Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07122006BOAany ~.,~,Mw _~ HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2006, 6:00 PM MINUTES 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 McCollum Council Member Andrea Coy Council Member Sal Neglia Council Member AI Paternoster City Council Excused Absence: Vice-Mayor Brian Burkeen Staff Present: City Manager, AI Minner City Attorney, Rich Stringer City Clerk, Sally Maio Deputy City Clerk, Jeanette Williams Growth Management Director, Rebecca Grohall Growth Management Manager, Jan King MIS Systems Analyst, Barbara Brooke 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 10, 2006 On MOTION by Mr. Neglia ,and SECOND by Mr. Paternoster, the May 10th, 2006 minutes were approved on a voice vote of 4-0. 6. OLD BUSINESS: None. Board of Adjustment Meeting July 12, 2006 Page Two 7. NEW BUSINESS A. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: BRADFORD HOMES, INC., IN REGARDS TO LOTS 4, 5, 6, AND 7, BLOCK 1, EDGEWATER PARK SUBDIVISION AND LOCATED AT 705 CLEVELAND STREET, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY WHICH IS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED ONE ACRE MINIMUM. Mayor McCollum opened the public hearing at 6:02 p.m. and requested the City Attorney to advise Council on its role in considering a variance request. The City Attorney advised Council of the conditions nneded to qualify a variance. No member of Council had ex-parte communication to disclose. The City Clerk swore in all those who intended to offer testimony for this and the subsequent request. Martha Campbell, representing the property owner, requested the variance to allow the townhouse development on less than the required one acre. Jan King, Growth Management Manager, reiterated staff recommendation to impose a condition that the variance be granted provided that the townhouse meet the more stringent setback requirement set out for RM-8 district requirements. Ms. Campbell said she had no problem with conditions recommended by staff on page four of the staff report, including the requirement for garages and the RM-8 setback. In response to Mr. Paternoster's question as to the future sale of the parcels, the City Attorney said Council could impose a condition that the two parcels come under common ownership for development purposes. Mr. Paternoster requested that be added to the stipulations. Mayor McCollum said he was finding it hard to find a hardship for this property and the application has not met the requirements of the Code for a variance. Ms. Coy said she concurred, however, you have to look at our previous decision on a similar request; and this presents a dilemna. Mr. Paternoster said he agrees with Mayor McCollum's concerns. Board of Adjustment Meeting July 12, 2006 Page Three Mr. Neglia said he could not go along with it because of the circumstances right now. Ms. Coy asked the what "existence of a special circumstance" could be that Council had previously approved a similar request, and staff could not find an explanation about the Code. The City Attorney responded that he wrote the language and it was to keep people from putting two duplex lots together. Ms. Coy said if we agreed that this was the intent and that intent is no longer necessary in our code due to buildout, would that qualify as a special condition or circumstance. The City Attorney said staff does not really like the way the code is written, however, if Council prefers a code amendment rather than consideration of variances, staff can begin a city initiated code amendment. In response to Mr. Neglia, the Growth Management Director said the City can ask the applicant to voluntarily supply an EPA survey. Mr. Neglia said he believed a townhouse would be a better use than four units which would be allowed. In response to Mr. Paternoster, Ms. Campbell said two parking spaces will be required for each house. On MOTION by Mr. Neglia and SECOND by Mr. Paternoster the variance was approved on a roll call of 3-1. (McCollum-nay) B. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: STEVEN LULICH, IN REGARDS TO LOTS 3, 4 AND 5, BLOCK 2, REPEAT OF SCHOOL PARK SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 1069 MAIN STREET, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE AGAINST THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE (0 FOOT SETBACK), WHEREAS THE CODE REQUIRES SUCH STRUCTURE TO BE SIX (6) FEET SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. Mayor McCollum opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Paternoster disclosed ex-parte communication with Mr. Lulich. At this time, Ms. Coy requested clarification that the previous motion included the amendments discussed by Council. Since it was determined that the amendments were not stated in the motion, another motion was called for. 3 Board of Adjustment Meeting July 12, 2006 Page Four On MOTION by Mr. Neglia, and SECOND by Mr. Paternoster, the variance was approved with the condition that each unit is required to provide a garage, that the setbacks required will as set in the in RM-8 district, and that the subject parcels must have common ownership for development on a roll call vote of 3-1. (McCollum-nay). City Council then returned to the next variance request. The City Clerk noted for the record that Mr. Lulich was sworn at the beginning of the meeting. Applicant Steven Lulich addressed City Council on the variance for the six foot balcony which after being permitted and approved was found to encroach into a setback. The Growth Management Manager exhibited the architectural drawing that was submitted by the applicant, which was drawn in lighter, and was not noted on the site plan. She said the Building Department discovered the problem, noting the original structure extended over the property line and the applicant then cut off a portion of the deck so it does not extend beyond the line but is still in the setback. She said the applicant has made arrangements to put electric lines underground. Side ll, Tape I (6:43 pm) She offered two options, to deny the variance and have him remove the balcony or have him put in sidewalks, curb and gutter along Cross Street. Ms. Coy said there have been no similar situations to work from, that the balcony was not on the site plan, and asked Mr. Lulich which option he wanted - to eliminate the balcony or put in the curb and gutter. Mr. Lulich said he did submit sufficient information to show the balcony. Mr. Paternoster asked when the original site was submitted and Ms. King said it came in March 16, 2005 and went to Planning and Zoning in June. Ms. King said there is an understanding that the full construction drawings that were submitted at a later time to the building department should be the same as the site plan. She said the balcony is not indicated on the site plan. Mr. Paternoster clarified that the light shaded balcony was on the drawing that was submitted to Planning and Zoning. She said she did not notice the balcony. Mr. Paternoster noted he had a copy of a letter to Mr. Lulich from the Building Director. Mr. Lulich said it was FPL that first notified him of the problem. Mr. Lulich said the building plans were approved in January 2006, and the building plans showed the detail of the porch. 4 Board of Adjustment Meeting July 12, 2006 Page Five In response to Mr. Neglia, Mr. Lulich said to remove the balcony and put it in the front on Main Street will cost him thousands of dollars. He said he would put in a sidewalk without the curb and gutter like the city has on the other side. He further said it is not the custom to put overhangs on a site plan. Mayor McCollum asked Mr. Lulich to show him the balcony and Mr. Lulich said it is not shown on the site plan. The City Clerk sworn in Damien Gilliams, who said this is a hardship and oversight, and there has to be some solution that won't incur additional expenses. The City Attorney said this engineer did not think he had to show overhangs and only had to show density. Mr. Lulich said he tried to comply and requested that Council rule in his favor or allow him to just put in a sidewalk. The City Manager said Council could consider a couple of points: should this turn into a litigious case, the applicant may have some points; and that yes we missed it but the applicant has absorbed some costs to resolve the problems; and that there is no safety issue, no due hardship to other buildings or aesthetics, and advised that they take this into consideration when they make their decision. Mr. Paternoster said he agreed with Mr. Minner, and that Mr. Lulich has done what he thought was best to correct the problem. Mr. Neglia said Mr. Lulich has gone out of his way to resolve problems, but still the balcony is not on the site plan. He said staff works hard on these things, and asked if he put a sidewalk there would it resolve it, and was advised that Council can impose any condition it wants. The City Manager said there is enough blame to go around here and advised that without the curb and gutter where will the water drain. Mayor McCollum said burying the powerlines does not resolve the problem with the easement. He said he could not support option "a". Ms. Coy said she relies on site plans and staff relies on site plans; and cannot support option "a". The City Attorney advised Mayor McCollum that it was not the easement but a setback which was cut and no longer in the right-of-way. Board of Adjustment Meeting July 12, 2006 Page Six On a MOTION by Ms. Coy and a SECOND by Mr. Paternoster, a motion was made to approve with option "b" of the staff recommendations. "O tin ion b Deny the variance request. However, applicant will modify the site plan to provide off-site improvements of sidewalk, curb and gutter along Cross Street to the full extent of his property. This would then allow him to utilize the Commercial General front-yard setback with sidewalks, curb and gutters of 0 feet. Therefore, he could keep the deck extension and no variance would be needed. This maybe the best option for access to other undeveloped properties on the unimproved ~/ ,)~ I extension on Cross Street to the north. " ~ ~~Gi Motion on this vote resulted in a roll call vote of 4-0. (Burkeen-absent) 8. CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS: None. 9. MEMBERS' MATTERS: None. 10. STAFF MATTERS: None. 11. Being no further business, Mayor McCollum adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. Approved at the Aug . 9, 2 0 0 6 j ~.. ~a an cCollum, Ma or Y Board of Adjustment meeting. ATT~: ? JJ// ~ ,1~ Sally A. Mai , MMC, /City Clerk 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA IN RE VARIANCE APPLICATION OF: Bradford Homes, Inc., for property at Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 1, Edgewater Park Subdivision, And located at 705 Cleveland Street FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER THIS CAUSE came on for public hearing before the CITY COUNCIL sitting as the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the CITY OF SEBASTIAN, on July 12, 2006, after due notice and based on the evidence, the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT enters the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Public notice of this hearing was duly published in the Press Journal, a newspaper of general circulation. 2. A copy of the published notice was mailed to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the property involved in the application, as shown in the records of the property appraiser of Indian River County. 3. Development of townhouses on the subject parcel, although less than one acre, is suitable for the City's Commercial Riverfront Zoning District and Riverfront Overlay District. THEREFORE, based on a careful consideration of the evidence presented in this matter, the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT makes these CONCLUSIONS OF LAW That special conditions or circumstances that were not created by applicant exist, creating a hardship in the use of the subject property and, further, the grant of this variance will not confer special privileges, is not injurious to public welfare or the intent of existing ordinances, and is the minimum variance required to rectify the hardships. ACCORDINGLY, the Board enters this ORDER That the application is APPROVED, and a variance is granted for the construction of a townhouse on less than one acre at property as described in the attached Schedule "A". with the following conditions: 1. The project must comply with the standard setbacks for the RM-8 residential district, rather than the townhouse setbacks. 2. The parcels must come under common ownership in order to be developed as townhouses. DONE AND ORDERED in Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, this 12th day of July, 2006; rendered nunc pro tunc this day of February, 2008. CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA .-~' ~ ..~ /~ ~, Mayor Andrea Coy, as airm BOARD OF ADJUSTM NT ATTEST: /~ ~^ ~ r~ Sally A. Maio MMC, City Clerk as CLERK T HE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2 Schedule "A" Parcel is Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 inclusive, Block 1, Edgewater Park, 705 Cleveland Street; Said lands lying and being in Indian River County, Florida, as detailed in survey by Stuart A. Houston, #4490, dated 6/12/06.