STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RICHARD A. HAVLOCK )

(Phillip Sawyer), )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 81-256

)

CITY OF CLEARWATER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. This hearing was conducted on March 25, 1981, in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Richard A. Havlock

1451 Blanton Lane

Largo, Florida 33540

For Respondent: Thomas A. Bustin, Esquire

City Attorney

Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518

ISSUE

This case concerns the request by the Petitioner, Richard A. Havlock, that he be granted a special exception to construct a storage warehouse on a lot located at 1169 Gould Street. See Sections 131.016(f) and (g), City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations. This area is located in CG-General Business zoning, within the meaning of Sections 131.140 through 131.146, City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This case is here presented for decision following a public hearing of January 15, 1981, leading to the denial of the Petitioner's request for special exception as set forth in the Issue Statement of this order. The tape transcript to that meeting may be found as City's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. The denial of the special exception was by decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning, City of Clearwater, Florida. On March 25, 1981, a hearing was conducted before the Division of Administrative Hearings to consider the subject of this special exception and this order results from that hearing.

2. On December 22, 1980, the Petitioner applied for a special exception to zoning for purposes of constructing the aforementioned warehouse at 1169 Gould Street, Clearwater, Florida, which is at Lot 5, RH Padgetts Subdivision, Section 15, Township 295, Range 15E. The present zoning for the area in question is CG- Business Purposes, as found in Sections 131.140 through 131.146, City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations. The details of that application may be found in the City's Composite Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the application and other materials related to the application.

   
   

3. A sketch of the lot and proposed building structure may be found as City Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Some of the prominent features of that plan depict the lot as being 50 feet wide and 150 feet long with the warehouse being 30 feet wide by 120 feet long. The front of the warehouse is 20 feet from the street, the side yard setbacks are shown as 10 feet and the distance to the rear of the lot from the back edge of the proposed warehouse is shown to be 8 feet. The Petitioner proposes to erect a corrugated metal building to serve the warehouse function. There are no plans to construct privacy barriers on the side yards.

   
   

4. West of the property in question may be found a single family dwelling, east of the property is a vacant lot, and there is another vacant lot across the street. There is very little vegetation on the lot, to provide buffering.

   Gould Street, at this point, is 20 feet in width, which is very narrow. The street right-of-way is 30 feet as opposed to the standard 60 foot right-of-way.

   
   

5. The area is described as a distressed area and the construction of the warehouse would have little impact on this area as it exists today, but it is intended that the area become high density housing and professional use center in the future pursuant to the Land Use Plan for the City of Clearwater. The warehouse is not compatible with those future plans.

   
   

6. The design as presented in its off-street parking features is such that vehicles would be required to back into the public street to obtain egress, a violation of Section 131.218(1), City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations. In addition, there is a problem with parking space No. 2 as depicted, in that the door opens into that parking space and is not in keeping with traffic engineering department standards within the meaning of Section 131.218(2), City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations. (The Petitioner has offered to modify his site plans to comply with the off-street parking.)

   
   

7. An associated problem concerns the possibility of loading and unloading of semi-tractor trailers, in that to do so they would block travel on the street. Although the Petitioner indicates that only light and medium duty trucks will be utilized normally, he does concede the possibility of the utilization of the semi-tractor trailer type of vehicle.

   
   

8. City's Exhibit No. 1 is a photograph of the lot and the Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 21, are photographs of the area in question and the surrounding business area.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action in keeping with Section 120.65(6), Florida Statutes, and Section 35.10, Code of Ordinances of the City of Clearwater.

10. Section 131.016(g), City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations, sets forth certain considerations to be examined in making a decision on proving a special exception request. Those provisions are:

    
    

    1. Same-Considerations. In determining whether to approve any regulated special exception, the board shall consider the following, where applicable:

       1. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive

          and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe;

       2. Off-street parking and loading areas where required, with particular attention to the items in subsection

          1. above, and economic, noise, glare or odor effects of the special excep- tion on adjoining properties and prop- erties generally in the district;

             1. Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to the items in subsections (1) and (2) above;

             2. Utilities with reference to loca- tions, availability and compatibility;

             3. Screening and buffering with reference to type, dimensions, and character;

             4. Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect, and compatibility and harmony with properties in the district;

             5. Required yards and other open space;

             6. Height;

             7. Landscaping;

             8. Renewal and/or termination dates;

             9. That the use will be reasonably compatible with surrounding uses in its function, its hours of operation, the type and amount of traffic to be gener- ated, and building size and setbacks, its relationship to land values, and

          other factors that may be used to measure compatibility.

          
          

          In granting any special exception, the board of adjustment may prescribe appro- priate conditions and safeguards in con- formity with this chapter. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the special exception is granted, shall be deemed to

          be a violation of this chapter and punish- able as provided by this chapter.

          Under those items, the plan of the Petitioner presents problems in ingress and egress to the property; problems associated with the property related to automotive traffic flow and the safety and convenience of automobile operators and pedestrians, and potentially presents problems if a fire or other catastrophe occurs. The screening and buffering of the building in question can not be achieved by natural barriers and there is no statement in the plan to provide for such screening and buffering artificially.

          
          

11. While the proposed use is reasonably compatible with the surrounding area at present, it is not in keeping with the Land Use Plan contemplated by the City which would upgrade this area and utilize it for high density housing and professional office complexes.

    
    

12. The project, as now proposed, presents problems in off street parking related to egress, according to Section 131.218(1), City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations, and related to traffic engineering department standards in terms of the configuration of parking space No. 2 and its proximity to the building. See Section 131.218(2), City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulation. These problems are magnified by the narrow nature of the street upon which the lot abuts.

    
    

13. Finally, although Section 131.142(4), City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations, contemplates the possibility of such a warehouse facility as a special exception under the CG, General Business District Zoning, the facility being less than 5,000 square feet of storage area, this special exception must be read in the context of the requirements of Section 131.016, and as stated before, there are problems with compliance with that provision.

    
    

14. After considering the facts herein and the discussion made by these conclusions of law, it is concluded that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a special exception to the zoning requirements of the City of Clearwater, Florida, for reason that the project is not consistent with those aforementioned zoning requirements, and not in keeping with public interest. Therefore, the special exception requested is hereby DENIED. 1/

DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1981

ENDNOTE

1/ The Respondent in the person of its counsel has provided Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a Recommended disposition in this cause. Those proposals, conclusions and recommendation have been reviewed prior to the entry of this order and to the extent that they are consistent with the order, they

have been utilized. To the extent the proposals, conclusions and recommendation are inconsistent with the order, they are hereby rejected.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Richard A. Havlock 1451 Blanton Lane

Largo, Florida 33450

Thomas A. Bustin, Esquire City Attorney

Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518

Docket for Case No: 81-000256

Orders for Case No: 81-000256