Fearing more parking chaos and questioning the owners’ numbers, the Flagler County Commission on Monday rejected a request by the owners of a proposed new restaurant in the Hammock to allow for a smaller parking lot than required by code.
The proposal was not denied but merely tabled, giving the owners a chance to redraw their plans and submit a smaller restaurant footprint for the 30,000-square-foot-parcel.
Michael Goodman, the owner of Bronx House Pizza and Captain’s BBQ at Bings Landing, both in the Hammock, is teaming up with Bruce Garrison of Flagler Beach to build what Goodman says will be a 90-seat restaurant in place of what used to be Fusion 386, but 54 feet further back on the lot. Goodman’s company acquired the 386 building and lot last year for $800,000. The building will be leveled.
The owners claim the restaurant would employ just five employees per shift and have a dining area of 1,800 square feet, even though the building’s footprint will be 3,000 square feet. Both numbers are plugged into the county’s formula to determine the mandatory number of parking spaces: one space for every 50 square feet of dining area, plus one space for every employee on a given shift.
With those numbers, there would have to be a minimum of 41 spaces. The owners are proposing 31. They say they want to save trees, and have an arrangement with a nearby business for overflow.
“We have an opportunity here to put our foot down on this parking issue,” County Commissioner Greg Hansen said, “and send the applicant back to the drawing board, to refigure it, make it smaller, whatever, to reach at least the number of spaces that our regulations require. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. We’ve been hornswoggled, if you will, every single time on the parking at these restaurants. So I think it’s time to make them comply with our regulations.”
The restaurant Fusion 386 operated there for 12 years in a 2,000-square foot restaurant with just eight parking spaces, causing chronic overflow.
Goodman pushed back against the parking questions, derisively calling it “this theory about not enough parking,” rejecting the claim that 386 had a parking problem even as he implied that his restaurant shouldn’t be treated differently than other restaurants that can count on A1A for parking. “If we get singled out for doing what everybody else is doing, that’s not fair. It’s justified parking. It’s allowed,” he said, claiming A1A is “good for at least 10 to 12 cars.”
Dennis Clark, representing Scenic A1A, the civic group which reviewed the plans and recommended against approval, said fewer than half that many cars can park on A1A without creating a mess. He calculated a need for at least 46 parking spaces.
“This restaurant is 26 percent larger than the existing building on site,” Clark said. “It will easily seat 150 customers and require 10 to 15 employees. Parking will overflow into the sidewalk, since the right-of-way is very narrow. If you approve this, we will have yet another parking nightmare in the Hammock. If you reject it, however, the owner could claim to reduce that seating area to 1,500 square feet and three employees.”
Goodman and Garrison have already requested a special exception to build the restaurant. They have also requested four variances–a smaller buffer from A1A, 25 feet instead of 50 feet separation from a residential home to the north, a 15-foot buffer on A1A instead of the required 40 feet, and a fence height of 8 feet instead of 6. The exception and the variances were all granted by the same planning board on which Goodman serves. (He did not vote on those items.) The special exception is conditional on the owners getting the commission’s approval for less parking on the property.
The request from the commission was to approve that parking “deviation,” and also to approve the deviation from the county rule that the parking be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or pavers. The owners want to surface it with crushed shell, usually allowed for fewer than 10 parking spaces.
Commissioner Andy Dance and some members of the public were sharply skeptical of the claim that the restaurant’s dining area would be just 1,800 square feet, and that it could run on a five-employee shift.
“I want you to think for a second about five employees,” Lynn Rosewater told the commissioners. “Someone’s got to be cooking. I hope someone’s washing dishes so you’re not going to eat on dirty dishes. Someone has to be setting tables and unsetting tables. Someone has to be taking orders. If there’s 90 seats, how are five people [employed]? It’s not even feasible.” She said the same undercount is affecting parking spaces.
“I did a little research on industry standards,” Dance said, “and everything that I researched comes out to, for the 1,800 square feet, anywhere from 10 to 15 employees. So I’m trying to find out the discrepancy.”
“Unfortunately I can’t answer that question because that’s not part of my purview,” Goodman said. His partner had done the calculations.
Dance had what he called “a math problem” with the number of employees stated, and he wouldn’t vote for the plan without more solid numbers.
“If the commissioners’ plans are to deny this project over the parking spaces, our plan is to move that building back to our setback limit, removing the tree, picking up six more parking space,” said Jeffrey Lademann of Ormond Beach-based Lad’s Coastal Construction. “Pretty much every single restaurant is non conforming on the spaces. Everybody likes to use Bronx House as an example. Nobody wants to talk about the other restaurants.”
Dance didn’t like Lademan’s presumption. “I would just remind you that you have been the recipient of four variances, so don’t throw threats to us about the tree. Those variances were accommodated so that you can save the tree in the back. And if you look, the extra 15 feet you got from the front setback is exactly how much area you have acquired in the back to save that tree. This is just about numbers and math at this point.”
Other than Goodman and Lademan–and county staff–those who addressed the commission were opposed to the plan.
“We all absolutely look forward to another dining option, another restaurant in the Hammock. We absolutely welcome that,” Ed White, representing the Hammock Community Association, said. He was concerned about precedent-setting decisions such as the planning board granting “egregious” variances, and parking variances added on top of that. “The building is too big for the property. I think you all know that, just from your questions that you asked tonight,” he said.
The commission voted 4-0 to send the plan back to the drawing board. It does not appear that the owners can ignore the vote and simply build by demolishing more trees to make room for more parking, as Lademan threatened: the special exception the owners got from the planning board is contingent on the commission granting the parking variance.
Clown Shoes McGee says
I hate that Bruce Garrison has any clout in this county.
Duncan says
I hope the residental property owner was aware and agreed to the “25 feet instead of 50 feet separation”. .
Ed White says
The property owner attended. He complained. He did not approve. It did not seem to matter. He was denied. The setback variance was granted. Such is the current way of our Planning & Development Board…
Ed White says
This property and restaurant development is different than every other restaurant or business currently on A1A in the scenic Hammock corridor. Why? Because this restaurant will be on the new sewer line on A1A. Why does that matter? Because there is no need for a septic tank or a drain field which provides more room for parking than other restaurants in the area. This should and would be enough parking space for a reasonably sized restaurant. Problem is the current design for the building is just plain too big. If they do not decrease the size of the restaurant which would both save the large oak tree and provide enough space for parking, deny the request and send them back to the Planning & Development Board. There will be more development coming down A1A now that we have the sewer line. A precedent needs to be set and it needs to be set now. Just follow the rules and stop asking for permission to break them. We have a Hammock to preserve.
Laurel says
A commercial business is to be 100′ from a residence. Since when did it become 50′? Now Goodman wants a variance of 25′? Since when did the residents become the problem? Since vacation rentals.
He and Garrison knew damned good and well the property was too small. Did they draw the plans on a cocktail napkin, like Captain’s BBQ? Maybe Goodman wants to do valet parking to the property next to Freida’s. Seventeenth Rd is a nightmare now, and should have been unacceptable to the county. It’s dangerous.
I was in the restaurant business for a decade and a half. Only a small snack bar can get away with five employees. These two want to own the Hammock.
What Else Is New says
Bless his heart. Goodman tests us with his greed. While he has forgotten the definition of a hammock, it is gratifying the Hammock Community Association and Scenic A1A and County Commissioners are monitoring the site plan. Don’t count on the Planning Board and it’s best to check out the Technical Review Committee.
There’s the door says
Listen people in the end it will probably be discovered the county SCREWED UP again resulting in Goodman suing. When the verdict comes in the county will be held liable and the judge will order the county to pay for and build another Goodman restaurant. Just like the one at Bings Landing.
Laurel says
Yet another place to boycott. In my opinion, subpar pizza, subpar bbq, subpar what’s next?
They know the place is too small. That’s why they bought it. No one else can get the breaks they get, so the parcel costs less. Then, change the rules. The county will oblige, then get sued anyway. Quite the plan. It works…here.
The other guy has business in Flagler Beach, another place that has serious parking issues. They know what they are doing to us.