Loading...
BOAMin11-19-03CITY OF LONGWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Speeinl Meeting November /9, 2003 Minnfes ATTENDANCE: BOARD: STAFF: F. lay Sargent ~ Planning Division Manager IIamy Aevels-Vice Chairperson lutie Walls-Community Services Coordinator J_ Russell Hammond Liode Goff-Dapuly City Clerk Mar<MClzmov RicFiard'1'aylor, City Attorney Abigail Shoemaker Pat Miller, Interim Comm. Services Director ABSENT: Rou Kowalski. City Engineer Edward Fagan -Chairperson L CALL TO ORBER Mr. Aevels called the meeting to order at 6 OS P M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCF. Mr. Sargent led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OP Mreting, Apri123, 2003: MrHammorsd rnadeamotiorr ro drove the Minutes ofrhe Meerirrgdprll23, 2003 as presented A9r. Mdmnoa secorMed the mutton. 7'he motlmr was mwrimovsly approved (9 -O). 6. PUBLIC REARING: Mr. Revels opened the Public Hearings. Mr. Sargent showed proof pf publication to the Boazd ov the variance requett 1. PUBLIC REARING A. VAR O}p36 Variance Drive-way widths, etc 1'12 W. Warten Arenoe Property ID N: 31-20.30-SAU-0000.0030 & 3t-20.30.5AU-p000-0350 ApplieaaL Frank M. Ramseur Mot oNRew endat The Planning Division of the Department of Community Senc~es recommends that Hoard of Adjustment (BOA) approve the requestN Variance (VAR 03-03 HD) to: 1. To reduce the one-way drive width fiom I4' to 12'; 2. To reduce the Rom setbacks for proposed slmmure on Bay Ave. fiom 25' [0 5' and on Warren Ave. fiom 25' to 8'; 3. Outbuilding side yard setback fiom 10'to 3' and rear yard seback from 10'to 5' for the lot on Warzen Ave., 4. The eristin8 carpoNgamge located at I'12 W. Warren Avenue to be approved with the existing one foot plus setbacks on the rand side yard at 1]2 W. Warten Avenue and vacant property to the west end south of this location. ExplarutioNBackuround- Theapplicant, Frank RamsauS is requesting ver'iances to reducethe ono-way drive width 6om 14'to 12'; to reduce the Ront setbacks for proposed strunure on Bay Ave. from 25 to 5' and on Warren Ave. from 25' to 8'; Outbuilding side yard setback from 10'to 3'snd rear yard setback and flour 10'to 5' forthe lot on Warren Ave.; and the existing carPOrUgarage located at 172 W. Warten Avenue to be approved with [he eaa ring ono foot plus setbacks on the r end side yard at t]2 W. Woven Avenue and the vacant property to the south and west. The applicant has reviewed the Master Plan and the proposed Code Book for the Histone Distritt and is suggesting that the reque is basically in line with those two documents and that the structures, with the variances, are in Tine with the Historic District guidelines. The Historic Preservation Board, at their regular scheduled meeting ofNOVember 11, 2003, voted unanimously(4A) to rewmmeid to the Hoard ofAdjustmartto approve the variances (VAR 03-O3HD) ae requested. Mr. Hammond asked if the variances requested were in accordance with the new proposed wde. Mr. Sazgen responded in the aB~rtnenve. Mr. Mcl,amon asked if there were any issues with [he Fire Department as far as to the interior areasoPthe conjoined properties s9 a result ofordy having a 12' ~iatn~ Mr. Sargent stated the access to the buildings would be serviced fiam the sweet. Diswssion was held regarding the onsite parking. Mr. Sargent affirmed there was adequate onsite parking. Mi. Revels Gored the publio hearing. M>. HmnmorM made a moron +o approve VAR 03-03 pe. +he SraJj's Repose ard>ecommwWa+iouad in aeowdance with the requlredfnrdings per+he LandDevelognem (~ as ideraffied in the Sre~Report. Ms Shoemaker secorMed fhe maflmi. The matron was nrraMmws(y approved (Q-0J. B. VAR 0403 Variance Reduce rear setback lbb Citrus Tree Lene Property ID N 29-20-30.509-OObBA316 Applicant. Tim & Mary Lynn Kotnoor M NR da' The Planning Divis n of the Community Services Depanmem recommends that the Board ofAdjusiment (BOA) approve the requested Variance (VAR OA-03) to reduce the rear yard setback in part fiom seven (~) feet to three (3) fcet based per Longwood Development Code, Anicle V, Section S.l.l Swimming Pools at Ibb Crms2ree Lena E pl ' rJB kg~nQ The own s, Tim and Mary Kotnuur are requesting a ro Longwood Development Code, Article V, Section 5.3.1 Swimming Pools, to reduce the rear yard setback in Pan from seven ('!) feu to three (3) fcet for a screened pool patio at 166 Citnrs Tree Lane. The allowable impervious surface ratio for this area is Ss % and [he erage with the addition will be 5491°0. The home will be maintained as a single f§mily residonlial umt. There was no discussion end the applicant had no (vnher wmmems. Mr. Revels closed public hearing. HL.Hammorrd made a morion ro rgrprove {'AR Oi-03 to redrre the ear yard serbaek in part jrrnn sevwr h) jeer ro three (5J jeer per the SrajfReporr acrd the Brnrd's regniredf»diuys. Ms Shoemaker.re onded rh¢monorr. Hre monme was ur®amausty approved (4-p). 5. OLD BUSINESS: There was no Old Business. b. NEW BUSINESS: A. VAR OS03 Appeal Brentwood Club-Luke Emma Roetl Property m N30-20.30300.(0030, 003V, 003G 003U, 003N, 0035) Applicant Lowndes Drosdick Dosser Kantor & Reed, P.A. Mr. Taylor reviewed the Procedure for Quasi-Judicial hearings. He stated this was n appeal concerning the subdivision Brentwood Club, interpretation of impervious surface o. He advised the Bomd that the issue to be determined is whether the 42% of impervious smfbw ratio is to be tlmermined by each individual lot, wNch is the dry's'nterpret ring or to be determined as 42% oftheevtire subdivision, which is the applicant's position. Mr. Taylor conduced the swearing in ofwitnesses. Petrick Miller, Interim Commurdry Services Director, stated this hearing was for the purpose of detamainivg whether the Impervious Swfiw Ratio (ISR) was to be deermined per lot versus applying the calculation w a project ofmore than one lot as a whole. He mated the Longwood Development Code provides impervious rover to be a maximum of42% per each lot drawn on the subdivision plan. He stated another to address was whether or not the code allows for administrative action for ISR provision. He stated U Swtion 10.2.5 the Longwood Development Code does not specifiwliy list ISR, therefore, there is no provision to address a variance for impervious surface ratio adminisirativeiy. He reiterated the issue to be whether ISR be applied per lot or applied to an ovuall project utiiiavg wmmon areas, averaging Iota and common areas to meet the overall 42°/ standard. He stated the code establishes [he 42% per each lot. He read the de5rdtiov of lot as it appears in the code Ha mviawed [ha cbatt In Seclon 320, Site Design Standards-};e stated that tbat ifihe Impem us Surface Ratio' calculated on the whale, the hom would vot be able to add a sidewalk, patio, or any other structure. He also provided ropy ofa letter dated November 19, 2003 hom Gail Easley that stated it to be clear the impervious surface ratio mandard mum be appfied on a lot by lot basis. Mr. McLaruon asked if the 42°/ ratio was wnsistevt with other cities in the surtounding area. Mr. Miilc stated ha did not kvow ifthis was consistent with other surtounding dries He stated the Commission set the mandard for the City of Longwood. Mr. Taylor advised the Roard'sjob was to determine whether the 42% ISR woWd apply to a lot or the subdivision. Ron Kowalski, City Engineer, reviewed drawivgs of a lot area ]5' x 125' iv size showing the amount ofthe lo[ that could be wvered with a 42°o ISR in wmparison o what the applicant is proposing. He stated that if[he applicant desires to keep SIOO sq. ft. per lot they mould reduce the number of lots from 491ots to 42-05 lots to acwmplish this. Discussion was held regarding the density. Miranda Eitzgemitl, P.A., authorized representative for Ryland Homes, handed out a packet ofexitibits. She stetad thaf this quas'judidal hearing wasalitde di~revt than those typically held due to it dealing with statutory code interpretation She iMamed the board that she bas practiced land-use law exclusively for twrnty-five years. She stated that this case was about the law of unintended wnsequences. She stated that if you focus on the wnsequences and go along with naffs' interyretation requiring the subdivision be built on a lot by lot basis will not provide the consequences the city would want to achieve. She statetl this property was annexed into the city a wuple of years ago. She stated they have worked closely with staff and have met all requirements of the code to constma a subdivision of491ots. She slated that [hey then started to talk about haw to measure impervious surface. She stated that this subdivision was designed, after reviewing the code and the language, such a way that the calculation ofthe 42% being based on the developmem site. She stated that iv this situation there was no requirement for butlers adjawnt to the othu single f 'Iy residential areas, but there are a lot of mtamion requirements. She stated that they designed a subdivisimt shat has sigNficant buffer Wong the north property line and along [he cart property line. She advised that, in discussions with neighbors and staff, it has been made very clear the most important thing to those residents was to have buffers for this wsmnunity. She stated that when looking at the wde she woWd submit that the staffs interpretation waz not what the wde states. She pointed out that Settion 3.2 0 states "Site Design Standards", not "Lot Design Standards". She affirmed that the chart was on site by site standards, not lot by lot standards. She wntinued to review the exhibit handouts end stated that the design calculation works using 42% ofthe site developed area for impervious surface. She stated that the plan they would like to see approved, at 5100 sq. ft. on the total area in [he site development leads to a calcuation of249,900 sq. ft. oftotal impervious area. She stated this gives the benefit cfthe retention ponds, provides bufferA and fevees that are not required by the code. ghe refund to Exhibit B stating that ifthey lose the appeal the developer would be required to submit a plan that auld no longer havethe buAu along the north. Sher awed this proposed ei planwShe reiterated that staffs interpret t what the wde says and was to t what the wmmission imended when they discussed it She affirmed that if the developer be allowed measurements to owur the way the wde states, they woWd have the right to do buffers and city would benefit Gom more subnentiW houses. Ms. ghoemaker asked ifRangeline Woods was Wculated £or the whole site. Mr. Sargent explained that Iimgeline Woods was approved under the old wde. Mr. Mc[,emon acknowledged chat 3.22 Lot Design Standards, A 2. states that "For WI land use distnas, lot a shall be sufRWent and adequa a to ~ccommodateall site design standards and requirements..' Mr. Taylor affirmed that Mr. Mclarvonjust pointer out the most wnclusive evidence. Discussion was held regarding lot/site design standards. Ms Fitzgerald stated she asked the clerk for audio tapes far any diswssion on impervious surface ratios. ghe provided transcripts of meetings held on May 12, 2003 and June 9, 2003 wlilch were the tapes she had been provided. She stated these oNy ref ed to the Historic District. Mr. Sargent stated thetapes they received were work sessions for the Historic District exclusively. Fle Hated the meetings she really needed to hear tapes 6om ere from work sessions held prior to the code being approved. These meetings were held on February I1, 2002 and May b, 2002. Mr. Taylor advised therewere transcripts ffir the 2002 meetings. Ne stated that the hearing could be wntinued in order to allow time f r the review ofthese transcripts. Ms Fitzgerald sated she felt [heboazd undustood where they were coming from. Sbe stated that everyone has the right to read the code, take plain language and unders and it. She affirmed that when es you re per a that what it mea of per lot. ghe again asked theboard memberwssfocua onltha wnsegne acts. Mr. McLarnon asked, a relate impem soil and other em~ies solve the e there other thivgestbat could be done, such as imadoeking paver , o allow more footage for the type ofhouse the developer wants to build. Mr. Perlman stetM he had asked about pavers and the city does not count these as an ~nper~;ena sett act. Mr. Taylor stated tiler was wrtect, there would not be a wedit for interlocked pan Diswssion was held regarding the Longwood Subdivision PUD. Discussion ensued regarding wmmercial developments in wmparison w residential developments. Mr-Revels closed the public hearing. Mr. McLamon stated he had reviewed and read over the information multiple times. He stated that IooUng iv 322, Section 2 about lot mess, it is clear tfie intention references lot and site. He stated that once the property was platted it would Call under site plan per lot. He affirmed that he would recommend looking at staff s point ofview. Disw ensued. ssMr.H and madeo oappra erhe applicm regrresraM ovarfune sfajfbr[eryreNnan~9ha morian Mad for a lack ofa secmK Mr. Mclamon moved to ayprove ar b'x lme perariorr I the Longwood Development Cwde. Seconded by Ms. Shoemaker and carried 6yo(3-])roll call vote with Mr. Nammorul voriug my. '/. DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Sargem stated thare woes no aPD~~aailoos. These will not be a merging io Dacembu. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no Public Comment. 9. ADJOURNMENT: M.Hammond moE a motionJor adjournmem at B:00 p m.. Ms. Shoemaker seco~ed the moron. The moron was wrmrsm ustyap~roved (4-O).