Planning board discusses Bungalow Beach hotel parking restrictions
BRADENTON BEACH – After much discussion about allowable parking uses at the Bungalow Beach Resort, the planning and zoning board, on Jan. 7, recommended approval of a major development application for a two-story, 15-guest room hotel to be built at 2000 and 2104 Gulf Drive N.
Architect John Garra, speaking on behalf of resort owner Gayle Luper, addressed concerns about City Planner Luis Serna’s recommendation to restrict parking at the resort.
“There was one other section in the staff’s comments that I believe is more stringent than the city’s land development code (LDC) and it’s related to parking,” Garra said, “It’s very limiting to what it says the parking can be used for. The way it was written excludes vendors and guests from parking in the parking lot, which is more restrictive than the LDC.”
He suggested a better recommendation would be to follow the LDC.
“The way it’s written now restricts the property owner from doing what they rightfully should be able to do,” he said. ”If a vendor is coming in to deliver some products, they can’t park there? The wording is too limiting.”
Garra said the site plan, with 17 parking spaces, meets the city’s parking and loading space requirements.
Prior to a presentation by Serna, the board members questioned Garra and board member Bill Morrow asked about ingress and egress for the property.
“That is under review by FDOT,” engineer Greg Fisher said.
Board member John Burns questioned the FEMA regulations for ground-level restrooms on the property.
“That’s a technical detail that’s covered under the Florida Building Code,” Garra said. “It’s not the zoning code necessarily. If you approve this, the onus is on us to make it work under the Florida Building Code.”
Serna said the FEMA does allow dry flood-proof facilities at ground level in commercial uses.
“The project will have to go through building permitting, so if you do want to approve it with the condition that it’s approved as long as it meets all the conditions of the Florida Building Code and is able to secure a permit, you can make that a condition of the approval,” City Attorney Erica Augello said.
SERNA PRESENTATION
Serna read his nine recommendations for the major development site plan approval.
Those recommendations included: a unity of title for parcels on the site; driveway to be subject to final approval by FDOT; meet signs standards of the LDC; no trees located closer than 2.5 feet from the edge of any landscaped area; off-street loading zone not to encroach into five-foot minimum landscaping buffer, maximum impervious area is 40% and compliance can be determined administratively.
It was the first recommendation, which was related to parking, that was the subject of much debate and it read as follows:
“Parking for this site (2000 and 2104 Gulf Drive North) shall be limited to use by employees and overnight guests of the resort on this site. No parking for uses off-site (sites other than 2000 and 2104 Gulf Drive North) or for other non-overnight guests shall be permitted without prior review and approval of a special permit for such parking in accordance with the requirements of Section 416.2 of the land development code.”
“The applicant does own properties that are adjacent to this property, and we wanted to clarify parking for those offsite properties will not be permitted on the site you’re considering today unless they get a special permit use. That’s a requirement of the LDC,” Serna said.
“Also, if there’s any paid parking for people who are not overnight guests or vendors or employees of the facility – a paid parking lot basically – that would require special permit approval as well,” he said.
He recommended keeping that condition but clarified that vendors would be permitted.
“I think if you want the conditions in, you put the conditions in. If you want the condition to comply with the code, then you don’t need the condition,” Augello said. “They are required to comply with the code.”
“If we put it in, the commission could take it out,” Burns said. “Let’s leave it in.”
Vice-Chair Dan Morhaus suggested eliminating the parking condition.
“We shouldn’t try to legislate much more restrictive covenants because that creates a huge problem, not only for enforcement, but if you want to make a change through code enforcement then you have to filter back through a myriad of what kind of special conditions were added on,” he said. “The only recommendation I would make is to eliminate number one.”
Burns asked for a consensus about retaining the parking conditions and Morrow and Ken McDonough also voted to retain them.
“The majority will rule,” Morhaus said. “This is a restriction beyond the building code.”
After reaching 3-1 consensus to retain Serna’s recommended parking conditions (with Morhaus in opposition), the board unanimously approved a motion to recommend approval of the major development plan. Board chair Fred Bartizal was absent with excuse from the meeting.
The city commission determines final approval and will hold a public hearing on the major development plan on Thursday, Feb. 5, at 6 p.m.
