Loading...
BOAMin10-03-01CITY OF LONG WOOD BOARD OF'ADJUSTMENTS Mivuees Por Special Meeting October 3, 200[ ATTENDANCE: BOARD: STAFF: Jim Daly. Chairperson F. Jay Sargern-Planning Division Manager EdxaN Fagan, Vice Chairperson Chad Harvey -Planner J. Ruesell Hammond 6everly Majors- Planning Becrcmry P Iwazd Strain ABSENT: Barry Revels 1. CALL TO ORDCR: Mr. Daly called the meeting to oMer at 601 P.M. A. Election oP Vice Chairperson Mr. Daly entertained a motion to move the election oP Vice Chairperson following the Public Hearing. Mr. Hammond nrnde a motion ro mrtva the election of Vice Chafrpersanf llowfrzg Public Hearsn& Mr_ Fayan seconded the motion. The motion was rtnanlmmce[y approved (A-0). 2. APPROVAL OE THE MINUTES FOR Seplember2"l, 2000: Mr. Hammond made a motion rn approve the Mfnures o/September 27, 2000- aspresented Wr. Fagan seconded tlve motion. l'he motion was urtanlmavsZy approved (NI). Mc Daly asked if Mr.I;ller ever came back to Planning regarding his signage. Mc Sargent explained that Mr. Eller redneed the size o[ihe sign, meeting all the requirements. The billboard in front of the high school has been removed and a billboard was put up in the IocaGOn they wanted I[. Reducing the eign made h frr enough from residential and a variance was not required. Mr. Sargent advised the board that David Riohnrds moved from the 60A to the LPA. However. there has been a reappointment to the BOA. Barry Revels was appoimed m the BOA at the Ciry Commission meeting Monday, October 1, 2001. Mr. llaly sveted the Public Heartng of VAR 01-0I was the lira[ in thirteen months vtd commended the Planning Staff for doing a very good job in keeping the varimices at a minimum. Mr. Sargent thanked Mr. Daly. ~ 3. YUBLIC HEARING: A. VAR-01-O1 Variance-Single Family Raqulred yard eGbacks South Crant Street adjacent to Lake Fairy' Applicant: Dno Anderson Mr. Daly eked if there was proof of publication on the vmiance. Mr. Sargent provided proof of publication 6oro the file. Mr. Daly entertained a motion to open the Public Hearing on VAR 01-OI. Mr. Hammond made a motion to open the Public Hem~ing ot+VAR 01-Of. Mr. Fagan seconded tha motion. The motiarc war unanimously aPProved (J-0). Mr. Daly asked Mr. Sargent to present the StaPFComments and Recommendations. Before pmsenting the Staff Reporc Mr. Sargent [honked the Board for having the Special Meeting. Fle explained that because of the imidents that happened a[ the World Trade Center the n wspaper tailed m adve se properly. Ry having a special m ring it extended a couttesy m the Andeaons to proceed with their tegve t withon[ flrrcher detaining theta Mr. Smgevt then presented the recommendation and staff wmmrarts with visual atkav. MotioNRecommendatian: The Planning Division o{the Community Services Depanment rewmmendR based on the Development Review Board's review and the Findings oP Pac4 that [he Board of Adjustrnent (BOA) approve the requesmd variance (VAR 01 -01) for the font setback Gom dritty (30) feet ro Nree(3)fret along Gmn[Streer for the develaprnent ofa proposed single-f ily residence. Explanation/Rackerannd: The property ow er, Dan Anders seeking a setback van order to build asingle- familyresiden ently vacant lakefeont lot looatedjust east ofthe Columbus Hmbour Subdivi v. Thee ring lot onfigma a being nn elongated stretch of land be[w en Fairy Lake and Grant Street. has limited theam t of buildable area f this property. fho lot is approximately 656' long and I30' from Gmm Street to the Lake, with a building urea approximately 80' x 80'with heavily vegetated wetlands m the east and a wooded narrow strip oPland to the west The Development Review Board (DRB) advertised reducing both the front and rearsetbacks f r Dis property as the BOA may deem necessary- This wu done in an effort to ®ve the applicant more than one option f'or development of the property. Both options wue discuseed at the regular scheduled DRB meetiv6 on September 6, 2001, and the DRB members speed that both options would be viable tiowevcr, the applican[stated that he prefrrred to reduce the flnnt setback poly, and the motion for recommending approval w [he BOA was made t that and. It w wgnized [hat there haw bee othu projec s approved with structures wifiin twenty-five (25) feet from the edge oPpavement. mtormatmNfmPlementation l.neseerion zaam.oa(a) The BOA may prescribe appropria e ondltions for any varance and may prescribe a time limit not to exceed nivery (90) days for which the vazianceshall begin, be completed-or both. LDCSectian 24~10i05-Expirotlov Unless specifically stated otherwise, all variance approvals shall expire ninety (90) days after final BOA scion unless a building Permit or eenificete of occupancy has been issued. LDC Secriav 26~103JI6-Appeals Appeals of BOA decisions shalt be made to the Circuit Coun iv the manner and form required by the Coutt. Stall Commeaf avd Racommendetio -Ch dHa e Louattov Tax Parce11~:05-21-30-300-0120-0000, Columbus Hazbour Subdivision.The property owner, Den Avdersoq is requesting a variance to Chaptu 24-51.04 (a.), setback requirements for the R-IA Zoning DisMn of the Ciry Cand Development Code, to reduce the kont yard setback along Grant Street from thirty (30) fen to three (3) feet. Ba<kerauvd The properly a.wn, Dart Andersoq u seeking a setback vmienoe in order to build a sivgle- Family ttreidence ov a curtently vavant lakefront lot locatedjust east of the Columbus Harbour Subdivision. The existing lot wnflguretioq being an elongated stretch of land betweev Fsiry Lake and the Gam Street right-ofway.. bas limited the amount of buildable area for this property. The lot ie approximately 656' long end 130' from Oram Street to the Lake, with a building area approximately 80- x 80'with heavily vegetative wetlands to the east and a wooded nartow scrip of land to the west. 3bff Analysis Comvrehens've Plan \ Zori ne Consistenw The svbJec site Is designated Low Density Residential on the Pumre Land Ilse Mav.'I'he she oved Residevtial Single Family (R-IA). The Future Lmtd [Ise and zovivg ov this site are compatible, and the use of the subject site is eoveistent with City policies. Sivee a variance is a quasi judicial decision, the applicant has the burden ofproofta provide evidence (faots) that wforcement of the Cade povisions in this specifc simatiov should be changed. the Ciry Code provisions azv assumed w be a valid repreaenration of public policy avd were adopted Cor the benefit ofdre public health, s~ ry and wclfare.In eath case, the BOA wll determine the relative impottanm of each of the criteria found in Chapru24- 103 aL ofiheCiry Code, as shown below. 1. That rantin iho r sad variance illi le 'f 11 "dent ficd d b' f [I C b e Plan Future Landl G,entur The stated Purpose o4the Low Density Residential Disvict fouvd on page lll- 38 of the Ciry of Longwood Comprehensive Pian is to"...provide f r areas that only suitable for low density residential development due existing development, neighborhood, patterns, environmentallysensitive areas and to provide for fltwre development of a similar vatwe' The proposed var with end suppons the policies avd objectives of the Comprehensive Plert 2. That ra tin Ibe r os dvarlan will not res Iii eeati e of either stare the tondo ambina no[land andtsfruchreawbieh is notacom alible with atl acentciantl a vthe area. The erantivg of this variance will create the use of laud and s[mctme that ie ompa[i61e and desired within the Low Density Residential Distric[ (LDR). The property is Iomted within dre LDR District with the Zoning and Card Use being compatible. The use proposed isa permuted use within this district. 3. That Bran["ne the variance-s lbenin' vailable to vermft l6e onable ase of Ibe nronerW. The granting of [he variance is the minimum action to allow reasonable use of the properly. The s is designed to provide and m et the bast cads of the Droperty ai?d rwill meet all impervious surface and minimum residentiel.sgvare footage requirements. Within LDR,[he maximum allowablelSR is.40 (approximately.l4 proposed), and [he minimum allowable residential square foomge is 1,800 square feet (?200+1. sq.1t proposed). Considering the buildable area mennonetl above, the proposed variance is ibe mmtmum action available to permit the moat deniable use oCthe property. 4. That the nhvsieal e6aracteristies o[Wesubieet s'te uc to the ecific site and not present on adiece The subject site has a oombinetivn of a larger than normal adjacent right-of- way at']0 [eat along this properly, and a unique lot shape that is elonga[ed due to the contours of Fairy Lake which this property abuts. These unique mrcumsimces have created a very small Fuildable area, and would require Ne vat of se oral larger order malty develop rho lot wi[h the t setback rcgvim s61The pmposW Single-Family residence was specifically designed writh the proposed use and site in mind. The physical chars cof the site mo nnigne wthis specific lot and are not present on adJac nt propen~es- 5. That fhe circumstances creed lho need for tth rsult of aetionsb rhea It o adb 1 1' t. The desire and needs of the property owner have brought about the need to develop this lot in a way that is compatible with the neighborhood avd wi[h applicable Ciry Codes, with the exception of the Pront setback requirement which would likely furthm impact the lake and existing trees So as not to impact [he lake front and maintain the ' 'labia.' ' etback, the is being located mwmds the where ..... [s from the mad end inbetween the existing treesetThis site,~with ___; proved front setback va cold allow the property owner to neble sivglafamilynresidence within the LDR District iurthe eenhavcing die property value and aesthetic quality of the surtounding residential area. 6. That fheerontine of the proposed variance will not result iv ercatine. or ontivuin a on[ormin veof rhea eaf aitbera sfrveture thelaptl omb'na no[thes avd land. The granting ofthe variance will create a legal non-conforming structure. The e ofthe site avd vhe structure will be compatible with the LDR District and icv ehmacter. Reeommepdation The Development Review Board (DRB) eecommends that the Board of Adjusunent approve VAR-01-01, to reduce the Sneetsetback along Grant Sttee[ from Chitty (30) Pee[ m thrce(3) fact for the development oP a proposed single-family residence based on the following findings of fact. Findines of Fact: 1. The proposed variance is wnsistent with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed variance will not result In cmatin8, or continuing, a use that is ompatible witlt land uses in the adjacent area. ~_ The proposed variance is the minimum action available to permit mosonable e of the property. 4. The physical chazacteristics are wiyuemthe specific subjeG Site. The proposed variance does not result from actions by the applicant. 5. 6. The granting of the variance will not result in emoting, or continuing, a nov- eonforming uae en me propem. Mr. Sargent explained that a front and rear setback wns ndvenised ~o provide the Board the Flexible and oppunwiry to make oJecisipn on either. By advertising in this way there would o~ be a need for further adve ant and extension oftime on the reque -'Ihe Stafi- presented and recommended Mr. Anderson's regne t. which is the Ront setback. Mr. Daly asked if adjacem properties were notified of the Public Hearing. Mr. Sargent replied that they had been and [here have not been any objeuive repliee. Mr. Sargent presented a visual preservation of the property location, loi lines, dimensions of she property, drainage and existing veguation. Findings of Fact were read for the Hoard A copy of the elevation of she proposed house was provided to the Board in (heir packets and Mr. Sargem gave a visual preservation [o die Hoard explaining new plans were submitted showing a reverse elevation flora the one thaz was sent to them Mr. Sargem showed the width of the roadway and explained [het Ne property actually sets back?]' from the roadway. Even though the house would only be 3' oHthe property line ii would hnve the appearance of being NMer back from the edge of the pavemem Nan if it were an actual 50' right-oC-way. Mr. Daly asked if there was a proposed sidewalk at the loeedoo. Mr. Sargem explained if Nere sidewnik a[ Columbus Harbour that oald be ex anded, but explained that sidewalks were now being constructed within 2''m 3' edge of the pavement. Mr. Dvly also asked ifcity sewage and water was available for the she. Mr. Anderson replied Nat Nere was and the proposed residence would belied in to boN. Mr. Daly asked eboutflood plain consideeationx Mr.Sargent replied Nat requirements would be met. The finish Floor elevation would be required to ba elevated to meet the 100-yenr nooa Imo ~aimmenc Mr. Daly also asked Mr. Aoderson if he In[ended ~o make the property pan oF~he Columbus Harbour dome Owners Association. Mr. Anderson replied Nat it was something Ney were considering, chat [he Flomeowners Assncialion had asked Nem. Mr. Sargent completed his presentation and asked ifthere were any qucs~ions for him. Followieg his presentation Mr. Daly asked if there were nny more quessioiss for Staff 'Ifieee Mr. Daly asked if Mr. Anderson would like to make any cotrmten~s. Mr. Anderson stated he would. Mr. Anderson state) he bed a survey done of the property prior to pnrchese and asked fhe rveyor to inclvtlc the Ron and re setback line what he had to work with for a home. tle showcdavisval outline ofwhereahovae could he built. The problem wish the location withouto variance would mean fhe toes of some spectacular veer on the lot He applied for Ore variance to save fhe trees. Withom the varivneeseveral of fhe trees would be lost With the variance only one tree would have fo be removed. His goal is to save the veer. Tha lot is uniyue bwause of the sire and shape o[the lot. Mr. Anderson explained that although he is asking for a l'setbeck Rom the property line to the first step of the porch the salts ould be 2R' off the pnv t. This very si oiler er lots on the side street. From the pavement fo the actual bulk of the house there is 3'/.co He explained that the closest house is about 100 to 150' at the east and 450` as the road wraps Quad to the vexf house. There should not he any impact with fhe other homes wish the He ehowed a view of the veer he wanted to save. He had a tree survey that provided him the knowledgo that vll the trees were in good health and were wonh saving. Mr. Andetsan stated that the Floor ratio isJ%. The impervious surface ratio. with the garage, driveway and pool deck is l4%, 40%is allowed. He is not trying to build too much on the lot. Tha lot is a weird shape allowing much of fire lake from undisturbed. Mr. Mderson asked i(fhere were any yvestions_ The propeny slops toward the lake. Mr. Anderson explained drat he had talked fo Mr. Sargem aher he had the survey regarding the setbacks. The survey showed the 100-year flood Tine and the base Hood elevation. The highest point on the propeny is street level and that point is 18- 24" above fhe bave flood elevation. The Dropeny does start sloping down. but the house from the street doesv't have to he elevated 3 or 4'. He estimates based on where the line is on the property. [hat 18 to 20" of fllI on the backside of the home. but his goal is fo terrace the landscaping making it more ~nlem ring and mmimiz any weir stepping. M.r. Anderson completed his summary and Mr. Daly asked if there were any funher questions rrom me aama. ~rnere was not. Mr. Daly then asked (twice) if there was any one else who wished to speak in favor of the c. There was not. Mr. Ualy asked (twice) if drere was anyone present who wished to speak in opposition of the variance. Theta was vof. Mr. Daly recognized Mrs. Anderson and asked ifsha had anything funher to say Mrs. Andcrmn said she was in Cavor o[the variance. Mr. Daly asked if'Mr. Sargent wished to make any further comments. Mr. Sazgenl explained drvl with a 50'right of way (here is Donnelly 13' from the edge of pavement to the property live Then vhere is normally a 25'setback from the house, which makes v total o138'sctback On this project there is actually 28' from the front of the house. 'Chis would attuelly make a 10'sctback aldreugb it is 3'that is being requestzd. Mr. Daly enlcna~ned a motion ro close the public hearing. Mr. Hammond made a motion io close pubffc hearing mr VAR-01-0. Mr. Snairv seconded ilre n. voice vote war taken whh all members present vt tingyec Z'hn mariorr was nrcanmlousty approved (J-OJ. Mr. Daly entertained a motion to approve VAR OI-OI singie~family setback. South Grant Sveet, adjacent w Lake Fairy, the applicants being Mr. and Mrs. Dan Anderson. The rear setback wn he ignored if the monon Is m approve the front setback. Mh. Xan~mond made a motiars ro approve VdR O[-01 jorfronl ref backoJ3'based on the St ~Repori and the Findings ofFacn. Hh. Fagan seconded the moelan. Roll v~ascailed u~irh all members present voting yvs_ The motion was Imanimuusiy npProved (aL). 1. A. EEEC'PION OP VICE CIiA1RPERSON: This is necessary with [he vansfer of Mr. Richards who was Vice Chairperson. Mr Hagan nnminmed Mr. Hammond as Vice Chairperson. Mr Hammond declined the Mr. }(ammond nominared Mr. Revels as Vice Chairryereort Mr. Daly cammerned char Mr, Revels does at hav any expert n the Board oJAdjusimemr and mmdd prefer Io see the Vice Chairyerson svi~h some lorcgavlry on the Board. Mr. Strain nominared Mr. Fagnn as Vice Chairy<msan. Mr. F'agarc acceptedthe nominaroms. W iIh Iwo nominations for Vice Chairper~n, Mr. Daly entertained a vote on the nominations Mr.Dalyasked all injavorfar Mr Rene/a as Vice Chai pars tsignify by sayiogyes or twining from the vote. Mr. Hammarcd vatedyes. throe were three no vorex. hh Revels was dejeored (1-3). ]'he.seeand norninaslon for Mr_ Fagan was approved by unanimous verbal vole (?-0). Mr_ Fagan was elected vs Vice Chairperson. !. OLD BUSINESS: There was no Old BUSlneas S. NF.W BUSINESS: Mr. Sargent asked that members advise the Planning Division if dtey arc going on vacation daring the schedoled meeting times so that arrangements of the meeting can be men Mr. Daly advised Mr. Sargent that he would ba out of town from November }, 2001 ihroagh November t]. 2001. G DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR PUTUkE ITEMS: There is mthing scheduled for October 2q 2001 meeting. There is one request in which will come before the BOA on November 28, 2001. As Char. Mr. Daly made a motion Char [Ne Board nor b¢ mailed rrotlficatian chat there wi/I nor be a meeting October ZJ. Sro$on[y nvedv ro past ar rRe notice Mr. Daly then asked ifanyone else wished to speak about anything. Mr. Daly svd he would like to apologia; he shoald have brought it up at the beginning of the meeting, he asked Mr. Sargent to lead the Pledgeof Allegiance to the Flag. ~` Mr. Sargent asked all to rise and Ote Pledge o[Altegiance was offeretl. Mr. Daly stated he would like to see [he Pledgeof Allegimtce done at the Stan of vll meetings end entertained a motion that this be added a the Aganda following the Cell to Order. Mr. Flammorrd mada rho ototiorr ro lorlude [ha Plydge ofAtlaglance to rive Aganda. hh Fagmt >erovded ehe motion. The motion was urcanimoasly approved (J-0). Mr. Daly aked who was visiting, rel'emng to Mr. Harvey. Mr. Sargent apologized and invodnced Mr. Harvey az the new plennu whojoined the Staff In October 2000. The Board members tnvoduced themselves. Mr. Harvey gaveahrief presenution of his background and qualiBCations. Mr. Daly again complimented the Sutf on doing a grea[job clearing the possibility of variances that would come before the Board '/. PUDLIC COMMF,NT: There was no public present for comment. 8. ADJOUBNMF,NT: Mr_ Hammond made a ntntlon jar adjotnnmem. Mr !'agar seconded the maria~v. The motion was unammo~uly approved (4-!I).