Loading...
12-13-1984 '\.> c:., CITY OF EDGEWATER Board of Adjustment December 13, 1984 Minutes Chairman Garthwaite called the regular meeting to order 7 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Garthwaite, Newell, Roush, Savini and Moran, Mrs. Martin and Mrs. Murphy. Also present: Mrs. Taylor, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Roush moved that the minutes of the November 26, 1984 meeting be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Savini and CARRIED 7-0. OLD BUSINESS Variances - Shangri-La Village - Legal Intrepretation The Chairman referred to the letter from Mr. Alvarez, City Attorney, in which he advises the Board that the variance requests for 403 and 419 Shangri-La Circle do not meet the criteria for granting a variance, there- fore, in his opinion, the variancffimust be denied. Mr. Garthwaite also referred to a message from Mr. Coleman which advises the Board that he is withdrawing both applications. He had talked to both property owners and they agreed to withdraw their requests for variances. Mr. Fazzone was present and thanked the Board for their consideration and their time spent on this matter. NEW BUSINESS Kenneth and Dorothy Chester-' Requesting a Sft. variance to the front setback to construct a 13 ft. by 19 ft. addition at 1803 Evergreen Drive Mr. Chester was sworn in by the Chairman. Mr. Ralph Settles, a friend of Mr. Chester, was present to speak to the members. Mr. Garthwaite pointed out that the setback from the existing structure to the property line is 38 feet and Mr. Chester is requesting a 5 foot variance. Mrs. Murphy asked if Mr. Chester owned the lot next to the subject lot, pointing out that if he did he could expand in that direction. Mr. Settle said that Mr. Chester did not own that lot. Upon questioning by Mrs. Murphy, Mr. Settle advised that there is 40 feet between the back of the house to the property line, but there is a sun porch there now which is not a permanent structure so it was not shown on the plan. Mrs. Murphy noted that a front setback variance is "ticklish" because when people move into a community and set their house back according to the code they expect their view to be on both sides. She noted that sometimes it is not quite fair to suddenly discover that their view has been cut off because someone jumped the building line. Mr. Settle said that there is a canal on the north side and nothing on the south side and across the street it wouldn't obstruct the view. Mrs. Murphy responded that eventually someone will build to the south, and had no further questions. Mr. Newell asked if the roof was going to blend into the house the same as the house nearby. Mr. Settle said there will be a hip roof which will blend in to the existing roof. Mr. Roush said that he has a hardship here and it will be an improvement on his house, too. Mr. Garthwaite asked what he was referring to as the hardship, and Mr. Roush explained that he needs the space for his family. Mr. Garthwaite explained to those present that Mr. Chester has two grand- children with him, but had bought the house thinking it would be suitable for just he and his wife. Mrs. Murphy asked if a personal hardship can be '\.> ~ considered. Mr. Garthwaite said that a financial hardship cannot be con- sidered but a personal hardship could. Mrs. Murphy felt that it revolves into a financial hardship because if he could afford it he could buy a bigger house. She said that in the final analysis the bottom line is expense. She stated she is concerned about the front setback line; if you start tam- pering with it it messes up a community. Mr. Garthwaite commented that Mr. Chester's home is setting 8 feet back from the setback line. The fact that the house sets at the end of the street was discussed. Mr. Garthwaite noted that there will be no building on the north side of his property because of the canal. The lots on the other side of the canal are zoned I-I. Mr. Chester said he will build the addition. The aluminum and glass addition to the rear is 10 ft. by 20 ft, and is located about in the center of the back of the house. Mrs. Murphy said that if the addition was not there a bedroom could be added to the back, so in a sense Mr. Chester created his own hardship. Mr. Garthwaite remarked that Mr. Chester did not know he would have the need for the bedroom at the time he added the addition to the rear. Mr. Settles said there would be a full set of prints submitted at the time they apply for a building permit. The members reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance. Mrs. Murphy noted that because of the canal, its next to industry and it is at the end of the street, he does have a different situation than anybody else in Florida Shores, but she wondered if, bedause ~f th6se conditions, he can only build in that spot. She agreed that it might not hurt the area, but she cannot say that he is forced to build on the front of his house. She felt that the property is unusual because they zoned the property next to him industry. The other members felt that the applicant met the first criteria. Mr. Garthwaite noted that the house sets 38 feet back, is on the end of the street and is by a canal and in his opinion there are special circumstances which exist. It was agreed 6-1 that the applicant met the provision of (b). Reviewing criteria (c) the members agreed 6-1 that the conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. The members agree that criteria (d) has been met, and also, that criteria (e) has been met. Mr. Newell moved that the variance be granted. Mrs. Martin seconded the motion, which CARRIED 6-1. Mrs. Murphy voted No. Robert H. Cochrane-requesting 'a variance to the re'ar setback of approxi- mately 5feett'o construct 'a pati'oaddit'ibhat929 Flagler Avenue . Mr. Cochrane was sworn in. It was noted that this request for a variance was advertised and abutting property owners notified, as required by the code. Proper advertising and notification was confirmed for the previous case involving Mr. Kenneth Chester. Mrs. Martin and Mr. Moran had no questions concerning the application. Mrs. Murphy asked if any of the neighbors objected and Mr'. Cochrane said that they didn't object, and there were no letters of objection in the file. Mr. Newell verified that the plan is to extend the patio and make a room out of it which will put the structure 9 feet from the lot line. The members discussed the way the house is situated on the lot, noting that it is on an angle. Mr. Newell asked the applicant how far his house is from the south lot line and Mr. Cochrane said it is 25 feet. Because it is at an angle it takes up two more feet of that. Mr. Garthwaite commented that this is the same situation as they had before when Mr. Cochrane requested a variance 18 months ago. You cannot increase the nonconformity. The Board cannot make a change to this rule; it is very clear in the book. And if he goes out from the back of the property at the angle the house is sitting on, he will increase the nonconformity. Mrs. Murphy did not think the applicant should penalized $50 if the Board has no authority to act on it. She felt he should get his money back. Mr. Garthwaite said that Mr. Cochran could go before the Council and request that. He noted that the ads have gone in and signs have been expended on. Mrs. Murphy felt he should have been told that the Board could not act on it; not come before the Board and discover that they can't even consider it. Mr. Garthwaite said that if you go by the drawing, they could have acted on it. He is within his right to request it for the rear setback. Board of Adjustments December 13, 1984 - 2 - ~ ~ Mrs. Taylor informed the members that Mr. Cochran was advised that his situation was similar to the last request, but she had talked to the City Clerk and was advised that if Mr. Cochran wanted to come before the Board it is his choice, and he was willing to pay the $50 for the costs. Mr. Roush suggested that Mr. Cochran build his addition more to the north coming off of the shed. Mrs. Murphy suggested that Mr. Cochran come back to the Board with revised drawings. Mr. Cochran said he didn't think it would look too bad the way Mr. Roush proposed. Mr. Garthwaite said that if he did not increase the nonconformity he would be all right. This idea was discussed at length. Mr. Newell moved that this case be TABLED until the next regular meeting of the Board. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Murphy and CARRIED 7-0. Luis C. Geil - Requesting a lot depth variance from 200 feet to 150 feet to construct a multi~amily complex on a 37,500 square foot lot on the N.W. corner of Live Oak Street and Yelkca Terrace Mr. Luis Geil was present to talk to the members about this proposal, and was sworn in. Verification of advertising and notice to abutting property owners was established. Several people present to learn about the proposal were given copies of the sketch plan to view. Mr. Garthwaite advised those present that Mr. Geil will present his case, then those people present who wanted to speak would have an opportunity, after which Mr. Geil will have an opportunity for rebuttal. The Board_ members will then review the case and make their decision. He explained that the request is to develop_ a multi-family complex on a 37l5QO square foot lot which is only 150 feet deep. The Code requires that the lot be 200 feet deep for this type of development. The proposal will cover approximately 18 per cent of the land; it is .86 acres. The property owner is Mr. perry Barrett, who purchased the property about a month ago, Mr. Geil advised. It was made clear that the Code requires that the project site area to be 100 feet by 200 feet. Upon questioning by Mrs. Murphy Mr. Geil explained that his firm is composed of engineers and architechs. She questioned why the City zoned this for multi-family when it was single family. Mr. Geil responded that there is no iot that complies with the 200 foot depth in the whole R-5A zone. Mrs. Murphy noted that the lot slopes toward the back, and asked what the plans were to correct this. Mr. Geil said that they will build up whatever is required by Code for the floor elevations, but they will have stormwater retention in the back. It will be a swale, and will be percolating into the ground. He explained that by law it has to be retained for about 72 hours and in 72 hours it has to percolate. She questioned if it would flood the properties behind it and Mr. Geil assured her that the City Engineer will check their calculations. Mr. Moran asked if there will be a perk test made and Mr. Garthwaite explained that the Planning and Zon- ing Board and the City Engineer will take care of this. Mrs. Murphy asked how wide the swale will be and Mr. Geil said he did not know at this time. Mr. Geil said that he did not think these calculations were pertinent to the securing of a variance, but if required, he can provide this informa- tion. Mr. Moran inquired about the street in front of the development and Mr. Geil said that Live Oak Street has a 50 foot right of way; Mr. Garth- waite noted that right now the street is 18 feet wide with a 50 foot right of way. Concerning the minimum floor area, Mr. Geil advised that they are to be 750 square feet; code requires 550 square feet. Mr. Roush commented that if it has the proper swales there he feels it will be a big improvement to the area. Mr. Garthwaite pointed out that R5A is to be low to medium density and with the planned 18 units it comes to about 20 units per acre. Mr. Geil said that this is less than what the code permits, as the code permits 1800 square feet per unit. The Chairman asked why he chose this type of development when other uses are permitted without the need of a variance, and was advised that they wanted to get the maximum number of units per area. Board of Adjustments December 13, 1984 - 3 - /J , . "-> ~ Mr. Geil said that they comply with all requirements of the Code except for the project site size; it exceeds the square footage and the width. . Mr. Prescott of 430 Live Oak, an abutting property owner, spoke to the Board, stating that he doesn't believe the developer can handle the water from the property. Mr. Edward Siconolfi of 441 Palmetto Street stated that this is a flood area as it is now. He was concerned that there may be a right of way which would permit the structure to be closer to Palmetto Street. Mr. Geil offered to locate the building closer to Live Oak Street, if required, but stated that it will be 25 feet from the property line on Palmetto. The buffers were briefly discussed. Mrs. Virginia Wolmek of Palmetto Street said that she has lived at that location for 22 years and they have been flooded, and she feels that with this development there will be more water. She stated that they have never gotten any help from City Hall. Mr. Dyer of 437 Perdita Street referred to the proposed parking lot and the swale, and wondered if the Board was aware of how much of a berm would be needed to retain the water. Mr. Geil said that they would excavate it. Mr. Dyer doubted if they could get a 72-ho~r percolation. Mr. Garthwaite explained that according to the Code he has to retain the first inch of water on his property. Mr. Dyer said that he was opposed to paying taxes to widen Live Oak Street for these 18 units. Mr. Geil said that they would be paying about $25,000 on permits alone for the impact fees. He said that they would be building the sewer and water line through the intersedtion of Knapp and Live Oak Street at their cost. They intend to pave the entire parking lot unless the City wants some other material. Mr. Garthwaite commented that when Mr. Barrett bought the property a month ago he knew the size of the property and the zoning, therefore, he has created his own hardship. There are other things which can be built on the land and he does not have to build to the maximum. Mrs. Murphy said she wondered how much dirt would be left after the concrete was put in to take care of the rain. Mr. Geil said that if there isn't enough there they will add underground storage, which means a catch basin and underground perforated pipes. He stated that this particular lot is not a flood plain area. There was further discussion on this point. The Board reviewed the criteria for granting a variance. It was determined that the applicant does not meet any of the five criteria for granting a Varlance. It was again pointed out by the Chairman that Mr. Barrett was aware of the size of the lot when he purchased it. Mr. Newell moved that the request be denied. Mr. Moran seconded the motion, which CARRIED 7-0. Mr. Garthwaite informed Mr. Geil that he may appeal this decision to the Circuit Court. Mr. Geil said that he will present a new project to the Planning and Zoning Board. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Dan Harper was present to discuss a proposed addition to his house. Mr. Garthwaite explained to the members that Mr. Harper has asked to talk to the Board concerning his reque~t for a variance which had recently been denied. The members agreed to hear Mr. Harper. Mr. Harper said that when he built the first addition he had made a mis- measurement on his house and he used that figure when he applied for the last variance. He stated that he was off approximately 3.5 feet. His former request was for a 14' garage, but he is willing to reduce that to 12'. Therefore, he would need about a 5.5 foot variance instead of 11 feet. He would be willing to ,resubmit an application for the 5.5 foot variance. He felt it would be a danger to the children to put the addition at the other end of the house because of the ditch and the Florida Power and Light Company trucks in and out of there. Mrs. Martin suggested that Mr. Harper come to the next meeting of the Board with a new sketch and explain his proposal to the Board, and at that Board of Adjustments December 13, 1984 - 4 - I . " . ~ ~ time the Board will be able to make a better judgment as to whether he should file for the variance. Mr. Garthwaite said that this is an exception in his case because he has been before the Board with his previous request. He stated that they do not normally do this. He advised Mr. Harper to come to the next meeting with all the proper measurements. Mrs. Murphy asked if the neighbors objected, and Mr. Harper responded that both neighbors are widows and they are in favor of it. None of the Board members were opposed to this procedure. Mr. Harper mentioned a home nearby which was putting in a footer and pouring a slab, which is within 4 feet of the property line. He wondered if that was permitted without a variance, and was advised that if a room is added he will need a variance. Mr. Newell moved for adjournment and the motion was seconded by Mr. Moran. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Minutes submitted by Joan Taylor Board of Adjustment December 13, 1984 - 5 -