Loading...
11/19/1991 - 01:12 PM PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER November 19, 1991 - 1:12 p.m. Richard P Levy d/b/a T-Shirt Factory Hearing Officer: J. Lawrence Johnstone Also Present: Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Sandra Glathorn, Senior Planner Camille Motley, Central Records Specialist Issue: Richard P. Levy (T-Shirt Factory) for variance of 4 parking spaces to permit conversion of storage area to retail with zero additional parking spaces provided at 1498 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Boulevard Heights, Blk G, Lots 6, 7 and part of Lots 5 and 8, zoned CG (general commercial) and RS 8(single family residential). V 91-45 Doah Case Number 91-5218 Appearances: Daniel J. Grieco, II Esquire Representing Appellant Joseph Gargiulo, General Contractor Representing Appellant Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Exhibits Submitted: 1. Notice of Appeal dated August 7, 1991, executed by Daniel J. Grieco as representative. 2. Notice of Public Hearing of Development Code Adjustment Board Meeting for July 25, 1991. 3. Excerpt of Minutes of the Development Code Adjustment Board of July 15, 1991. 4. Variance Application. 5. Variance Request map and atlas sheet. 6. Variance Transmittal sheet. 7. Planning and Development staff's recommendation. 8. Site Plan 9. Drawings Exhibits were accepted by the hearing officer. Opening statements were taken by Mr. Johnstone. Mr. Grieco stated that due to hardship, the applicant feels his facility should be allowed to increase the retail space of the building presently being used as a retail outlet. Mr. Lance responded that if there was substantial evidence before the board, then their decision must be upheld. He cited code section 137.012 that establishes standards for approval of a variance request. Mr. Lance stated that the location of the subject property is one of the worst intersections in the City. It is the intersection of State Road 60,Court Street, and Highland Ave. He indicated this intersection is totally over-stressed and it would present real hazards to allow back-out parking and waive extra parking space requirements. Mr. Lance cited the lack of demonstration of a hardship, other than financial and stated the board was justified in not granting variance. Discussion ensued regarding previous use of facility and it was pointed out that other businesses have back-out parking near this location. Mr. Guarduilo stated that he had gone through the proper departments for approval and his plans were made part of the evidence. The proposed increase in retail use requires no alterations to be made to the structure either inside or outside. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Lance, Mr. Gargiulo responded that he was aware of the City's Traffic Engineering Department's concerns regarding back-out parking onto Highland Avenue and Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Mr. Lance stated that all five members voted against the variance. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the Board effectively addressed the issues that were being raised. Mr. Gargiulo said that the current establishment had been open for approximately a year after having been vacant for over a year. Sandra Glathorn stated the request for variance on subject property did not appear to support the standards for approval of the Land Development Code, Sec. 137.012d. based on staff review and analysis of the information contained in the application. In response to questioning by Mr. Grieco, Ms. Glathorn testified she had not prepared the report but she personally reviewed the site. Discussion ensued about previous uses of subject property and surrounding business and their impact on traffic; traffic lights and traffic patterns at that corner. In response to Mr. Grieco's questions, Ms. Glathorn stated it would be detrimental to the neighborhood because of increasing parking demand without providing additional parking and conversion from storage to retail space would increase the demand for parking. Discussion continued in regard clarification on the original square footage increase request; reasons for board is to deviate from code and existing law; and that each request is to be treated differently on its own merits. The Hearing Officer asked for clarification of how Cleveland and Court intersect. He questioned the status and legality of existing parking and wanted clarification of the square footage increase on the application and the parking requirements. The Hearing Officer concluded the hearing and offered 10 days to respond. Meeting adjourned at 3:38 P.M.