Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05102006 BOA Agenda CIlYOf HOME Of PELICAN ISlAND 1225 MAIN STREET. SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (772) 589-5518 . FAX (772) 388-8248 AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY. MAY 10.2006 6:30 P.M. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: ANNOUNCEMENTS: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OLD BUSINESS: Regular meeting 2-22-06 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: BETTINA BOUDROT, IN REGARDS TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1302 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO UTILIZE THE NONRESIDENTIAL SETBACKS IN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL (CWR) ZONING DISTRICT. 8. CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS: 9. MEMBERS' MATTERS: 10. STAFF MATTERS: 11. ADJOURN: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (286.0105 F.S.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT (772) 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADV ANCE OF THE MEETING. CTJY OF HOME OF PELICAN ISlAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2006,6:00 PM MINUTES 1. Mayor McCollum called the Board of Adjustment meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. ROLL CALL City Council Present: Mayor Nathan B. McCollum Vice-Mayor Brian Burkeen Councilmember Andrea Coy Councilmember Lisanne Monier Councilmember Sal Neglia Staff Present: City Manager, AI Minner City Attorney, Rich Stringer City Clerk, Sally Maio Deputy City Clerk, Jeanette Williams Growth Management Manager, Jan King Systems Analyst, AN Technician, Melanie Astle 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1/25/06 On MOTION by Ms. Coy and SECOND by Mr. Burkeen the January 25, 2006 minutes were approved on a voice vote of 5-0. Board of Adjustment Meeting January 25, 2006 Page Two 6. OLD BUSINESS: None. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: KB HOME TREASURE COAST. LLC, IN REGARDS TO SEBASTIAN RIVER LANDING PHASE TWO LOCATED EAST OF CR 510 AND SOUTH OF SEBASTIAN RIVER LANDING (PHASE ONE), IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW BUILDINGS TO BE 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHEREAS THE CODE WOULD LIMIT THE BUILDINGS TO 25 FEET IN HEIGHT. The Mayor opened the public hearing and each member except Mr. Burkeen disclosed ex-parte communication with representatives of KB Homes. The City Clerk swore in all those who intended to offer testimony. Patricia Gorter, KB Homes addressed City Council requested a variance of 28' 8" maximum height as developers of Phase II. The phase II model home located in phase I exceeds 25' in height however, 35' is allowed in phase I. She stated that during the phase II permitting process city staff measured the home from the ridge line to average finished grade within 10 foot of the structure and found the plan exceeded the phase II height allowed by code. She explained the property located to the east is zoned RS10 and has been purchased by the Marine Resources Council (MRC) which plans to make the lots conservation area. Ms. Gorter stated KB Homes did not think this will be injurious or detrimental to public welfare; and because of the multiple phasing and zoning districts of the surrounding area this should not be a problem. The Growth Management Manager gave a brief history on Sebastian River Landings, explained height limitations set out in the Code for PUDs and abutting residential districts. She stated that the request is to allow KB Home, which owns all of Sebastian River Landings Phase II to construct homes exceeding 25 feet in height, and the height of their tallest model is to be 28' 8"; and per code, only the minimum variance necessary may be granted. She stated that staff has concerns about this variance, citing that per code, the height is determined by the adjacent residential district to provide a similarity between traditional zoning and PUD-R zoning. She said the height limitation was thoroughly discussed with the original owners and the justification noted in the Department's records; and that change of ownership should not require the need to grant variances. 2 Board of Adjustment Meeting January 25, 2006 Page Three She cited letters received today, which the City Clerk handed out to Council, in favor of the variances, but noted the letter writers were not directly adjacent to these subject properties. Ms. Monier expressed dismay at the monotony that has resulted in Sebastian River Landings after being assured by the developers that there would not be monotonous construction; and said not being aware of the City's codes is not a good excuse to exceed height limitations. She questioned the photos provided which show landscaping where the driveways should be and was not impressed with what was being presented. Bill Orazi, KB Homes, said there are over a dozen model plans for this community, stating KB Homes came into the community with the desire to meet the City's codes, emulating the riverfront theme and said he felt comfortable that the City will be happy with the product seen in the models located in phase I. Ms. King responded to questions from Council. Mayor McCollum asked if the City received a zoning change request from the MRC to which the Growth Management Manager stated they have not. Mr. Orazi stated KB Homes did not realize the height would be dictated by surrounding development. In response to Mr. Burkeen, Jonathan Ferguson, attorney, representing KB Homes, said the developer knew of the adjacent zoning but did not fully understand the impact the abutting RS-10 zoning. The Growth Management Manager described the three traditional single family zoning districts: RS-10 has a minimum lot size of 9,500 SF with a height limitation of 25 feet; RS-20 has a minimum lot size of 20,000 SF with a height limitation of 35 feet; RE-40 has a minimum lot size of 40,000 SF with a height limitation of 35 feet. She stated that staff felt the current height limitation fits the small lots. Ms. Coy said she is not impressed with the memo for the record indicating the height restriction was discussed with the first owner because it does not document with whom and time it was discussed, however, she felt that it did not negate the fact that the rules are in place. She asked how many different models KB Homes has; and how many models exceed the height limitation. Amber Taylor, Regional Sales Manager of KB Homes, was sworn in. She said there are currently five plans in the two story, 55' lot series and seven plans in the one story, 75' lot series. Ms. Coy asked if this was an issue because some homes are currently under contract and Ms. Taylor indicated it was. Ms. Coy asked how many homes are under contract on the border of RS1 O. Ms. Taylor estimated ten homes. 3 Board of Adjustment Meeting January 25, 2006 Page Four Ms. Coy stated she has a problem with more houses placed in a PUD on smaller lots abutting another neighborhood that has larger lots. Ms. Coy said she cannot find any applicable reason that would fit the variance criteria that allowing her to approve it. Mr. Neglia asked if Ft. McCauley, the first owner, ever advised KB Homes of the height, and Patricia Gorter said they were not informed. Side /I, Tape /, 6:56 pm Ms. King said when phase II building plans were being reviewed the height was discovered and kicked back to Growth Management for comment. In favor of request: John Oakes, after being sworn, said KB Homes makes a quality community and this variance would not be noticed because it affects only a few houses. Damien Gilliams, after being sworn, said this request should be an exception. In opposition of request: none. Jonathan Ferguson said when the project was approved, the adjacent property was not annexed and the zoning for that property did not apply, and said the City's code is left to interpretation and application. He said the applicant has met criteria for the variance: not injurious to the public and the uniqueness of the situation. Mr. Ferguson suggested that if Council is not comfortable with granting the variance for the entire property, then they could impose conditions just for the eleven lots that abut residential. Staff Input Ms. King said the argument that conditions have changed for the MRC lots should not be considered because the Spencer property was not annexed at the time and conditions have since changed there as well and those abutting homes should be protected as well. She reiterated that staff recommends denial of the request. She further explained that she was in attendance at the meetings with the developer who was made aware of the height limitations. Mr. Ferguson said he has been advised that the Spencer property is under contract to KB Homes and if approved, they would disclose the abutting height in sale materials to those property buyers. The City Attorney reiterated the nine criteria that Council should apply if they wish to grant the request, stating that if Council feels that the developer suffered a hardship that 12 homes have been sold, the minimum variance could be for 12 lots and not the whole subdivision. Ms. Coy pointed out that the applicant 4 Board of Adjustment Meeting January 25, 2006 Page Five created the hardship. The City Stringer pointed out the interpretation has been applied to the whole PUD district rather than the adjoining lots so it cannot be argued that interpretation has been incorrectly applied. Mayor McCollum asked if a rezoning request has been received for the MRC lots. The Growth Management Managed stated there has not been a request. He pointed out that KB Homes could sell the Spencer property and something entirely different could come up. He stated that Council pledged to control the growth, not change development rules and the land development code is available to the public. He could not support the variance. Mr. Burkeen had no further comments Ms. Coy pointed out some conservation land in Fellsmere was just sold and could possibly be developed. She could not apply any of the criteria to the req uest. Mr. Neglia had nothing more to add. Ms. Monier stated that design was not created for Sebastian and she did not want to see status quo houses built on the Spencer property. On MOTION by Mr. Burkeen and SECOND by Ms. Coy, the request from KB Homes was denied on a roll call vote of 5-0. 8. CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS: none. 9. MEMBERS' MATTERS: none. 10. STAFF MATTERS: none. 11. Mayor McCollum adjourned the Board of Adjustment meeting at 7:20 p.m. Approved at the Board of Adjustment meeting. ATTEST: Nathan B. McCollum, Mayor Sally A. Maio, MMC, City Clerk 5 CIlYOf HOME . OF PELICAN. lSJ.AND 1225 MAIN STREET. SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (772) 589-5518 . FAX (772) 388-8248 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2006, AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 54-2- 5.5.(d).(6) OF THE SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. BETTINA BOUDROT, IN REGARDS TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1302 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO UTILIZE THE NONRESIDENTIAL SETBACKS IN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL (CWR) ZONING DISTRICT. NATHAN B. McCOLLUM, CHAIRMAN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF SEBASTIAN ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY TIIE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITII RESPECT TO ANY MAnER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (286.0105 F.S.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH TIIE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOI\1MODATION FOR TIllS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT TIIE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT (772) 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. Published April 25, 2006 Permit Application No. ......fication-c-c~=.... - 'frOInoWlJerHr . (\ ~\-. ~ \leva FAX Number: ( OwnerUf different tromapplicant) Name: St\.~ Address: Phone Number: ( ) - FAX Number: ( ) - ;E..Mail: lTffie Ofperrnitoraction requested: t PLEAsEcoMPLE1E ONLY THOSE SECTIONS WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PERMIT OR ACTION lHAT YOU ARE REQUESTING. COPIES OF Al.lMAPS, SURVEYS,ORAWINGS, ETC. SHALl.. BE ATTACHED AND 8-112" BY 'it" COPlES OF ANY ATTACHMENTS SHAll BE INCLUDED. AnACHTHE APPROPRIATE SUPPlEMETALINFORMATlON FdRM. lA.Project~ftJetwapplicab1e~ . ~\ m 'kY~ I B~-ttI;~ io~r~t I :a:.$iJe;fnforination Address: \n C\,A. V\ ~ , DR-. St: ba.s.\--t - \3Q2- \ v--€/I tGk Lot BloCk: Unit Subdivision: , Indian River County Parcel #: zoning Classification: Future Land Use: .. Existing Use: Proposed Use: C. Detailed description of proposed activity and purpose of the requested permit or a.ction [attach extn>"QlfI:Q 1-VcC\ ~~ ~~ DATE RECEIVED: 4 I.J..!J oCp FEE PAID: $ 3 5V ~ 00 RECEIVED BY: 0 L Permit Application No. ~ ~ ROMI' Of PWCAN ISlAND Supplementallnfonnation Application to the Board of Adjustment ; _ 1. This application is for a (check one): V variance(s) _ appeal(s) '- 2. Spedfy all code provisions for which a variance is being requested or the dedsion or decisions that you are appealing. (AttaCh extra sheets if necessary): S '/'" +- b 0-. c..lc 4~o~- cJ'v\ ~ c u.~ ~ c:;. \ d -e '- 3. Legal description of the property involved: ,.j \ --b9 - 0 b .-OOOO~.-OO OOQ:) Zl 0 \A-etv-c\ee s Sub \\l0, ~ ?()~ 4-14) ~L\L '?:> j lot~~. ~ I + 4- \ -e s S \-\ru. N"?-,", ~ r of \ ot t.-f _ 4. Attach the following: a. Boundary survey of the property executed by a Florida Registered Surveyor. The survey shall show the dimensions of the lot or parcel at issue, the location of all structures, if any, along with adjacent streets, and all easements and right-of-ways. b. Additional data and infonnation as required to properly advise the Board of the .tactsarrd circumstances needed.to decide 1he case on its mems. c. The names and addresses ofaRproperty owners whose property or part of their reat property is withfn300 feet of any. outer boundary of the lot or et of fand that is su "ect of the a "anon. Permit Application No. D. Proiect Personnel: Aaent: Name: r (D v\ S -\-V u. C\-- ; 0 n CL\D If) Address c1--~S- G- ~ ~<2- . ~ -1-\ . CoWl W\eV c -e ~ 2-C-r ::;-<6- Phone Number: (1111 'J<6q- 3LfS"L. FAX Number: ( ) - E-Mail: .A~~V; Name: \<.. e \It V\ \) o\-- U Address , 110 I ~W\I Pr\A \)6 Phone Number: (11)...) -;?.:; 1./ - L11 \ I FAX Number: ( ) - E-Mail: Enaineer: Name: . . W\~\/ 7- .lA.C)' \ V\..:> 10 v ( lI\a Address 0. 4 S-~ \ Y n-" Ii -ve V, 0.+\. 7:> 1...cj lo 0 . Phone Number: ( "\ 111 5"to(l- o 0 ?::> S- FAX Number: ( ) - E-Mail: Surveyor: Name: r a s<;Oc\~GP Qv\'--ey- Address \ '16 '? -1- \ <; -\- . St. \f f.,(lJ ~a c.-l -'1- \. Phone Number: ( \ 12-) ;;;:-b "2... -"L.\\CI\ FAX Number: ( ) - E-Mail: t, Dp1t VI 6-..ho ",-cd f C/r ,BEJNG FIRST DULY SWORN, DEPOSE AND SAY THAT: ~ AM THE OWNER _ J AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT ALL THE INFORMATION, MAPS, DATA AND/OR SKETCHES PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION ARE ACCU AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. rrl 'l;Zw:uL- SIGNATURE NOTARY'S SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME OF NOTARY CoMMISSION NO./EXPIRATION SEAL: LIlli ji/!c , ~ ....'IA~I-f~. LINDA M. LOHSL l:r1s.~.~ MY COMMISSION # DD 122Dn' ~~.~~i EXPIRES: June 18, 2006 "'''(.,~f.,~lf-.'~ Bonded Thru Notary Public Underw , .j Permit Application No. The following Is required for all comprehensive plan amendments, zoning amendments (including NZOning), site plans. conditional use permits, special use permits, variances, exceptions, and appeals. tIWE, _ THE OWNER(S) I _ THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER(S) OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION, HEREBY AUTHORIZE EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE BOARDlCoMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN TO PHYSICALLY ENTER UPON THE PROPERTY AND VIEW THE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH MY/OUR PENDING APPLICATION. (!WE HEREBY WAIVE ANY OBJECTION OR DEFENSE 1/wE MAY HAVE, DUE TO THE QUASI-JUDICIAL NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, RESULTING FROM ANY BOARD/CoMMISSION MEMBER ENTERING OR VIEWING THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING ANY CLAIM OR ASSERTION THAT MY/OUR PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION OR THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE VIOLATED BY SUCH ENTERING OR VIEWING. THIS WANER AND CONSENT IS BEING SIGNED BY ME/US VOLUNTARILY AND NOT AS A RESULT OF ANY COERCION APPLIED, OR PRO~JJE~ MADE, ~~~NY E,LOYEE, ,A. GENT, CONTRACTOR OR OFFICIAL OF THE c.ITY OF SEBASTIAN. M~ ~u/LiV L( / If /6(P SIGNAlURE ~tJ ' Notary's Signature Printed Name of Notary Commission No.lExpiration Seal: ~~!fff;:;:, ~i:~.{iff ~<f,~9.f.;n-~~~' UNDA M. LOHSL MY COMMISSION # DD 122001 EXPIRES: June 18, 2006 Bonded Thru Notary Public Underwriters CIlYOJ HOME Of PELICAN ISLAND Growth Management Department Variance Application - Staff Report 1. Project Name: Bettina Boudrot Addition to residence at 1302 Indian River Drive 2. Requested Action: Variance requested from Section 54-2-5.5.(d).(6) to allow a building addition to a non-complying structure to be located within the side yard setback. 3. Project Location a. Address: 1302 Indian River Drive b. Legal: See attached survey. 4. Project Owner: Bettina Boudrot 1306 12th Street, Apt. B Vero Beach, FL 32960 5. Project Engineer: N/ A 6. Project Surveyor: Carter Associates, Inc. 1708 215t Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 7. Project Description: a. Narrative of proposed action: The structure was built sometime in the 1920's. Over the years, it as been used as a coffee shop, a gas company, a television and appliance store and many more commercial uses. It was eventually remodeled into a residence and was purchased by Ms. Boudrot and used as her home since 1986. The subject residence, which is located immediately north of the Main Street boat ramp, was severely damaged by the hurricanes of 2004. In conjunction with the repairs needed to make the building habitable again, Ms. Boudrot would like to add a porch, a 14' x 8' first floor addition on the east side, and a second floor addition over the rear 20' of the structure. She has already made repairs to the seawall. Ms. Boudrot is a professional photographer and has a home occupational license at her residence. As such, her home is used as her office for mail, phone and recordkeeping. Customers do not come to her home. Ms. Boudrot plans to eventually add a commercial studio to the north side of her residence. As a change of use from residential to a residential/commercial mixed use, she will be required to apply for site plan approval and go through the commercial review process. At this point in time, Ms. Boudrot wants to complete the repairs to her residence before she moves forward with her studio plans. As a residential use, the existing building is a non-complying structure because it does not provide the required IS-foot residential side yard setback. As such, the existing building is "grandfathered in". The Sebastian Land Development Code allows a non-complying structure that has been damaged by any means including flood and wind, to be restored. Along with the necessary repairs, the Ms. Boudrot is proposing several improvements to the property. An expansion of the nonconformity, however, is prohibited, unless a variance is granted. The requested variance is to allow a portion of the proposed first floor addition and a portion of the second floor addition to encroach into the residential side yard setback. The existing structure and the proposed addition both meet the commercial side setback of 5 feet. Specifically, the variance request is to allow the use of the commercial side yard setback, which is 5 feet, instead of the residential side yard setback, which is 15 feet. If the property were to obtain site plan approval for the conversion to a residential/commercial mixed use, no variance would be needed. As the studio and commercial site plan are still being designed, Ms. Boudrot wishes to move forward with her plans for the residential addition and other repairs needed to occupy her home again. Required Required Residential Commercial Existing Proposed Side Side Setback Setback Actual side setback 5' 15' 5' at front of existing structure Actual side setback 7' 15' 5' at rear of existing structure. Proposed addition 7' to 8' 15' 5' side setback 2 b. Current Zoning: CWR (Commercial Waterfront Residential) c. Land Use Designation: RMU (Riverfront Mixed Use) d. Adjacent Properties: Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use INS C INS North: East: South: PS C PS observation deck Indian River Lagoon Main Street Boat Ramp parking lot INS West: PS e. Site Characteristics (1) (2) (3) (4) Total Acreage: .26 Current Land Use(s): residential Water Service: existing well Sanitary Sewer Service: existing septic system 8. Staff Comments: Staff has carefully reviewed the request in relation to the general zoning regulations in the CWR district, as well as the special regulations in the Riverfront Overlay District. The following points are noted: 1. If the property were to obtain site plan approval for the conversion to a residentiaVcommerciaI mixed use, no variance would be needed. As the studio and commercial site plan are still being designed, Ms. Boudrot wishes to move forward with her plans for the residential addition and other repairs needed to occupy her home again. 2. The residence will be connected to the Indian River County public water and sewer system. 3. The renovations have been designed to improve the overall appearance of the building. 3 4. The building itself is at a slight angle to the side property line, with the closest point being the front comer at approximately 5 feet. The building addition will continue to angle away from the line, so the rear of the building with be approximately 8 feet setback from the side property line. BOARD CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING VARIANCES (Section 54-1-2.5): In order to authorize any variance from the terms of the land development regulations, the Board of Adjustment must fmd the following: a. Existence of special conditions or circumstances. b. Conditions not created by applicant. c. Special privileges not conferred. d. Hardship conditions exist. e. Only the minimum variance granted. f. Not injurious to public welfare or intent of ordinance. g. Conditions and safeguards may be imposed. h. Time limit may be imposed. i. No use variance permitted in specified instances. Please reference Section 54-1-2.5 of the Land Development Code for further explanation and clarification of the conditions as set forth above. Staff Recommendation: The property is restricted by the location of the existing structure. The proposed addition, which is in line with the existing structure, will have little or no additional impact on the area. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request to use the commercial side yard setback of 5 feet for this property. 4 Recommended Action: Move to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance request to utilize the commercial side yard setback of 5 feet for the property located at 1302 Indian River Drive. ():;ared h King Growth Management Department <5-S-0~ Date J~0vw4 RevIewed by Rebecca GrohalI Director of Growth Management o r- /;J- O~ Date 5 WA TERS EDGE OF WEST SHORE (12:00 P.M, DECEMBER 1, 2004) ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= ~ \ 1Q o o ~ l3uJl,..~I":>Gr- fHZ.€,.A wa LV ~l("~ ~ rve.t.C>~ \J Pi(l.,PJ.vc.L. NORTH 5' OF THE SOUTH 13' OF LOT 4 "'" ,{oII'- ~, Of;"> ~ f-fJ L,..l to> V .p..v-l- f5~ ~ SOUTH 5.00' OF THE NORTH 72.00' OF LOT 2 0'\ ?- Ot 'J \\ \j"At.. 0\ \ SO'0\ OY \,; \j~t.. "A0,?-1'0 \ "- " ~ 5 ' (Otl'-(V'9:.--I- c) ,,\L.. s.~~ &-Av~ LJ~f.... ~ tO~~'1-g) y\..oo\J ~G\j\J le.O II I>-t.. \. ~ -- 1-0"At (,) ~~.p:7 00 . ~(,) y\..o :'\S\ot .. f"\\) . \~ \ 33.00' \ \ \ \ \