variance. There was substantial evidence before the Board to support their denial of the request. Todd Pressman stated the denial of the variance creates a shortage of parking spaces. Robert Spanos, Vice President of Plymouth Development, stated when the land was purchased there were many trees in the front area and the buildings were set back more than the required distance from U.S. 19 in order to keep a parklike atmosphere. The garage was placed near the shopping center property. They have done extensive landscaping and erected a gazebo. The columns in the garage create several aisles that are less than the 62 feet required by Code. When they first appeared before the Development Code Adjustment Board, they requested that spaces into which columns intruded be considered compact spaces. If they are denied a variance for the spaces, it will require they remove some landscaping to provide additional parking. There are two different size columns in the parking garage. The Traffic Engineer informed them that he would allow the spaces with the smaller columns but not the spaces containing the larger columns. A building permit was obtained for the parking garage and Mr. Crawford's comments regarding the spaces with the columns were accepted. This created a loss of approximately 29 parking spaces. Their plans call for at least three buildings. The parking fee is included in the lease and there is sufficient parking for the existing building and a second building which will be an exact duplicate. In response to a question about the brochure advertising Plymouth Plaza, he verified that the brochure states there is abundant parking available. Todd Pressman stated he has been working with Plymouth Development as a consultant. The layout of the land is unique and this is the only privately owned parking garage in the City. There will be a financial hardship if they are required to relandscape because they must provide additional parking spaces at ground level. In 1987, the same variance was denied. In response to a question, he stated a permit would be required to place parking in the green area but he did not believe a variance would be needed. The parking is currently under utilized. The Assistant City Attorney stated a person has a right to ask for a variance when it is needed but not to request it in advance. Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineer, stated he reviewed the plans which indicated the garage would provide the necessary width for spaces and aisles but did not show the interior layout of the parking garage. When the building permit was requested, it was noted the spaces did not meet Code requirements. He sent a letter to the appellant stating that the parking spaces with the larger columns would not be accepted. He returned the drawings with his suggestions for the layout of the spaces, but when the garage was finished, it was laid out per the original plan. John Richter stated identical requests were made in 1987 and 1988 with regard to the substandard length of the spaces. The Board felt no hardship was demonstrated and any hardship that might exist was self created. It was also their feeling this was not a minimum variance to make reasonable use of the land. Mr. Spanos stated his architect advised him that most areas accept compact spaces but was informed by Mr. Crawford that Clearwater did not. Mr. Crawford told him he would discuss the problem with his collegues at a conference he would soon be attending. He feels that unless he can guarentee there will be sufficient parking, he will have a problem selling the third building. He measured the overall width of aisles in the Park Street Garage and they do not meet the minimum Code requirement. Keith Crawford stated in the Park Street garage there is 27 feet between columns which places them in the corner of the stall rather than in the center. This garage also lost several spaces due to overhead piping, etc. In response to a question as to when variances are required, Mr. Crawford stated the Code allows the Traffic Engineer some leeway in determining what is acceptable. In the Park Street garage, they originally planned 433 spaces but because of the piping and other intrusions, they ended up with 404. In summation, the Assistant City Attorney stated the Board had competent substantial evidence to support denial and there is no hardship until such time as a third building is constructed. The variance is being requested primarily for financial reasons. The fact that the architect made a mistake in determining the width of the aisles is contrary to the criteria for approving a variance. The Development Code Adjustment Board acted properly in their denial of the request. In summation, Cynthia Rice stated the decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board should be reversed. The appellant suffers a unique hardship and the granting of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to anyone. She asked that the decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board be overturned. The Hearing Officer advised that any proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and proposed orders should be submitted within fifteen days. The meeting adjourned at 10:56 a.m.