LDL VAR 2023-67. Our first case is LDL VAR-2023-67, the Kathleen Road Alcohol Variance. The applicant is requesting a two COP beverage license within 1,000 feet separation distance from one school and one church. For purposes of notification, 20 mailers were sent February 2nd, 2024. One board was posted on February 5th, 2024, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on February 9th, 2024. Staff has received one response in opposition, and Melissa Celestine is the case planner. Good afternoon. For the record, Melissa Celestine presenting LDL VAR-2023-67. Staff is recommending approval for a two COP license so the applicant can include beer and wine consumption on premises of a restaurant within the 1,000 foot separation distance of a school and religious institution. The site is located on the northeast corner of Kathleen Road and Kathleen Pines in Lakeland. It is within a convenience center future land use district, and there is an existing gas station with a convenience store and a vacant building on site. The applicant will be leasing the vacant building for a family-owned restaurant and wishes to introduce alcohol beverages to the menu. Restaurants and alcohol sales are typically permissible without a public hearing in this district. However, the location of Kathleen Middle School and Kathleen Baptist Church within the 1,000 feet requires a variance to Chapter 2, Section 224, which provides separation requirements between alcohol sales, religious institutions, and schools. This area shows the location of the subject site and its vicinity to the religious institution to the southwest and to the school to the east. This is another area highlighting some of the commercial uses within the area. Here, the applicant has identified the church and school's linear distances as required by the code. As you can see, Kathleen Baptist Church is approximately 340 feet to the southwest of the subject property line, but the code does not take into consideration physical barriers such as the four-way lighted intersection or the number of rooftops that separates the proposed restaurant from the school. Research also determined that Kathleen Baptist Church entrance is approximately 745 feet to the southwest of the southern entrance of the family-owned restaurant, while Kathleen Middle School's entrance is 1,049 feet away to the east. Here is a site visit photo showing that the proposed building is existing. Our records indicate that this has been a restaurant since at least 2000. Staff recommends approval. Given the nature of the proposed alcohol license relative to the operating hours of the school, religious institution, and restaurant, staff finds this request will not pose any land-use conflicts or be injurious to the area. Additionally, if the applicant were requesting a forced COP license for liquor, wine, and beer, or if the restaurant were 2,500 feet and could fit at least 150 people, they would be exempt from the distance separation, and this request would not be necessary. Staff finds a proposed request to be the least impactful in comparison to the two alternatives mentioned above. With that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. What is the square footage of this proposed restaurant? This building is... Hold on one second. I don't have the size on here. I'm making a full-dance request. We may be able to get it when the applicant comes up, but we can continue, or perhaps Amy will come across it while we're continuing. But presumably this proposed restaurant is less than 2,500 square feet. Oh, yes. That it is. Okay. So a larger restaurant serving liquor, wine, and beer would be permitted or permissible without any kind of hearing. That's correct. Even... Well, the distance separation for the four COP would be 2,500 feet. And then if it were larger for the 2,500, the restaurant itself, if it were 2,500 square feet or could fit 150 people, then those would be exempt from the distance separation. If the restaurant was 2,500 square feet? And could fit 150 people. This hearing would not be necessary. Correct. State mandated? These are state mandated requirements, not county? So the state mandates it, and then we just apply what we can. So where we can is how we went ahead and did all of that by saying, hey, if you're within the two COP, then it's going to be the 1,000-foot separation. If you're going to be doing the four COP, then it's within the 25... I'm sorry, then it's a 2,500 separation. But if the restaurant was 2,500 feet or could fit 150 people, 2,500 square foot, I apologize, then it wouldn't be required. Yeah, the larger one is a special restaurant license, SRX. I'm struggling to find the logic. That's what we also stated within the code because even the way that they want you to measure it, they want you to measure it linearly, which is straight from property line to one property line, but they also didn't take into consideration like, you know, four-way traffic or traffic lights and stuff like that either. And when you say things are, these locations are measured linearly, you mean the closest point from one property to the closest point on the other, just a straight line? The property line. So just as the crow flies from, regardless of street layout or entrance to the property, it's just the closest corner to the closest. Yeah, from one property line, so right here to right here where it begins, and then the same thing from this distance to that distance. Okay, but that is what your code requires, regardless of how? Okay. And property appraiser shows the total under roof of the entire thing is 5,384 square feet, but the restaurant portion, I believe, is considerably less. I think it's 1,000 or less. Okay. And the applicant can confirm. Okay, we'll find out at the right time. So these requirements, the basis for them comes from the state requirement, I think you said, and you just do your best to. And then Chapter 2, Section 222 is where we implement it. Okay. 224, I'm sorry. Chapter 2, Section 224. I don't think I have any other questions for staff at the moment except one, and that is you did show another school, I think, just to the north of Kathleen Middle School, and I take it that is outside the 1,000 linear feet? It is, yes. Okay, I think that's it for the moment then from staff. Is the applicant present? You could come forward, please, yes, and then start off by giving us your name and address, please. Do I have to touch? Okay. Michelle Zamudio, is it my home address or my business? Business will be fine. 6411 Kathleen Road, Lakeland, 33810. Perhaps you can start off by telling us how large the restaurant will be. I believe it's approximately 1,200 square feet. I don't know the exact amount. Okay, that's close enough. So having heard the presentation from staff, is there anything you would like to add in support of your application? Yes, I just don't want anyone to be under the wrong conception that we're looking to, like, be a bar or a hangout or a party place. Because it's simply to be a restaurant family. Someone comes in and has a beer, chicken wings, a taco, they can sit down. I'm sorry, if they come in and have a taco or beer or wings, they can have a drink with it. We're not going to have kegs. We're not going to have draft beer. It'll be very similar to, like, a Chipotle. Come in, you have a meal. You can have a glass of wine or a bottle of beer, and that's it. We're very responsible. I've been in the business for 36 years. Like, I spoke to some neighbors that are here now. So I'm a mom and a grandmother first, so I take the responsibility of running a business, especially around other families and children, very responsibly. And it's just that simple. It's just going to be a small little place just to make a living and hopefully bring a nice place to the area where people can feel comfortable and safe going to. And what is the seating of the restaurant? Maximum will be 25. We still haven't completed the entire, like, table sit-and-layout because we're painting and stuff, so I haven't brought tables in, but we're looking at 25, probably be the most. Okay. So it's not open yet without serving wine or beer? No, not yet. You're waiting until you get this approval to open? Okay. One of the criteria that staff and I have to consider when evaluating variance applications is hardship, something that is unique to the property or your circumstances that justifies deviating from the code, in this case the 1,000-foot separation requirement. Can you elaborate on that criterion for your application? Mostly for the hardship, it would just be able to provide full service to our customers, giving them a wide variety of something to eat and to something to drink as well, opposed to having to go next door to a convenience store and, you know, buying beer to take home to have, you know, with their burger or wings or whatever. It's just more or less just to provide full service to customers, and at the same time it kind of helps us as a business as well because it's better revenue, and they'd be more likely to stop with us and sit and eat than somewhere else. And so located next door, could you put up the photo again of the building? And located next door, I see part of a sign that says Kathleen, I assume, Food Mart? That's the gas station. Okay. And it's also a convenience store? That's a convenience store. Okay. Which also sells? They sell, I think, beer and wine to go. So package. Package store, yeah. Is there anything else you would like to add? That's all. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anything else from staff at this moment? Okay. So this is a public hearing. Before we get to that, I do have two individuals who have signed up to speak, but before we get to that, I do just want to acknowledge that we have received one letter in objecting to the variance application, and I just want to note that I have thoroughly read the letter and will give that due consideration when considering the case. And I now want to open the public hearing and invite Dan Hutton up to the podium. I'm Daniel Hutton. I live at 3730 Kathleen Pines Avenue, Lakeland, Florida. The corner of my property to the corner of the area where they're going to, where they have their restaurant is maybe 25 feet. So I am affected. I respect the fact that people, you know, want to do all they can, but this is a volatile area for traffic, and the last thing we need is another beer hole regardless of how small it is because, you know, I'm thinking once a variant starts, you know, what's next. There's a four-way stop there. There's a traffic light that people ignore. I don't know why there's not a thousand accidents there other than the fact that the people in the area have learned you better not pay attention to the traffic light because there's motorcycles that go through there over 100 miles an hour all day and all night long. People in a rush to get home and back and forth, constantly running the red light. So now you're going to add another alcohol place for it? Not good in my mind. I'd also like to bring up, of course, I think you called on to this, what she was talking about where they could serve hard liquor. Well, this place doesn't in any way conform to as described plants for the hard liquor. If it's 1,200 feet, as the owner has suggested, it's barely 1,200 feet, and the eating area is obviously not going to be very big. The past sitting area they've had in there, the previous restaurant held maybe five people. I know things can be rearranged, but it's a very small place as far as seating area in there. And I don't know. There are just so many things that are not right with this. I can't see any reason for a variance. I respect what they want to do. I hope there's no hard feelings, but totally against it because it's not good for the community. Thank you. I invite Jill Hutton to the podium. Again, if you could start with your name and address, please. Good afternoon. Jill Hutton. I live at 3730 Kathleen Pines, Lakeland, Florida. We sit on our front porch and look straight at this place. My concern is in the afternoons, the middle schoolers, it's a zoo out there. You add a bar and grill there, there's all kinds of trouble on good days without a bar and grill. Well, the community as a whole, unfortunately, we have riffraff out there that like to drink quite a bit. And I feel like this, like my husband said, it's just opening a can of worms. The people that own this store are not good neighbors at all. And there's constant trouble there. The traffic is atrocious getting in and out of that, just the convenience store. Plus, there's no parking for anyone for this restaurant. I'm not sure where they would park. Those are my concerns. It's the kids because traffic is, I'm surprised no one has been hit because we have 20 buses pulling out at 430 right there at that intersection. And it's not safe. It's not safe. And like my husband said, the owners mentioned that they're interested in buying the store. Well, my concern is, okay, they're going to expand this restaurant and then end up having hard liquor to go along with the beer and wine. Is it opening the door for that? That's all. Thank you for your time. Is there anyone else who came here today to speak about this application, either for or against? Seeing no one, I will offer to the applicant an opportunity to respond in any way that you may like to the comments that you've heard. As I understand, the place is very small, which, again, would mean we wouldn't have congregate and we wouldn't have large groups of people. We wouldn't have people partying and drinking. It's very small, so it would be for the average person who came in by themselves, maybe doesn't have anyone to eat with, wants to just sit down, have a burger, have a beer, and that's it. I mean, the state requires that we take vigorous precautions with beer and wine. You have to take classes. You have to have certain liabilities. I mean, we're going to have security systems. We're going to have a well-lidded area. So I understand everyone's concerns. You know, it makes sense, but it's not going to be that kind of place. It won't even be set up for that to happen. Are there certain ratios or percentages you have to meet as far as percentage of your sales that are food or wine or beer? I'm not sure with beer and wine, but I know with liquor it's 51-49. It has to be 51% food. I'm not 100% with the beer and wine. Are there requirements that individuals must order food in addition to beer or wine, or could someone come in and just have beer or wine? By law, they could just come in and have beer or wine. The law allows that. But our total sales would have to be, the gross would have to be more food than beer or wine on a monthly basis. But like I said, it won't even really be. I don't see that happening. I mean, like I said, it's very little seedings. It's very similar to a Chipotle. I don't know how best to describe it other than that. So there is a requirement that you have to sell more food in dollars. Okay, that's what I was wondering. Yes, by law, there's a requirement. That you have more revenue come from food? Food than beer and wine, absolutely. The state also requires you to take classes. I think over here it's called Safe Serve, but where they educate you on over-serving, you know, all the laws, all the latest things that have happened. It's just very educational to the owners. And like I said, we take that very seriously. We have businesses down south. I've been in the business over 36 years, never had an incident, thank God. And like I said, we take it very serious. We're not going to let someone just sit there and drink until they're obliviated or drunk. We're not going to be someone's water and hole. That's not our purpose. Thank you. Questions for staff? Concerns were raised during public comment about traffic at this location, non-compliance with traffic signals, et cetera, parking. Are those issues that are related to the subject of today's hearing? They are not, no. So as far as the restaurant in itself, because we look at it like something that has been vested, it's okay to be the way it is. Now, if she went in there and then she started altering things, expanding and things of that nature, then yes, we're going to take a look at parking and we're possibly going to say, hey, this building and this site needs to be brought up to today's land development code. But if she doesn't change anything and just continues to use it as a restaurant, which it has been utilized for based on subs and hubs on there, she wouldn't need to come into compliance with any of that. Okay. And you said there's been a restaurant in this location since? Since 2000 is when we found stuff. And I want to tell you I went based on the aerials as well. Okay. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Thank you. Now we will go to LDLVAR 2023-68. Our next case is LDLVAR-2023-68, the Lake Drive Northwest variants. Before we move on, I'm sorry. I don't normally do this, but I am going to allow you to speak one more time. You don't need to come to the microphone, though. I'm sorry. Just for clarification, when they say there's been a restaurant there since 2020, there's not been a continuous restaurant there. There's been a little sandwich shop there that has come and gone. There's been a couple of different people that have come and gone. It's not been continuous. It's been now and then. Thank you. We're now going to close out the hearing, which I had not said before, on LDLVAR 2023-67. And we'll restart with 2023-68. LDLVAR-2023-68, the Lake Drive Northwest variants. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the primary structure right-of-way setback from 35 feet to 20 feet for a single-family residence. For the purposes of notification, 43 mailers were sent February 2nd, 2024. One board was posted on February 2nd, 2024. And a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on February 9th, 2024. Staff has received no response, and Eric Peterson is presenting. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. And this is a classic variance case. It's located in the Inwood area, which is in between Winter Haven and Auburndale. It's a plat that's existed since 1926. This is a, the site is a triangle lot. And it is along a collector road, and two things that make it hard to develop. One, collector roads have a greater right-of-way setback. And triangle lots are hard to fit square houses on. So these are the things. It's an RL3 district. The lot size is consistent with that. However, the shape of the lot, as I mentioned before, doesn't allow for anything to meet the setbacks unless it's a triangle home, and they don't make many of those. So the applicant's proposed home is a very modest-sized home for this size of lot. However, the shape puts, and the 35-foot setback puts it awful close to the, and puts it closer to the right-of-way than the standard. Now, two things about this collector road, Lake Drive West. It's not performing the way a collector road really performs. For one, there's a lot of breaks in it. I'll show you. There's stops, stop signs. It's a 25-mile-an-hour speed limit, posted speed limit here. There's many stop signs along the corridor. If this was a true collector road, it would at least have a 35-mile-an-hour speed limit. Most of our urban collectors, as this is classified, are 45. So 25-mile-an-hour speed limit is a local road, very typical of a local road. There's also not as much right-of-way. The design of the plat lent itself to this, it appearing like a local road because it's a very direct connector through the subdivision plat with that up there. Just as you can see, this corridor, at one time in the mid-1920s, this was kind of the design of the entranceway to Winter Haven through Inwood there. But it didn't develop that way. Over time, it developed more like a local road. The typical setbacks, you can see we've noted some units. Most of the homes along this corridor do not meet the 35 feet. Matter of fact, some are very close. And then if you go up further, as shown in a previous slide, the city of Winter Haven's water tank is just about right on the right-of-way line. So most structures are within 20 to 25 feet or less of the right-of-way. Just directly across the street, the structure is 5 feet off the right-of-way. So you see right here, this structure just across the street from the applicant's property is 5 feet. The applicant's proposing 15. These are some other examples of structures along that corridor and how close they are to the right-of-way. Did you say the applicant is proposing 15 feet or 20? Sorry, 20 feet. 15 feet closer than the standard. Sorry. Gotcha. Doing the inverse in my head. Yeah, so 20 feet. So based on some of the other properties along that corridor, they would be on kind of the high side of setbacks along this stretch of the corridor versus the low side. We have some 5 feet, some 18 feet, 8 feet in places. The house had begun to construct, and they realized that the right-of-way setback was 35 feet, and it was a collector road. If you go out there and you think to site a home, you wouldn't have ever known that it was a collector road unless somebody told you. So those are the two reasons why we say that there's a hardship on the property. And also, it's not really a threat to public safety to go a little closer to this right-of-way. One, it's a slower posted speed of 25. Two, it's very characteristic with all the other dwellings that are along the corridor. And the distance between the two stop signs, there's four-way stops at either end of the block, and it would not allow speeds to get very high. So this road's not going to perform like a collector road. It performs like a local road. The shape of the lot, the irregular shape, I don't know exactly why, when they did the plat back in the mid-1920s, why the triangle lots were thought to be a good idea. It's not a lot that was saved for open space or recreation. Like in some plats, when you have a triangle lot or something, that was meant for open space. No, this has a lot number on it, just like all the other lots in the block of the subdivision. So there was no distinction. So with that, I'll stand for questions. Can you go back to the aerial that showed the actual setbacks of some of the nearby lots, that one? Are those structures there with the benefit of a variance, or is that just how they have been for a period of time? They've been there for a long time. We thought to go and see if we could find other variances on this corner. But when we pulled up the 1970 aerial photo, most of those structures were where they are today, and that would have predated zoning. What is the size of the proposed residence on this lot? I don't know if we have that in the staff report. It looks a very modest size. It's not a large home, somewhere probably less than 2,000 square feet, plus or minus the garage. Is that in keeping with the homes around there? Is it substantially larger, substantially smaller? Not substantial, if it is. The building permit application says that it's 2,658 square feet, but that doesn't distinguish between living space and that's total under roof. Okay, and now that we know that number, I'll ask again, is that substantially larger than other homes out there? There's a number of different homes that range from single-family, standard homes of older homes that were much smaller, and single-wide mobile homes. So I would say it's probably larger than many, but probably not this one. It's probably in keeping with this size here. But there's some, you know, the home types vary greatly in the Inwood area. They go from single-wides, double-wides, to, you know, homes that were built in the 50s and 60s that were, you know, standard 1,200 to 1,400 square feet. And then you have additions and things of that nature, and then some of these structures look larger than that. Just for reference, the one directly across the street, the triangle lot, that one is 2,400 square feet under roof. So it's very similar in size. And then the staff report says in one place that the applicant purchased the property in September 2023, and in another place it says they purchased the property in September 2020. Do we know which that is? The most recent warranty deed for the property was September 2023, so we'll correct that. Thank you. And then I think my last question is that in the discussion of safety in the staff report, there's a discussion of a statement that the minimum clear recovery zone for urban collectors with no curb or gutter and under 30 miles per hour speed limit is 10 feet. Can you explain what a clear recovery zone is? Clear recovery zone is the area that should be free of obstructions. Based on the posted speed, it is in Table 8.2 of the Land Development Code, Chapter 8, and our subdivision regulations. And those are based off of FDOT Green Book Standards, or what they used to call the Green Book. Now it has a long acronym. I know it is the Green Book still. Yeah. I'm old enough for that. We call it the Green Book. So even with the reduced setback, this proposal would meet the clear recovery zone requirements? Yes, ma'am. Is the applicant present? If you could come forward, please. And just start off by stating your name and address, please. My name is Gregory Brody. I'm 101 Denton Avenue in Auburndale, Florida, 33823. So you heard staff's presentation. Is there anything you would like to add in support of your application? Well, the only thing I would like to add is the fact that my purchase of a lot in 2023, me and my wife, we work hard and we purchased this lot. But before we purchased the lot, I made a call into the building department to see if it's a buildable lot. And the gentleman, I don't remember his name, he told me it was a buildable lot. And then he told me the setbacks was eight feet on both sides, eight feet in the back, and 10 feet in the front. So that's why I went forward and purchased in the lot. But then when I come in to set up to get a permit, they told me it's 35 feet in the front. The sides are fine. And I was like, wow. I mean, before I went and bought the plans and I do all the stuff that I needed to do based on the information I got from the building department. But then when I come in to pull the permit, they tell me, no, you need 35 feet. And I said, why? And she said it was an urban collective road. And I said, what's that? And then she was explaining it to me. But then when me and my wife, we went back and drive the road and realized that I find it hard because none of those houses meet 35 feet, not even 20 feet. I was like, ah, that's a little strange. But it is what it is. I didn't complain. I said, let's do whatever they want me to do. So that's why I'm here. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Staff answered my other questions. You purchased the property in 2023. 2023, you said, right? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And it was vacant at the time? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. I don't think I have any other questions for you. Thank you. Great. Thanks. I will open up some application for public comment. Is there anyone who came here today to speak during the public hearing regarding this application? Either for or against? Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. I think that concludes everything for today.