Loading...
BOAMin05-26-99CITY OF LONGWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Minutes hl ay 26,1999 ATTENDANCE: BOARD STAFF Jim Daly, (Chair Person) Flay Sargut - Planning Division Manager Su~we WJder (Vice Chair) JoM Groenendael ~-Planning Division 1. AUSSeII I~lamriwnd Beverly Majocs-Planning Secretary "1'NrOrtange Laure Moehlenknmp ABSENT: None 1. Call to Order: 6:02 P.M. 2. Consideration nt the Apri126, 1999 minutes: Mr. Nammot+d motlorved ro approve Apn]28. 1999 tnlrtntes Ms. Moahlenkatnp vecanded the utotlon. The rrcoeion was:mamtmously aPm'oved (5-0J. Secretary called roll. all members were present. J. Public Hearing: Mr. Daly asked for a motion to open Public Hearing. Mr. Orange made a o open the Public hearing Ms. ~Ider seconded rLe motion The motion vns unanimoasly approved (5-Oj. Me Daty opened publio hammg. Staff requested to nsideru not VAR-0699 to the fiont ofPnblic Hearing bees disc with legal toff raised que on legal interpretations that required final ac betbresbr nging it before the ROA Mr~Sargent asked that it be continued, there was Proper adve and notice sent out but if anyone present wished to speak on the application, they should have the opportunity to do so. A. Var'a~ereq ett (VAR-0699)for Norman Filer 820 SewM Place. T- 'steel lUj! 32-24i0.506r-'-fin:'- M322(NO506-00440090 rea wvana 'cr~_ D_ eveloom 03(el to o meet her for ne bndatin Mr. Duly asked if anyone present wished to speak in I'ovor of VAR 06-99. There and Mr. Daly asked if there was anyone who would like w speak ar opposition of the variance. Thzre were no comments and Nr. Daly azked for a morion to continue this sariairee regnest. Mr. Hammond made a nrorlon rhat YAR~O6-99 be rominired to the June 23. ]999 meertng. Ms. Movhlenkamp seconded the morion_ THe morion was unanimairsty agprm~ed (~,r-0)_ B. V Y(vf~33_99-991f M~ K' K pe~ ]IlR vin Av^'1'' Parcel IDk 29-2U305CW K000090. re eofthe LandD veJ d S 24-25 Og d h beaks al'vupo I d d k fi f71 f t fzJf lee ern mnomrr aria ae enrnr tto zero fm tat on me noun aide Mr_ Daty asked for proof of publication on all agenda itema. Board did not object to pmofaupplied for all items m this tune. Mr. Jahn Groenandeal presented proofoPpablication in the Sanford Herald and advisad the Board that notices had been xnt out to the adjac m neighbors. Wr. Daty asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to spvrek in fivor ofVAR-0499. Mr. Bob Kopec, husband of Karen Kopec, introduced h'vnself, and stated he was there to answer:my quesvons to Help make a decision by the Board. Mr. Daly requested staff to present the case and the staff report. Mr. Groanendeal presented the stafF report to the Board and stated that staff is recommending the voriwee be approved according to the Findings ofFam. Mr. Daty asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in opppsition ofthe variance stuff re endati Thue n response. Thera a disc on by the board. Mr. Delynazked that the enclosure requirement be spuiHed m the motion. Setback requir ould be se en tat from the side and se ea feet Gom the r CYrai netlea to gram the v ce honed on rendme saying that no pool enebsu e should be eieu7ed any closer than seven feet (plus an additional half foot) 6om any lot line. Mr. Orrange rrrade a morion ro nPProve the variance request BAR-6l-9Y i+nth fns and ondiria r that the>e xould rior ba v ncl~n iurl¢ss s thes verr Joo er baeka~ Jrom side and rem as p+u codz Ms. Wilder reeondrd the mariam6eThe morion ivar approved rinammously ~i-0) wlth roll aa!l c Varianestgtu~9St-o.~IPS..~4.~~.Mes~sell Lonewooa commerc al Center 11 I S N. C.R. 427. 'fax Parcel IDM 32-20.30-505-0000.0120 re vest e ofthe L and Development Code V Table 24-6 to reduce front setbackaRom t ntv-five (251 Peet o eleven fl ll fe Mr. Daly asked Por Statfcomments before publio comment if the Board did not have an objection. There was a consensus by the Board. plannm De .r nrond.ai wep dmm~e ae ort. n dorm craenaaaaal DACKGROUND e The epplic;mt. Edward Meixsell, is requesting a reduction fiom the twenty-five-(25) f of setback (or his building at 11IS North CR. 427. hlr. MeiMell's property is one of pmperties'unpacted by the widening ofN. CR 427. Mr. Meivsell will lose a portion of his building to the widening. Mr. Neixsell must apply for and receive a building permit wall after the [eking. Mr. Meixrell, whose nuilding is divided into twenty five[foot bays, would Eke to erect [he well at the current bny break. In ordu to do this. he reeds to have the from setback reduced to eleven (I I) feet. Mr. Mcusell eppned for an Adminis[rative Variance nssed on the fact that he had a hardship as a result of the taking Me Brock, the Community Services Director, who is empowered by the City Code to tssne Admimstretwe Variances, determined the request did not meet the legal rin for him to approve the Administrative Variance Requen. Mr. Brock based this decisiov ov the lunguege contuiued in Section 24-103.03 (b) ofthe Land Development Code, which smtes . In dare ning whether o grog admfms . [he Comm nity Serv s Director shell nuke the following findings of Fee ~1 eThat there e 2 aher® vailable to allow roazonable use ofthe property.." Further, Mr. 6rock was aware thv Seminole County was oRering to compensate Mr. Me'vxmll for the taking of his Beal property az well as additional compensation for alterations necessary to make his building meet the City's setback regulations. Mr. Brock's opinion was that he could not make a finding that there is n9 altemat'v vailable for a and [ha[ the County s negotietlons with Mr. Mefxsell relative vetarycompen ttov had nothing to do with the ppssible geantivg oPan admi Mr. Melxaell wvs advised tMt an admi [applicable in thisc artd that if he wished to pursue it fiulhcr he'should apply Coca eomemiocel variance. The applicant states the reason for thn variance Is to allow him a fair rwum on his as he will be able rme'ut'1'JO sq.ft. of retal apace. tt u h¢ opinion d>at the requested eleven (I I) foot setback will enable him to have five equol sized bays. Additiorralty, he maintains that the compensation oRered to him by the Cowry does not favty represem the potential income he could produce Jhe waz able to reuin the space. STAFF ANALYSIS comnranensroe clan t zoning cunsisteney The subject site is designated General ~mm cial on Ne Puture Land Use Mao. The mued Commercinl General (C-3). The Puture Land Use and zoning on this site ompatibla and Neu eofthe subjec with City policies. Sinc aquaxi-jvdiclal decision, the eppl cant has the burden oP proof to proviUe evidenee(facts)that antbrceruant of the Code yrov io Yhisspeeife sitaation should be changed. The Ciry Code provisions aze assumed to be a valid represevtetion of public policy and were adopted fot the beve5t oC the public health mfery and wehnre. (n ench case, the BOA will detetmme the mlative'vnpommce ofeach ofthe criteria Pound'm Chapter 21-I03(c ), ofthe CiTy Code, as slwwu below: 1. That erantine [he proposed variance will implement xoecificaily identifietl olicies and ob'ectives of the Com rehenxive Pian. ObJective II on Page III-IS of the Goals, Oblective~ sod Policies uraged thc'._.Ciry of Longwood to provide for the best visual tmnge ofthe City of Longwood along mterisls mtd colieewre.:' Reducing setbneks for one property owner would be distracting and, therefore. this regne t is not consivtem with the Plan intent. 2. That erantine the proposed variance will not result in creative or eof eifhera s[rucfure. the land o mbinntion of land and st which ix oafibie with ad'scent land n the a "Che su mtdmg ProDertY ow rs have eted their buildings end portions oY[helr baJdings to meet the taking and setback requit s. To grant this v ould allow onditio where a building would pmject pot cloaca to Ne rood Nan ony of[he neighboring buildings. 3. Thnt a the u the m vailnble to ethetreasonableruse of [he or pertv.um The nthise e. The appliean needst make a onrpelling argument that h s building and land are worth more than the County R oBerivg to the courts. The Conn will make the fitml detetminntion ofvaluc 4. That the nhvsical characferixtics of the subject lice are unique lp me xp~roxue ana not prexent on aa"a ant F tss This unique lhazt nny other cial site. Cotvm rciai Site N general are major roadways, which from time to time mua be widened to handle addltlonai traf5e (e benefit to the commercial owner). The warts will decide Ne monetary lseue 5. That the c'rc ethe nce4 fore varlaneearc not the volt of n scbcthcrc t lira actin osetl h the ee~~ cti The applies eating the eed for Uev ds there alter asless selbeck end iho applicrant will be compensated through co eulenrent.Thee of dom eetlem nt beiw n the applicov and County is nor the base oPtbis s' e. There therefore, a potentially acceptable ahemalwe Io thus request's fi. That the erantine the poposetl variance will not result in crcatinf. onform se of the use of eithera structure, oh I nd u omb na n of th¢s and lead The reque ovld a ouform ngruse. How er. granimg of the v ~ ee would make the structure a legal nonconforming RECOMMENDATION The Platming stafFrewmnmaMs that the DR6 recommend to the Doard oPAdjustmem that they ~ProjeU f VAR-OSA9. a variance m reduce the fiom setback from enly-five (25) Ceet to eleven (11) leu based on the following fmd'mgs of fact and supjec w the following conditions Findiaex of Fact: 1. The proposed vanavice does not implement any of the policies and objectives oCthe Comprehensive Plan. _. The proposed va will result in ring or cominuing a se. which is' ompatibla with lend usv ntlre adjacent area 3. The proposed van t the mtntmum action availahle to permit Doable use oftbe propcny. 4. The phyalcnl charact unique to the specifi<subject.vlte. The proposed vm nee doe sul fion ns by the applies 6. The reque ould cr onforming use. How er, granting ofthe varian a wouldomake the stmuure a legal von-conYbrming ]. Thar e altema to plans that will ma in Droper setbacks end the a ~ing chmac[ersofthe area and create a mo a appealing roadway. ce. F:dwnrd Meixsell Nr. Sargent prcmmed and reviewed stafl' comments above. lie then cxploived the d gram iveluded in the 5oard packets discussion followed regarding square footage tlmt would be lost. Mr. Sargent asked that the applicmrt respond to this. Mr. MeixseNs nuorney. Mark Levitt with the law firm, Wlsov Levitt and Small located on 43] N. Magnolia Avenue, Orlando spoke on hia behelL He was oned by Chair tha[ no monetary vnoum on behalfof Seminole County was to be dixussed or included in the prescnmtion. Each unit is 13]5 squue &et, with ni[gone for the widenting ofroadway. The purpose afthe the s and un entirety. It was requested that a red pencil drawn onsthe plw showing the u volved be Dres nted for [he Board to review. Mr- Sargen approached the Boud and there was a dimuseion on the plan regarding Toss and potentul loss. Chair aske4 iYthere was anyone who wished to speak m favor ofthe Variance. Attorney Leviu came forward end spoke on behalf of Mr. Meixsell. He replied to staffcomments. Applicant agreed to landscaping. There was a lengthy discussion by all presen regarding this variance Cha'v asked iPthere was anyone present m speak m opposition of the vananec. There was no one present m speak in opposition ofthe variance. Chaie asked if there was a ditliculty in leaving the public bearing open because them may be additional questionx Gair asked that thn record xhow a consensus to leave public hearing upon until all evidence Is presented. Consensus was (5-O). Let the records show that them was e consensus to keep the public hearing open in the event there would be additional corranen[s from either sides Chair had question regarding sigvege issues. A request has been made ro relopte the sign on the property so it is out ofthe way of the new right ofway. The size of the sign would havetobeout dow code. Sign modes rebefore die Cotrmn on presently to change rode and thisshould be fnaGZeU in August. It is possible that a variance could be put forth on signage. The Board then discussed VAR-05-99. Mr. Sargent addressed comments made by Mr. Levitt on behalf of stair. Mr. Meixsell spoke on his behalf Clteir asked far a motion to close public hearing for Bowd dicussion. Mr. Pr.tmge nrnde a motion to close public hemmg on VAR-OS-9Y. Ms. Wilder mconded the motiwv The motion nor tmanlntous(y approved (5-OJ. Bowd discussed the variance. The Chair wmtrwmed iha[ it was critical that wttetever decision be made it needy to be fair and the Board needed to act with rcspotrsbiliry_ Groir asked for a motion to approve VAft~05-99. Mr. Hammond mode a motion to apprme the raguevt o~VAR-0>-99. Mueiun nor reeonded b1'Mr. Orrange. Chao asked for om dixvssion and requested secetary to cell the roll Mr. SarSent stated that the motiov needed to Hare finding of Fact as to the Boards ru'tor approval as St¢firec endari es for denial. Thes end¢ti read ¢nd it was a cons µsus of the board ro revere each oP the Sta(3's Finding oPFacr and so amend the motion. Mr. Flarmvovd and Mr. Ortange withdrew [hev motion and serond respectively. hh Nammorvd made a motion ra approve VAR-OS-99 based on the follmslrcg emvllrions ofTaers~ mrd Findings plrn~ a„are: (t) The proposed variance does Impteniem policies and ohjectives oJthe ~oorprehensisa plarv /2) The proposed variance will?lrasrrlr In crvaring, or cnnrinning a use. wl>ieh is compahN(e wirh land user in the adlacem area. (3) TNe propaned varianca fF rho rrrlnlrnurn action avallahie m permit reasonable se ofrhe proper~y- (A) The physical characrerisrier ae vn(qua ro the speck subject bra (i) The proposed vanonce doer~reardr jrom acrioru~ bay the aPPllennr. (6) The request usruld rne<rre a non-co f rnrhrR nse. Novpver granting l the sarnnce would make rhestruenne a legal ran-wnjormingsnrrcpme TNe ororion was seconded by Mr. Orange. TNe morion was approved Dy colt m!t from the secretary (A-t), wirh Lanra Maehlenkomp being in opposition ro ehe morion It area also added that there is thirty days io eppsel Doazd findings. 1. OId Duciness: -none 5. New dusinnss-none 6. Divcwssron and schedule far future i[ems '!. Public Comment-none K. Adjournment: With no further business. Mr. Orange madeamorion/ar ad~orvnmenu Mfr_Hammored seconded the motion. the rrrmlon uns unnmmorarry approved (S-0).