MINUTES ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS BOARD. April 3, 2013

Transcription

1 MINUTES ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS BOARD April 3, 2013 A Public Hearing of the City of South Daytona s Adjustments and Appeals Board was called to order in the South Daytona City Council Chambers, 1672 South Ridgewood Avenue, South Daytona, FL at 6:00 PM by Board Vice-Chairman, Larry Robinson. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Robinson, Vice-Chairman Dave Buckman Emory Goldsborough Michael Caron Ari Morse Gregg Willard Darrel Bofamy STAFF: John Dillard, Community Dev.Dir. Heather Lill, Recording Secretary Chairman, Tommy Duane, was unable to attend; however, there was a quorum. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board Member Ari Morse, made a motion, seconded by Board Member Michael Caron, to approve the Minutes from the January 2, 2013 meeting. VOICE VOTE: ALL YES DISCLOSURE OF EXPARTE COMMUNICATION: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. A&A Case No : A variance request by property owner CHADD COLLINS, 2501 Magnolia Avenue, South Daytona, Florida 32119, represented by Zahn Engineering, Inc., Pete Zahn, P.E., 240 S. Palmetto Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida to allow the construction of a 12 x 17 (204 sq.ft.) storage shed which exceeds the maximum allowable size of 200 sq.ft. and the storage shed will encroach 5 feet into the 10 foot side yard setback per Land Development Regulation Code, Article V, Zoning Regulations, Section 5.6 (2) Setback encroachments and number and size limitations for sheds for the property located at 2501 Magnolia Avenue, South Daytona, Florida

2 Tax Parcel: Zoning: R1A Single Family Residential John Dillard, Community Development Director, stated that late this afternoon City staff received communication from the adjacent property owner that they have no objection to Mr. Collins variance request. He asked that the recording secretary read into record the communication that was received. Mr. Dillard presented his background and analysis to the Board. He noted that there are two aspects to this case and that the proposed location for this shed is at the south side of the property Mr. Dillard stated that the current owner, Chadd Collins, has owned the subject property for a number of years. These records also indicate that the home with garage and finished open porch was constructed in He added that a survey performed in January of this year depicts the property as described. Mr. Dillard stated that staff has provided a depiction of the area using aerial imagery on Volusia County s website. He noted that the property owner is proposing to construct a 204 square foot shed in the same boundaries of the existing structure at the rear of the home. The shed would be required to meet current Florida Building Code regulations. The rear yard is currently enclosed by a 6 high Shadow Box Style fence. Mr. Dillard presented the hardship criteria to the Board: 1. Are there special conditions peculiar to the property? No, the home is located on a corner lot and the primary structure is configured to face Magnolia Avenue, which gives a smaller rear yard and wider side yards. In an effort to use existing gate in the privacy fence and allow existing sidewalks to remain the proposed shed will encroach 5 into the side yard setback. 2. Do special conditions result from actions of the applicant? No 3. Will the granting of the variance give the applicant a special privilege denied to other properties in the same situation? No, other applicants in similar circumstances could request the same type of variance. 4. Would literal interpretation of the code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by similar properties and work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant?, the improvement would benefit the homeowner in having a more useable space in the side yard. 5. Is the variance requested the reasonable minimum?, the shed square footage variance is minimal and is a result of even dimensions on the front and sides of the proposed structure. 6. Would the granting of the variance be in harmony with the intent of the code and not injurious to the area or the public welfare? 2

3 John Dillard stated to the Board that staff recommends approval of this variance request and that staff finds that the variance request to allow construction of a shed on the south side of the residential structure reasonable. He noted that the shed s proposed location will encroach 5 feet into the 10-foot side yard setback and that the addition of 4 square feet over the maximum shed size is not a problem. Mr. Dillard added that staff has not received any concerns or calls from any of the other adjacent property owners. John Dillard stated that the property owner and engineer are present if the Board has any questions for them. Vice-Chairman, Larry Robinson, asked if there are any questions or concerns from the Board. Board Member, David Buckman, asked if the open part of the shed will be facing Magnolia Avenue. Pete Zahn, Zahn Engineering, Inc., 244 S. Palmetto Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida stated that the door to the shed will face the garage. Larry Robinson asked if there is anyone in the audience that would like to speak against the variance request. Noting that there was none, Mr. Robinson requested a motion to approve the shed. Board Member Ari Morse made a motion, seconded by David Buckman, to approve the variance as requested. VOICE VOTE: ALL YES 2. A&A Case No : A variance request by property owner DOMINIC PETRELLA, 783 Bennett Road, South Daytona, Florida to allow construction of a screened porch to be flush with the existing east wall of the house which encroaches 2 feet into the 10 foot side yard setback per Land Development Regulation Code, Article V, Zoning Regulations, Dimensional requirements for the property located at 783 Bennett Road, South Daytona, Florida Tax Parcel: Zoning: R1A Single Family Residential John Dillard presented the background and analysis to the Board. He noted that the property is located in the Big Tree Village Subdivision. Mr. Dillard elaborated that back in the late 1980 s, the City had underwent a series of zoning changes, and that the lots that were built out prior to 1988 were zoned R1-C. He added that most of the lots are 85 feet wide and 110 feet deep. Mr. Dillard said that the lots meet the R1-C zoning perfectly; that there are no lots in that subdivision that meet R1-A zoning, which is its current 3

4 designation. He explained that any time a resident in the Big Tree Subdivision wants to add on to their house in the same plane as the side of the house, they would have to appear before this Board for a variance. Mr. Dillard stated that City staff has communicated with the City Attorney, and it was suggested that the City conduct an administrative zoning change and go back to R1-C for the entire Subdivision. John Dillard stated that the current owner, Dominic Petrella, has owned the subject property since 1981 according to Volusia County Property Appraiser records. These records also indicate that the home with garage and finished open porch was constructed in A survey performed in August of 2002 depicts the property as described. Mr. Dillard noted that staff has provided a depiction of the area using aerial imagery on Volusia County s website. The property owner is proposing to construct a screen room in the same plane as the existing residence at the rear of the home. He elaborated that it meets the side yard setback on the west side of the property, but on the East side, if the property owner wants to line up the screen room with the side of the house, he encroaches two feet into the side yard setback. Mr. Dillard stated that the new addition would be required to meet current Florida Building Code regulations including any enhancements or modifications to the existing slab structure. Mr. Dillard presented the hardship criteria to the Board: 1. Are there special conditions peculiar to the property?, the home is located on a residential lot that initially was platted meeting R1- C lot dimensions and side yard setbacks. During Citywide zoning changes in the late 1980 s, this subdivision zoning was designated as R1-A zoning. The redesignation of the zoning from R1-C to R1-A in effect rendered most of the lots non-conforming lots of record requiring this variance to be allowed to construct the screened enclosure in the same plane as the house. 2. Do special conditions result from actions of the applicant? No 3. Will the granting of the variance give the applicant a special privilege denied to other properties in the same situation? No, other applicants in similar circumstances have successfully requested the same type of variance. Currently staff is discussing with the City Attorney a permanent solution to the current zoning inconsistency. 4. Would literal interpretation of the code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by similar properties and work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant?, the improvement would benefit the homeowner in having more aesthetically pleasing addition of a screen porch. This would allow the east side of the screened porch to align with the east side of the home. 4

5 5. Is the variance requested the reasonable minimum?, the variance would allow the owner to encroach 2 feet into the east side yard setback only; the west side of the house and screened addition will meet the setback requirements as they currently stand. 6. Would the granting of the variance be in harmony with the intent of the code and not injurious to the area or the public welfare? John Dillard stated to the Board that staff recommends approval for this variance request. He added that staff finds the variance request to allow construction of a screen room that will be flush with the east side of the resident structure by encroaching 2-feet into the 10- foot side yard setback to be reasonable. Staff agrees that the screened porch would be an improvement to the property, would comply with current codes, and would not extend further into the east side yard setback of the existing house. Mr. Dillard added that staff hopes to have a permanent solution to this zoning discrepancy in the near future. Staff has not received any concerns or calls from any of the adjacent property owners. Mr. Dillard noted that if this property was in the proper zoning that the Subdivision was built under, the property owner would not need to come before the Board for this variance. He added that the property owner is present if the Board has any questions for him. Vice-Chairman Larry Robinson asked if there is anyone on the Board or in the audience that wants to speak against the variance request. Noting that there was none, Mr. Robinson requested a motion to approve the variance as requested. Ari Morse made a motion, seconded by Board Member Darrel Bofamy, to approve the variance as requested. VOICE VOTE: ALL YES 3. A&A Case No : A variance request by property owners BARBARA L. GILES AND ARTHUR E. GILES, 957 Duncan Road, South Daytona, Florida to allow the widening of two existing driveways by approximately seven feet for a total width each of approximately 35 feet which will exceed the allowable width of 24 feet per Land Development Regulation Code, Article VII, Section 7.5 Traffic/parking management for the property located at 345 Ferndale Avenue and 347 Ferndale Avenue, South Daytona, Florida Tax Parcel: Zoning: R-3 Multi-family Residential John Dillard presented his background and analysis to the Board. He stated that the current owners, Barbara L. and Arthur E. Giles, have owned the subject property since 1980 according to Volusia County Property Appraiser records. A survey performed in June of 1986 depicts the property as described. 5

6 Mr. Dillard noted that staff has provided a depiction of the area using aerial imagery on Volusia County s website. He elaborated that it is a four unit rental facility with six parking spaces. The City s current code requirements for parking are two parking spaces per unit plus ten percent. Mr. Dillard expounded that the property owner is proposing to widen both driveways by an additional seven feet of concrete to allow for two additional parking spaces for a total of eight parking spaces or two parking spaces per unit. Since the existing parking spaces are an extension of the entrance driveways, the driveways at the right-of-way will also have to be widened the additional seven feet to insure a functioning configuration. Mr. Dillard stated that the driveways are 27 feet wide, and according to code, 24 feet wide is the maximum width for a driveway if there is more than one access point. He added that with only one access point, the driveway can be up to 35 feet wide. Mr. Dillard noted that the City worked with the property owner and attempted to come up with some viable options but because of the depth of the parking spaces and the proximity of the roadway, there is no other option available to provide the additional parking spaces than what is proposed to the Board today. He explained that with this option, the driveways would be closer to meeting the off street parking requirements for the rental units. Mr. Dillard presented the hardship criteria to the Board: 1. Are there special conditions peculiar to the property?, the four unit rental complex was constructed with only one parking space per unit and the spaces were constructed requiring all four existing parking spaces to back out directly on to Ferndale Avenue for egress. There is little additional room to correct the traffic patterns that were originally approved for this site. 2. Do special conditions result from actions of the applicant?, this was the original lot layout as approved by the City. 3. Will the granting of the variance give the applicant a special privilege denied to other properties in the same situation? No, other applicants in similar circumstances could request the same type of variance. 4. Would literal interpretation of the code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by similar properties and work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant?, the improvement would benefit the tenants by having more parking and would allow the complex to reach the minimum required two spaces per unit currently required. 5. Is the variance requested the reasonable minimum? 6

7 , the variance would allow the owner to use the existing parking configuration while providing two spaces per unit. Cars at this location already have to back directly into Ferndale Avenue for egress and this would not change. Ferndale is a fairly busy road but is designated as a local road and no problems have ever been reported with the current parking configuration. 6. Would the granting of the variance be in harmony with the intent of the code and not injurious to the area or the public welfare? Mr. Dillard stated to the Board that staff finds the variance request to allow the widening of the two driveways by 7-feet to be reasonable. He elaborated that as shown on the site drawing, the two driveways will be widened from 28 feet to 35 feet. Code allows for a 35 foot driveway, but only as a single point access. Mr. Dillard reiterated that staff worked with the applicant to explore all options for adding the additional spaces and this seems to be the only viable option. He said that this variance would allow the property to more closely meet the minimum parking requirements for multi-family structures and help meet the needs of the current tenants. Staff has not received any concerns or calls from any of the adjacent property owners. John Dillard stated that the property owners are present if the Board has any questions for them. Additionally, he stated that there is an adjacent property owner in the audience that would like to speak. Robert Warren, 342 Ferndale Avenue, South Daytona, Florida stated that he has lived at his current property for 32 years and for 25 years he has fought flooding. He added that he is the lowest property on Ferndale Avenue. Mr. Warren expounded that the City has placed drainage on his side of the street but he is collecting water that runs down from the driveway of the subject property. John Dillard concurred that Mr. Warren s house is at a low area of the street and that there is a catch basin near his house. The crown of the road divides the north and south side of the road and that the drainage from the subject property runs down to a depression on the east side to a vacant lot and then to a catch basin off of Jones Street. Mr. Dillard said that the request for the expanded driveway should not affect Mr. Warren s property. He added that Mr. Warren s finished floor elevation is lower than the road. Robert Warren stated that every time the City has resurfaced the road, the road has been raised. David Buckman asked when the last time Mr. Warren s property was flooded. Robert Warren responded that it flooded before the drainage was installed. He added that the catch basin takes care of the east driveway but he also receives water run-off from the west driveway. Mr. Warren elaborated that the water pools in his front yard and he cannot back out into the street because the road is higher. He noted that the lower half of his house is on a slab and that the upper half is only three steps higher and water has just sat under there. Mr. Warren stated that he objects to the possibility of getting more water onto his property. 7

8 Vice-Chairman Larry Robinson asked Mr. Warren if he thought the additional concrete would increase the run-off onto his property. Mr. Warren responded yes. Larry Robinson asked John Dillard if that is a feasible concern. John Dillard responded that water has to get two plus inches deep and running before it can approach the center of the crown of the road. He added that run off from the subject property driveways does not go across the crown of the road but runs down to a catch basin near the Jones Street intersection where it eventually flows into the Halifax River. John Dillard stated that in his professional opinion, this variance request will not add any additional run off into Mr. Warren s yard. He noted that the added concrete would increase run off from the area but it will be directed to the catch basin near Jones Street. Mr. Dillard agreed that Mr. Warren s situation is a problem, but this variance request would not have any bearing on it. He added that the City will take a look at Mr. Warren s situation and see if they can provide him with some relief on backing out of his driveway and filling in some of the area in his front yard. Mr. Dillard stated that public works installed the basin as close to the low spot on Mr. Warren s property as possible while staying in the right-of-way. Ari Morse asked what the lengths of the driveways are. John Dillard responded that they are each 31 feet in length. Mr. Morse noted that it was not a significant amount of concrete that was being added. Darrell Bofamy asked Mr. Dillard to confirm that Mr. Warren s property had not flooded since the drainage was installed. Mr. Warren responded that the drainage helped with the driveway on the east side but he does not get any flood relief from the west side run off. David Buckman asked Mr. Warren what material makes up his driveway. Mr. Warren responded that it is made out of crushed shell. Vice-Chairman Larry Robinson asked if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to comment on this case. Noting that there was none, Vice-Chairman Robinson asked for a motion to approve the variance request. Ari Morse made a motion, seconded by David Buckman to approve the variance as requested. Vice-Chairman Larry Robinson asked for a Roll Call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Emory Goldsborough Ari Morse David Buckman Larry Robinson Michael Caron 8

9 Gregg Willard Darrell Bofamy Vice Chair Larry Robinson asked John Dillard if there is any further business to discuss. John Dillard responded no. Vice-Chairman Robinson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. VOICE VOTE: ALL YES Larry Robinson Heather Lill, Recording Secretary 9