Loading...
2003-05-27 BOA CITY OF OKEECHOBEE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 27, 2003 SUMMARY OF BOARD ACTION Pa :]1 - ACTION.. DISCUSSION - VOTE - Chairman Walker called the May 27,2003 Board of Adjustment meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Board Secretary Arnold called the roll I Absent (with consent) Absent (with consent) Present Present Present Present Present Present (serving as a voting member) Present (serving as a voting member) Present Present Member Hoover moved to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Board Action for the November 26, 2002 regular meeting. Member Keller seconded the motion. I VOTE HOOVER- YEA JONES - YEA KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA MA VROIDES - YEA McCoy - YEA SALLETTE - YEA MOTION CARRIED. AGENDA I. CALL TO ORIlER - Chairman. Board of Adjustment, May 27,2003, 7:00 p.m. II. CHAIRMAN, MEMBER AND STAFF ATTENDANCE - Secretary. Chairman Jerry Walker Board Member Daniel Creech Board Member Dawn Hoover Board Member Thomas Keller Board Member William Ledferd CV Board Member Christopher Mavroides ~ _. Board Member Douglas McCoy ..'...., Alternate Sandra Jones Alternate Teresa Sallette Attorney John R. Cook Secretary Carolyn Arnold Secretary Katrina Vinson III. MINUTES Secretary . Motion to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Board Action for the November 26, 2002 regular meeting. A. AGENDA Ma 27,2003 - Board of Ad.ustment - Pa e 2 of 8 ACTION - DISCUSSION - VOTE IV. NEW BUSINESS. I A. Consider Petition 03-00Lt-V: John F. Dunn, Trustee is the property owner. RH. Tucker is the agent. The purpose for the request of a variance is a to allow for the west setback to be reduced to two (2) feet; to reduce the minimum depth on corner lots from 75% to 15%; and to allow a sign with the total height of thirty- five (35) feet. The property is located at 501 E.N. Park Street. This is also in connection with Petition 03-001-SE. I I Clerk Gamiotea addressed the Board. She explained the use of the Code of Ordinance books and how they are more user friendly. Clerk Gamiotea further explained that this project has been on going for the past two years. She stated that the books must remain at City Hall and if any of the Board members would like a copy to notify her or her office and she would see to it that one is copied for them. Clerk Gamiotea further stated that this information will be available on the City's website soon. Mr. Jock Robertson representative of LaRue Planning and Management Services, gave a brief background of the subject property and described the surrounding area. Mr. Robertson explained that the first variance request was to reduce the required setback to two (2) feet. He said if you assume the front will be off of NE 5th A venue he does not see where there are any special circumstances to approve the requested reduction. Mr. Robertson explained that this petition is not under any hardships and is not consistent with the Land Development Regulations or the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Staff recommends to the Board of Adjustments to deny petition 03-00tf-V based on the findings within the planning staffs report. Mr. RH. Tucker, agent, addressed the Board. Mr. Tucker explained that the proposed buyer is looking to put the same use as within the rest ofOkeechobee, something such as Dairy Queen. Mr. Tucker further explained that he has been working on this property for over a year and this was the first potential buyer that has gotten this far within the selling process. Many potential buyers usually get scared off because most financial institutions will not fund the site due to the monitoring wells located within the site. Mr. Tucker has contacted Mr. Harry Moldenhour many times regarding the pollution control and the monitoring wells at the site. He continued to explain that the State frowns on the construction over monitoring wells which is part of the reason Mr. Conlon is requesting the side setback to be reduced. Mr. Tucker further explained that Mr. Conlon's interest in the site meant the potential construction of offices or whatever he proposed because Mr. Conlon would not need a bank to finance the proposed project. Mr. Tucker submitted a letter from the First Bank ofIndiantown into the record. ~ ~ ~ Mr. David Conlon, applicant, was acknowledged by the Board. Mr. Conlon wanted an opportunity to answer the questions brought up within the Planning Staff s report. Mr. Conlon went over in detail every aspect of the report and indicated how there was sufficient evidence on his part to support the requests for the variances. There was some questions from the Board concerning how the traffic flow would impact the area. IV. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED. AGENDA A. Consider Petition 03-004- V, Continued. ~ A tv II Ma 27,2003 - Board of Ad.ustment - Pa e 3 of8 ACTION - DISCUSSI(;)N - VOTE Mr. Conlon explained that he has spoken with the City Engineer and according to him the City would not allow him to use the alley as part of the traffic flow within the site. Attorney Cook indicated that this project should have been through site plan review first prior to coming to this Board and if it had it may have alleviated most of the concerns within the Planning Staff s report. Mr. Conlon indicated that he was not going to spend over ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars for the site plan review process ifhe was not going to be able to obtain the variances required to develop the site. He indicated it was more sensible to pursue the variance requests first before having to obtain engineers and surveyors for the site plan review process. Mr. Tucker asked Attorney Cook ifhe recommended Mr. Conlon motion to table this petition until the applicant was able to go to site plan with it. Attorney Cook indicated that it would be a good idea and may end up being more beneficial for the applicant if he did. Mr. Tom Ellmore, surrounding property owner, addressed the Board. Mr. Ellmore indicated he has been a long time resident of Okeechobee for years as well as a business owner. He feels that this location for a restaurant is excellent and does not see where the use of the alley would be a problem. Mr. Ellmore does have a problem with existing restaurants who do have parking problems and now Mr. Conlon is wanting a legitimate business to come in and the Board wants to prevent it. Mr. Ellmore feels this location has been an eyesore and if this petition is approved it would benefit the area. Mr. Ellmore submitted a letter from Interbank which agrees with and supports this proposed development. Mrs. Susan Williams, surrounding property owner, was acknowledged by the Board. Mrs. Williams has seen the pictures of the proposed development and plans for the building and feels that this would improve the looks of Highway 70 as well as increase property values. She noted that all new businesses would increase revenue, taxes, sales, etc. Mrs. Williams stated that last year she participated with Okeechobee Main Street and felt that this is exactly what they are encouraging the developments of. She indicated that she was in full support of this project. Mr. Mark McCree, is the prospective engineer on this project, addressed the Board. Mr. McCree stated that he has participated in many developments as an engineer. In his experience all variances needed must be approved first prior to site plan approval. II AGENDA May 27, 2003 - Board of Ad.iustment - Pa~e 4 of8 ACTION - DISCUSSION - VOTE IV. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED. A. Consider Petition 03 -OO~ V, Continued. Mr. McCree indicated that this decision is going to be the easiest one the Board will need to make look at the variance requests alone and decide. He continued that any ingress and egress questions and landscaping questions should be addressed at site plan review. I Mr. Marvin Wherrell, surrounding property owner, was recognized by the Board. Mr. Wherrell indicated that his concerns are with the traffic impacts on the area. He feels that the developer has addressed all traffic issues and supports this petition. I Mr. Jerry Campbell, adjacent property owner, addressed the Board. Mr. Campbell indicated that his first problem was with the Dairy Queen statement, Dairy Queen is nowhere near this site. He further explained that during lunch time traffic is often backed up past this property especially from MacDonalds. Mr. Campbell stated that no matter where Mr. Conlon builds his building it would not interfere with the monitoring wells. He feels that Mr. Conlon's requests are contradictory. Mr. Campbell indicated that he is an existing business and will be land locked if Mr. Conlon is allowed to pursue this development. He has concerns for people leaving Mr. Ellmore's property backing into oncoming traffic from Mr. Conlon's proposed development. Mr. Campbell was also concerned for the drive thru being on both sides of the block with an existing business in the middle. He indicated that it is dangerous and does not support this project and feels there is no way this project can be approved. C't: ~ ~ Attorney Cook informed the Board that this planning staffs report has all the sections within the Land Development Regulations that indicates whether these requests comply with the LDR's or not and that is what the approval or denial must be based on. He further stated that Section 254 needs to be included within the motion made and as Mr. McCree stated this project is just starting the review process, it will need the approval of many other Boards. I There was a fairly lengthy debate between Mr. Conlon and Mr. Campbell regarding the construction over the monitoring wells as well as Mr. Campbells' landlocked situation. Mr. McCree continued to state that many items being brought up should be addressed at site plan review and that it was not for the Board to base their decision upon those concerns. The Board discussed what percentage of criteria must be met for this to be granted, such as the applicant complies with five out of the six requirements. It was stated that all six requirements must be met in order to legally approve this petition. II IV. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED. AGENDA CN ~ ~r.:. A. Consider Petition 03-004- V, Continued. B. Consider Petition 03-003- V: Dean Garafola is the property owner and applicant. The purpose for the request of a variance is to allow a reduced setback on the south side from eight (8) to zero (0) feet; a reduced setback on the west side/front from twenty (20) to two (2) feet. The subject property is located at 1012 N. Parrott Avenue. II May 27, 2003 - Board of Ad,iustment - Pa~e 5 of 8 ACTI(;)N -DISCUSSION - V(;)TE There was more discussion from Mr. Conlon, Mr. Campbell and Mr. McCree about their concerns previously stated. The Board took a six minute recess at 8:40 p.m. Board Member Mavroides stated he wanted to thank everyone in the audience for their comments and concerns regarding this petition. Board Member Mavroides moved to deny Petition 03-004- V based on special conditions exist because of the applicant, and to include section 254 within the Land Development Regulations. Board Member Keller seconded the motion. VOTE HOOVER - YEA JONES - YEA KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - NAY MA VROIDES - YEA McCoy - NAY SALLETTE - YEA MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Jock Robertson representative of LaRue Planning and Management Services, gave a brief background of the subject property and described the surrounding area. Mr. Robertson explained that on the subject property there is an existing nonconforming structure. He further explained that the City Council passed an Ordinance which requires a property to come into compliance if the property is sold and happens to be a nonconforming use or structure. If this applicant is made to bring the property into compliance it would not allow any room for the building. Mr. Robertson went into detail as to why this variance should not be approved and stated that the applicant is not responsible for the cause of the nonconforming issue. Attorney Cook explained that in order for the applicant to be able to use the property the Board should let it remain as a nonconforming structure and continue the uses that are currently allowed there right now, auto detailing and warehouse uses. Mr. Dean Garafola, applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Garafola explained that this lot was platted and approved as originally platted by the City at that time. II IV. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED. I I I B. AGENDA Consider Petition 03-009 V continued. II May 27, 2003 - Board of Ad.iustment - Pa~e 6 of 8 ACTION - DISCUSSION - VOTE Mr Garafola expressed concern for the Highway 441 N expansion and during all that road construction what happens if the warehouse use and auto detailing don't last the duration, what other uses could be put in. He explained that he did come in and do some research on this property prior to purchasing it and was not informed of this ordinance which requires new property owners to bring the property up to code if it had a nonconforming issue on it. Attorney Cook noted that the zoning is appropriate for different uses but that due to the amount of property at the subject site the applicant may not be able to meet other restrictions. There was more discussion between Mr. Garafola and Attorney Cook regarding proposed paved parking, other uses that could go in and meet regulations and all other existing nonconforming structures in town not able to meet current codes. Mr. Garafola requested the Board to grant his variance to come into compliance with current code. He also complemented City Staff members Lydia Williams and Carolyn Arnold at their consistent help and continued communication. There was some discussion among the Board members as to why the applicant even applied for a variance and why he would not be able to continue the current uses. It was established that the City will allow him to continue the current uses but because of the code and ordinances passed the property must be brought up to code. They further discussed the approval of just the setbacks. 10 ~ ~ Board Member McCoy moved to deny petition 03-00~- V, based on planning staffs recommenda- tions. Board Member Keller seconded the motion. VOTE HOOVER - YEA JONES - YEA KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA MA VROIDES - YEA McCOY - YEA SALLETTE - YEA MOTION CARRIED. II IV. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED. AGENDA II May 27, 2003 - Board of Adjustment - Pa~e 7 of 8 ACTION - DISCUSSION - VOTE C. Consider Petition 03-00 1-SE: John F. Dunn, Trustee is the property owner. RH. Mr. Jock Robertson representative of LaRue Planning and Management Services, gave a brief Tucker is the agent. The purpose for the request of a special exception is to allow background of the subject property and described the surrounding area. Mr. Robertson explained a drive through within a Heavy Commercial (CHV) zoning. The property is that the applicant never really applied for a special exception petition it is just tied into the variance located at 501 N .E. Park Street. This is also in connection with Petition 03-O~. request. He continued with the applicant still did not have all the information that was needed by the planning staff. There were still questions regarding the ingress and egress. Mr. Robertson said that they tied this application in with the variance and read some comments into the record. c..: ~ --, "".. Attorney Cook explained that the special exception is for a drive thru only, the restaurant is a permitted use within Heavy Commercial (CHV) zoning. If the project could proceed he would have to meet current setbacks and may allow the drive thru in conjunction with the restaurant. Mr. David Conlon, applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Conlon explained due to the variance being denied he could make the dining area smaller and still probably be able to work the restaurant in there and comply with all the codes. He requested to grant the special exception and make it conditional upon site plan approval of the landscaping and traffic impacts. Mr. Conlon indicated that the drive thru would be similar to Skip's BBQ, where you need to call ahead for the order. Mr. Jerry Campbell, adjacent property owner, was acknowledged by the Board. Mr. Campbell indicated that the drive thru does represent fast food and that the circumstances are still the same as in the variance. He was opposed to the petition. There was no further pubic comment and no comment from the Board. Board Member Hoover moved to approve Petition 03-001-SE to allow for a drive thru within a Heavy Commercial (CHV) zoning district with conditions of twelve months to comply with site plan requirements for landscaping and traffic issues. Board Member Keller seconded the motion VOTE HOOVER - YEA JONES - YEA KELLER - YEA LEDFERD - YEA MA VROIDES - YEA MCCOY - YEA SALLETTE - YEA MOTION CARRIED. I " Pa!!:e 8 of8 Board of Adjustment - Mav 27, 2003 ACTION - DISCUSSION - VOTE AGENDA items on the agenda Vice Chairman Ledferd adjourned the meeting at 9:37 There being no further p.m V. ADJOURNMENT - Chairman PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that if any person desires to appeal any decision made by the Board of Adjustment with respect to any matter considered at this proceeding, such interested person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. General Services tapes are for the sole purpose of backup for official records of the Department I ~ r.. ~ C"'.) ATTEST I I