BOA11-17-10Min CITY OF LONGWOOD
Board of Adjustment
City Commission Chambers
175 W. Warren Avenue
Minutes
November 17th, 2010
7:00 P.M.
ATTENDANCE:
BOARD: STAFF:
Barry Revels, Chair Sheryl Bower, AICP, Director
Arthur Heintz, Vice Chair Chris Kintner, AICP, Planner /Stormwater
James Seamon, Member Giselle Gonzalez, Recording Secretary
•
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Revels called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Chair Barry Revels led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR
A. Regular Meeting: October 27th, 2010
Vice Chair Heintz moved to approve the Minutes of October 27'", 2010.
Seconded by Member Seamon and carried by a unanimous roll call and vote
with Member Doulong and Member DeNegre absent.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
Disclosure of Ex -Parte Communication.
Vice Chair Heintz and Member Seamon stated that they had no disclosure of
ex -parte communication.
Chair Revels stated that he had no disclosure of ex -parte communication but
wanted to state that he knew Mr. Taylor because he used to be the City Attorney
several years ago and that Mr. Taylor was a very good attorney.
BOA 11 -17 -10/1
A. VAR 12 -10 A variance to Longwood Development Code Article III,
Section 3.2.1, to reduce the required setbacks for the
addition of garage.
Address: 1374 Cor Jesu Ct.
Property ID #: 30- 20- 30 -5GG- 0000 -0080
Applicant: Richard Taylor
Mr. Kintner stated that this item is a variance request to the side setback of Article
III„ Section 3.2.1 that establishes a side setback of 7 feet for Low Density
Residential Properties.
Mr. Kintner informed the Board that the Property owner is requesting a setback to
install a two car garage. Mr. Kintner pointed out that the survey included in the
packet shows that the applicant's initial request was for a one foot setback.
During the pre- application meeting Staff discussed with the applicant taking that
back to a three foot setback. With that knowledge of a three foot setback, Staff
moved forward on the process of analyzing the variance.
Mr. Kintner stated that Staff did not find any specific physical surroundings,
shape, topographical condition, or other physical or environmental conditions that
are unique to the specific property involved. Therefore, the Board should make
the required findings based on the cumulative effect of the decision.
Mr. Kintner informed the Board that Staff found a positive reading on each of the
five required findings of section 9.2.2 (B). First finding, which refers to the
economic difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulation, the location
of the existing home combined with the side setback requirement does not allow
for a garage above 20.5', which would not allow for the size of the garage the
applicant is proposing. In regards to the second finding, Staff concurs with the
applicant that the request is not based exclusively upon a desire to reduce cost of
developing the site. Mr. Kintner noted that regarding the third finding, with a
three foot setback Staff is confident that the proposed variance will not
substantially increase congestion on surrounding public streets, the danger of fire,
or other hazard to the public. However, with a one foot setback, Staff has a little
bit of concern. The reason for the concern is that at the moment there is a
substantial amount of space between the two buildings, the applicant and his
neighbor. Nevertheless, if the neighbor were to build to the legal line of seven
feet, that will only allow eight feet between the two buildings and therefore safety
concerns arise with one foot setback. In regards to the fourth finding, Staff
concurs that it is unlikely that property values will be negatively affected by the
improvements. Adding a two car garage will not affect the property values
negatively. In regards to the fifth finding, the proposed variance would be
consistent with other setbacks in the neighborhood and would be in harmony with
the intent of the Code to maintain an open space between buildings.
BOA 11 -17 -10/2
Mr. Kintner stated that Staff's recommendation to the Board is to approve the
variance, based on moving the request from a one foot setback to a three foot
setback. Mr. Kintner informed the board that Staff had included in the report a
section regarding potential motions: to allow the garage or to disallow the garage.
Chair Revels requested the Applicant, Mr. Richard Taylor to proceed to the
podium.
Mr. Richard Taylor Junior stated he was the owner of the residence located at
1374 Cor Jesu Court. Mr. Taylor thanked the Board for attending the meeting,
being this variance the only agenda item and knowing that members are
volunteers. Mr. Taylor stated he worked with the City for many years and knows
the countless hours members work. In addition, thanked Staff for being prompt,
courteous, cooperative and wonderful to deal with concerning the variance.
Mr. Taylor informed the Board that the neighbor's garage is in an angle and the
corner of the garage points to Mr. Taylor's house. Mr. Taylor stated that there is
approximately fifty five feet from the new garage to the closest structure point of
his neighbor. Mr. Taylor stated it is not impossible that the neighbor can try to
build a structure, however it would be highly unlikely due to the configuration of
the garage. This is because the garage is at the front of the house and the living
courters are behind. Therefore, the garage actually sticks out with nothing on
either side but the sidewalk. For that reason, Mr. Taylor stated that he does not
think that is a concern.
Mr. Taylor presented several photographs of his property to the Board. Mr. Taylor
pointed out to the Board that his concrete driveway has come into extreme despair
due to water erosion. Mr. Taylor explained that part of the water erosion is due to
water that comes from the roof of his house and also water that enters his
driveway from the city street. Mr. Taylor stated his house is completely guttered
and that the new garage will be guttered too. Mr. Taylor pointed out from another
picture that there is no lip going up into his driveway. For that reason he will have
pavers installed to the driveway. Mr. Taylor stated he has consulted with the City
Engineer and explained to him that he would like to redo his driveway and install
pavers to avoid water erosion caused by when water comes down the hill of Cor
Jesu Court and enters his and his neighbor's driveways causing sever water
damage.
Mr. Taylor explained to the Board that he has wanted to do this project for two
years and his neighbor constantly asks him when he will build the new garage and
get rid of the damaged driveway and the old eight foot fence. Mr. Taylor
explained to the Board that he built the fence because his son's race trailer use to
be parked in the driveway and someone complained that the City Attorney had a
trailer in the driveway without a fence. For that reason he built the fence to
comply with the City Code.
Mr. Taylor showed another picture and pointed out to the Board Members the
distance of the neighbor's garage to his property and noted that there would be
BOA 11 -17 -10/3
fifty five feet from the new garage to the closest structure point of his neighbor.
Mr. Taylor pointed out in another picture that there is a green area which is an
eight foot hedge that was planted on the neighbor's property so the neighbor
would not have to look at his son's trailer.
Mr. Taylor stated he had the consent from all his neighbors to add a garage, to
remove the cracked concrete and replace it with pavers, and to remove the
unsightly fence. Mr. Taylor also stated that all the existing concrete will be
removed. The replacement of the concrete will actually be three feet from the
property line all the way to the street, therefore removing three feet of impervious
surface along the property line and so the impervious surface ratio will change to
the positive.
Mr. Taylor stated that when he met with Staff they had a concern about the
setback being only one foot. However, Mr. Taylor informed the Board that when
he builds the new garage it will have a one foot overhang, this is with the idea of
not building right to the property line but to build with a safety margin into the
three or one foot setback.
Mr. Taylor explained that he has hired a contractor and an engineer which have
done the plans for the project. Mr. Taylor said that the plans call for a door to be
at the right side of the garage. This is because he will enter through that side door
without having to open his garage. Therefore, if he does not drive his car, he can
walk into the garage through the side door and then enter his house. Mr. Taylor
stated that with the three foot setback he would not be able to put in a larger door.
In addition, Mr. Taylor explained to the Board that he would like to be able to put
in a larger door because of his brother. His brother suffers of spinal tumors,
carries a morphine pump and wears leg braces. Mr. Taylor stated that his brother
currently lives in Seattle but will be coming to live with him. The applicant
explained that his brother is not currently in a wheel chair but will most likely
need to be in a wheel chair in the future. For that reason, Mr. Taylor stated that he
would like to be able to put in a full size door so his brother can have access to a
bedroom located in the first floor of the residence. The area will be handicapped
ramped so his brother can get into the house through the garage and have access
to the downstairs bedroom.
Chair Revels asked the members if they had any questions and closed the
public hearing for discussion amongst the Board.
Chair Revels explained to the Members that he drove by the property of Mr.
Taylor and determined that from the one foot setback to the three foot setback
there would not that be as much of a difference. For that reason, he did not see a
problem with providing the applicant with a variance for the one foot setback.
Member Seamon stated that since the property was on an angle it would be
unlikely that the neighbors would build so that would not even be an issue.
BOA 11 -17 -10/4
Member Heintz stated that he believes the project would be a benefit to the
neighbors.
Chair Revels stated that the alteration would make the property look much better
and in addition the applicant would be adding three feet of impervious surface.
Member Heintz stated that all the neighbors of Mr: Taylor were in favor.
Chair Revels agreed with Mr. Heintz.
Member Heintz stated that the applicant was talking about putting in a twenty
four foot wide garage yet the Staff's comments shows that setback requirement
does not allow for a garage that size.
Ms. Bower explained that was the reason of the variance.
Member Heintz asked the Board if they believed it would be a suitable two car
garage.
Member Seamon and Chair Revels stated that they it would be a suitable two car
garage.
Chair Revels reopened the public hearing.
Member Heintz stated that based on the findings listed in the staff report,
testimony and plans presented, he moves that the Board grant the one foot
variance to allow the construction of a two -car garage. Seconded by
Member Seamon and motion passed by a unanimous roll call and vote
with Member Doulong and Member DeNegre absent.
5. OLD BUSINESS. None
6. NEW BUSINESS. None
7. DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
A. Discussion of Rescheduling December 22, 2010 Meeting.
BOA I1 -17 -1015
1 0
Ms. Bower stated that because of the Holidays, Staff would like to request
the Board to reschedule the December 22, 2010 meeting.
Discussion ensued about possible dates for next Board meeting.
Meeting was rescheduled for December 15, 2010 by agreement of all
Board Members and carried by a unanimous voice call and vote with
Member Doulong and Member DeNegre absent.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT. None
9. ADJOURNMENT
Member Seamon moved to adjourn. Seconded by Member Heintz and
carried by a unanimous voice call and vote with Member Doulong and
Member DeNegre absent.
Chair Revels adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.rn.
ik Barry Re, Is, Chair
ATTEST:
G'?serle, Gc-, 5lC7� OF
Giselle Gonzalez, Recording Secretary
BOA 11 -17 -1016