CITY OF DUNEDIN, FLORIDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL MEETING MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, :00P.M.

Transcription

1 CITY OF DUNEDIN, FLORIDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL MEETING MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, :00P.M. PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Chair Randy Griffin; Vice-Chair Duane Wright; Members Bruce Buzzell, Deborah Bushnell, Teresa Miller and alternate members Tony Scruton and Chas Riddle Assistant City Attorney Bob Metz, Planning & Development Director Greg Rice, Assistant City Clerk Sharon Toner and eight people. Chair Griffin convened the meeting at 3:00p.m. He advised that the (BAA) is a quasi-judicial body and certain procedures are to be follm.ved by the Board and persons appearing before it. The purpose of this meeting is to provide applicants an opportunity to present cases for review by the. The BAA is responsible to determine if such applications comply with City regulations. The meeting is open to the public and all persons present for this hearing have the right to voice their views regarding the application being considered by the Board. If the competent and substantial evidence before the Board does not meet the necessary standards set out in the Code, the BAA has no iecouise but to deny the request. He further explained that decisions made by the Board are final and may only be appealed to a court. When the Board votes to approve or deny the application, the vote of the Board is a rendition of an order on the application, and it is the responsibility of the parties to create and preserve a transcript of the proceedings. He further explained the procedures as follows: the Chair will inquire if the Board has any voting conflict or ex parte communication, any members of the audience desiring to testify, including the applicant, owner, representative and staff will be sworn in by the clerk. The Chair will introduce each item on the agenda, the City representative will present the City's case regarding each application, members of the Board may inquire as to the City's presentation of each case, the owner/applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation to the Board and respond to the City representative's presentation. Anyone in the audience may come forward to testify regarding the application and any person who has testified may ask questions of a person who has testified. The applicant will have the opportuntty to rebut or respond to opponent's testimony and the City will have the opportunity to summarize the City's position and the Board will discuss the application and vote. 1. Approval of the minutes for the of March 26, MOTION: VOTE: Motion was made by Vice-Chair Wright and seconded by Mr. Buzzell to approve the minutes of March 26, The motion carried unanimously. 2. Application 14-4 A - Request for Variance from Section of the Land Development Code (LDC) to reduce the minimum required side and rear yard setbacks to 5' for a Carolina Carport 24' x 36' shed. Property located at 5 Eagle Ln. (Parcel No ). Owner/Applicant: Darek & lzabella Jankowski 04-13

2 Chair Griffin introduced the agenda item and determined the applicant was present. It was determined that no members had any ex parte communication. Assistant City Clerk Toner swore in Planning & Development Director Greg Rice and anyone wishing to speak or give testimony. Chair Griffin asked for staffs presentation. Mr. Rice reviewed the staffing and referenced City Arborist Art Finn's memo which states there is a Sand Live Oak tree located in the north side yard of 5 Eagle Lane. The tree is a native protected tree according to the City's tree ordinance. This tree is healthy and provides benefits to the environment and the City of Dunedin. A 24' x 36' shed is planned to be installed in the northeast corner of this property. The required setback is 10' from the property line. The resident is asking for a 5' setback for the shed. Providing a 5' setback instead of a 10' setback would have less impact on the root system of this healthy tree. Mr. Rice reviewed the variance approval criteria: Uniqueness The need for the requested variance arises out of the physical surroundings, shape, topographical conditions, or other physical or environmental conditions that are unique to the specific property involved, and which do not apply generally to property located in the same zoning district. Reference City Arborist's memo regarding the location of the impacted tree on the property Tree Preservation Preservation of a protected tree or native tree but not an invasive tree, as defined in Landscaping and Trees of the LDC, may be considered as a relevant environmental condition under this subsection. Reference City Arborist's memo regarding the impacted tree on the property Historic Property- N/A Self-Imposed Circumstances Conditions or special circumstances peculiar to the property must not have been self-created or have resulted from an action by the applicant, or with prior knowledge or approval of the applicant. Specifically, no variance may be granted arising from the illegal construction of a structure or an illegal use of the premises which would have otherwise required a building permit or other specific approval to be issued, and which construction or which use was commenced unlawfully. Under such conditions, the property owner shall have no legal right to apply for a variance and the board will have no legal right to grant such a variance. Reference City Arborist's memo regarding the impacted tree on the property. Fitting the requested size accessory building into this area would impact the tree and the tree would have to be removed Minimum Variance 04-14

3 The requested variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property. Yes, based on the size of the shed Special Privilege Granting the variance will not confer any special privilege that is not allowed for other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district; no variance will be granted that extends to the applicant a use of property that is not commonly enjoyed by other persons in similar circumstances. No, a variance to protect trees is equally available to any Dunedin resident Surrounding Property Granting the variance will not substantially interfere with, or injure the rights of others whose property would be affected by approval of the variance, alter the essential character of the neighborhood, or create a nuisance. Mr. Rice referenced the aerial photograph (in the staffing) showing the large lot sizes and distance between residences in this neighborhood. The proposed shed should not impact any of the surrounding properties. Planning & Developmeni staff beiieves the required tests for a variance have been met without exception; however, recommend approval of the application, with conditions. CONDITIONS Based on the large size of the proposed accessory building (shed), Planning & Development staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Maintain a six (6) foot privacy fence for the life of the accessory structure. 2. Provide and maintain a landscape buffer above the height of the privacy fence as additional screening of the building. 3. The accessory building cannot be enlarged and no additional accessory buildings can be placed on the property. 4. Height limited to one (1) story with a low pitched roof, no higher than the primary building on the site. 5. Garage door- only one (1) standard garage door for the entire building based on making sure the structure remains a residential use. Commercial use is not allowed. Mr. Rice advised all other reviewing entities recommend approval. Mr. Buzzell confirmed with Mr. Rice the tree is located on the subject property. Chair Griffin referred to Condition #2 and asked who determines the adequacy of the additional screening. Mr. Rice deferred the question to the applicant. Chair Griffin referred to Condition #4 and asked if "low pitch roof' is defined at a certain 04-15

4 amount. Mr. Rice stated the applicant has already ordered the building and he wanted to see what the proposed pitch is; however, he would recommend something less than 1-4. He wanted the applicant to address that as well. Ms. Bushnell noted she had some questions for the applicant regarding the location of the tree. She asked Mr. Rice if he had been to the property and could say there was no other place to locate the shed and noted it looks like a large lot and a lot of open space. Mr. Rice stated he had not been to the property. Ms. Bushnell mentioned a comment in the Engineering staffing that it appears to be a self imposed hardship and she assumed they are talking about the tree. She referred to the comment of possibly removing the tree and asked if the applicant would be able to obtain a permit to remove the tree if he wished to locate the shed right where the tree is. Mr. Rice stated yes and added if the variance is not granted the applicant could go to the standard setback and put the shed in since the City does not have a size limit on an accessory building, but does ask for a 10' rear setback and a 7.5' side setback. He does not know if depending on the size of the tree there is any mitigation cost involved and that is the reason for the hearing. The City would not want to deny the variance and then have the applicant remove the tree. Ms. Bushnell stated her understanding is the tree is important enough to grant a variance foi but not important enough to keep if there were other places to locate the shed on the property and asked if that would be considered. Mr. Rice deferred to the applicant as to whether the shed could be located somewhere else. Ms. Bushnell noted the City Arborist's inemo states a 5' setback instead of 1 0' would have less impact on the root system, but does not say it would not have an impact. She determined Mr. Rice had not spoken to Mr. Finn to clarify that. Vice-Chair Wright noted the Fire Division mentioned separation requirements to adjoining structures on the site and asked the minimum in this case. Mr. Rice stated that is standard language and depends on what is built and the firewall between structures. Applicant Presentation Darek Jankowski, owner/applicant of 5 Eagle Lane pointed out the location on the map and stated: The tree is located relative to the shed; it would be directly in front of the shed. The roof pitch is 1-3 and the maximum height of the structure is 1 0.7'. The landscape buffer was decided with the neighbors to not obstruct their view with the shed and to keep everything in its natural state. He would make that decision to benefit both sides. He explained there are three neighbors that back up to his property and that is why there are three different curbs, but it would be maintained with the 5' setback. Vice-Chair Wright asked why the shed cannot be rotated and noted in keeping 1 0' setbacks and rotating the shed in the opposite direction it would be 24' off the back property line versus the proposed 41 '; a 7' difference. If this was done no variance 04-16

5 ' June 25,2014 would be needed and it would be further away from the tree. Chair Griffin asked where the garage door would be and Mr. Jankowski pointed out the location. Mr. Jankowski explained regarding whether the shed could be located somewhere else on the property that the way the drainage is on the property, everything is on a slope toward the house and then away from the house and the whole back yard is shaped in a V. He pointed out the only level places in the yard and noted the other locations have trees as well and access would be difficult. He pointed out the small existing shed that will be removed and the gate to the backyard where you can drive to the shed. Vice-Chair Wright asked if he would be driving over the tree root structures and Mr. Jankowski said no, because the tree is more to one side. Chair Griffin asked why the shed is being pushed further to the sideline and if it is getting away from the tree and getting straighter access. Mr. Jankowski stated it really does not interfere with getting into the shed and the garage is on the very comer of the shed. Mr. Jankowski stated in reality it will not be 5' from the property line, he just wants to keep it 5' from the fence and have enough room to plant vegetation, so it will actually be about 6' all the way around. Mr. Buzzell asked if the shed is going to have a use other than storage. Mr. Jankowski said no and explained he has a Jet Ski and toys and so forth and they have been parking their cars outside for over a year. Chair Griffin clarified with Mr. Rice the side setback with no variance is 7.5'. Ms. Bushnell asked why not rotate the shed. Mr. Jankowski stated the ground starts sloping for drainage purposes. Ms. Bushnell clarified with Mr. Jankowski that the shed is for a Jet Ski and not for parking vehicles. Ms. Bushnell noted the tree is actually closer to the side setback than the center. Mr. Jankowski explained it is pushing closer to the side setback to keep it symmetrical and leave enough space. Chair Griffin stated he understands sliding the shed back to get away from the tree; however, does not understand granting a variance on the side setback from 7.5' to 5'. Mr. Jankowski explained the way the property is shaped, the further the shed is moved to the south where the slope is would require building the slope up. Chair Griffin stated that would make more sense to him than edging closer to the side. He does not know that a variance has ever been granted because of grade. Mr. Buzzell asked if it would be feasible to put in fill dirt and negate the side setback situation. Mr. Rice commented that anything is possible. Mr. Jankowski commented regarding the purpose of the setbacks for privacy for the neighbors and explained he and the neighbors agree on the further into the corner the better for him and the neighbors. Chair Griffin commented if the variance is granted it would become a grandfathered non

6 conformity and the next owner could wonder why that building is so close. Mr. Jankowski stated he is fine with the limitation on the variance as long as he owns the property and that is one reason for agreeing on the vegetation line to protect the neighbor in that instance. Chair Griffin reiterated he has not heard a good reason to change the side setback and perhaps the arborist had a reason. The only reason he is hearing is because of the slope and the proposed area is flatter. Mr. Jankowski explained there is a 6" overhang on the sides factored into the building. Chair Griffin opened the public hearing. Mary Andrews of 7 Eagle Lane pointed out her property next door to the applicant and explained her concern is the City going forward would enforce the restrictions as though it was code. Chair Griffin explained that Code Enforcement would enforce the restrictions and one of the reasons he is trying to be as specific as possible on the landscaping and buffering is so there will be no question later and this would stay with the property so, if it is sold, the next owner would have the same restrictions. Chair Griffin responded to a question from the audience regarding the height and roof pitch and stated there was testimony the roof pitch was 1-3. Mr. Jankowski stated the height would be no more than 10.7' at the peak. With no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Griffin confirmed with Mr. Rice that 1-3 is considered low pitch. Chair Griffin assumed the Board could be as specific as they wish regarding the landscape buffer, but he asked for input from City staff as to height and materials. Assistant City Attorney Metz responded that the height could be addressed in terms of bushes and so forth in as many details as the Board could provide. Ms. Bushnell noted a privacy fence is 6'. Vice-Chair Wright commented he would consider a buffer 10.8' so he could not see the building and questioned what would grow 1 0.8' in a 5' wide swath other than bamboo. Chair Griffin assumed language could be used as to visually buffering the building without specifying the type of plant. Mr. Buzzell recalled earlier discussion indicated the crux of the matter is this is in place of bringing in soil to build up the grade. Chair Griffin stated that is his understanding of the reason for the side setbacks. Ms. Bushnell commented it was her understanding the shed could be rotated if the grading was done. Discussion ensued among the Board members discussing various ideas for placement of the building and possible consequences for the tree of rotating the building. Vice Chair Wright commented he believed it could be done without a setback variance. Mr. Buzzell commented no one from the neighborhood was in the audience contesting the variance request. Chair Griffin commented all the Board has to go on is the City Arborist's memo saying to 04-18

7 slide the shed back for the tree, nothing about rotating the footprint 90 degrees. Mr. Rice commented in looking at the aerial the difference of 7.5' to 5', with the distances these houses are apart is minimal in terms of anything with a 6' fence and then landscape up to that. He explained the arborist has shown him where trees can be planted in a 3' area, it just depends on the species of the tree and that they do not have big root structures. He explained in terms of the easement that every subdivision has 5' easements along the edge of lot lines in case a utility has to be run and in this case he does not think anything is being run back there. He noted that anyone runs the risk that landscaping might have to come out some day if there is a need for the easement. Mr. Rice explained his concern in forcing the rotating of the building and there is a significant grade change at a significant expense, there is a risk of losing the tree and reiterated they could do the 10' and the 7.5' and the tree would be gone. MOTION: VOTE: Motion was made by Mr. Buzzell to approve Application 14-4 A as stated and seconded by Ms. Miller with setbacks at 5' for a 24' x 36' carport shed and the five conditions stated in the staffing. Motion carried 3-2 with Chair Griffin, Mr. Buzzell and Ms. Miller voting aye. Voting nay: Vice-Chair Wright and Ms. Bushnell 3. Application 14 5 A - Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a "roadside stand, pushcart, etc." (commercial food trailer) within the "DC" (Downtown Core) zoning district; and request for a Conditional Use Permit to increase the seating capacity of an outdoor dining area to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the licensed indoor seating area per Section (E) of the Land Development Code. Property located at 431 Skinner Blvd. (Parcel No ) Owner/Applicant: Delusions of Grandeur I Happy's Bayou Bites - Mark and Charlotte "Happy" Jordan Chair Griffin introduced the agenda item and determined the applicant was present. It was determined that no members had any ex parte communication. Assistant City Clerk Toner swore in Planning & Development Director Greg Rice and anyone wishing to speak or give testimony. Chair Griffin asked for staff's presentation. Mr. Rice explained: The Land Development Code was updated in Roadside stands, push carts, commercial food trailers and food trucks require conditional use permits in the Downtown Core zoning district. The City took this idea to the Community Redevelopment Area Advisory Committee (CRAAC) in order for all sides to discuss the issue in a public forum and then have the BAA decide whether to grant the conditional use permit. The CRAAC recommends approval of this application. Renderings were presented depicting the location and the food trailer. The site plan, on Skinner Boulevard includes a large existing tree with picnic tables underneath, the food trailer tucked inside rustic looking decking material and restrooms

8 Staff has reviewed the application and has no objection to the Conditional Use Permit request, as the project will enhance the pedestrian environment in this area. Approval Criteria Conditional Use Permit for a "roadside stand, pushcart, etc." (Commercial food trailer) within the "DC" (Downtown Core) zoning district. The requested use is compatible with the existing natural environment of the site, with properties in the neighborhood, and projected future development of the area. This area is part of the new Dunedin Arts District and the City's desire is to attract artists with incentives to possibly take over some of the housing area for live/work studios. This amenity would complement that goal. The City is proposing that if artists come in and would like to sell their work on a monthly basis, the City Commission approved with the idea of people walking through downtown and this area and get a bite to eat; therefore, staff thought this would be a good fit. There is adequate provision for public facilities, such as schools, parks and utilities within the senice areas involved and the proposed use can be accommodated by existing and/or proposed facilities. Engineering had no problem with any of the proposed public facilities. There are adequate setbacks, buffering, or other appropriate control measures to mitigate adverse effects of noise, light, dust, fumes, and other nuisances. The proposal is to erect a fence to separate the business from a rental residence adjacent to the property. The use is compatible with the desired growth and land use patterns reflected in the city land use plan or other planning documents. Economic and Housing Development and CRA Director Bob lronsmith recommends approval. The proposed use will comply with all appropriate regulations for the zoning district/land use category in which it is located and the policies of the comprehensive plan that apply to that district/category. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public in the area, and will not be detrimental to the use or development of adjacent properties or of the general neighborhood. Approval Criteria Conditional Use Permit to increase the seating capacity of an outdoor dining area to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the licensed indoor seating area. In this case there is no indoor seating; therefore, this had to be an additional request in the application for outdoor seating. The idea is to provide a unique walk-up and take away limited outdoor dining experience

9 Planning and Development staff sees the outdoor dining portion or the request to be reasonable and necessary for the success of the business. Land Development Code, Section (F): 1. The establishment's economic viability cannot be reasonably achieved without the proposed increase in seats and/or area. 2. The need for increased outdoor dining will not negatively impact any noisesensitive adjoining commercial or residential use. The operation will have limited seating and will close by 10:00 p.m. 3. The applicant has not operated an establishment which has been found in violation with regard to alcohol, public safety or nuisance codes or regulations. Mr. Rice advised Planning and Development staff believes the criteria for conditional use has been met without exception and recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and the addition of outdoor seating. Mr. Buzzell clarified with Mr. Rice this is a fair weather operation with no inside seating. Mr. Rice added that the applicant will address the plan for drive-up services as well, but the outdoor seating would be sensitive to the weather. Vice-Chair Wright referred to the site plan which shows two residential type trash cans and noted every commercial establishment in the city he has seen has a dumpster. Mr. Rice explained the applicant has worked the trash issue out with the Solid Waste Division Director. Ms. Bushnell asked if 20 outdoor seats with three tables is reasonable and Mr. Rice advised that 20 seats should not be a problem for the site. Vice-Chair Wright inquired whether City Arborist Finn had any concerns regarding the table around the tree trunk and its effects on the root structure. Mr. Rice advised the arborist reviewed the application and had no objections. Applicant Presentation Happy and Mark Jordan of 2005 Spanish Pines Drive, Dunedin. Ms. Jordan pointed out the seats around the tree and three picnic tables and two small seats on the ramp by the trailer for ADA regulations. Vice-Chair Wright counted 4 seats for the picnic table, 9 around the tree, 4 seats per table for 12 adding up to 21 seats and asked if the application should be amended. Mr. Rice advised 24 is the maximum traditional seating allowed in the Downtown Core without additional parking requirements. Assistant City Attorney Metz explained a motion could include approval of up to 24 seats. Mr. Buzzell asked if the three parking spaces shown are in addition to what is there currently. Mr. Rice advised no, that is the total required. Vice-Chair Wright inquired regarding the setbacks and Mr. Rice explained the Downtown Core is zero lot lines with no setbacks

10 Chair Griffin opened the public hearing. John Allen of 978 Howard Avenue expressed concern regarding the parking because Howard Avenue is only approximately 15 feet wide and that is where the entrance and exit will be. He added there is no sidewalk on the street, so with on-street parking it will be difficult in case of access for emergency vehicles. Chair Griffin noted the Board has heard from City staff that the parking is adequate and Fire has signed off; therefore, apparently they feel they can get the trucks through. Mr. Rice stated if parking on Howard Avenue becomes an issue the City can sign both sides of the street to not allow parking if it is going to be too congested. Mr. Allen noted there is no tum around on the street so if someone is going the wrong way they are going to use someone's driveway and that is another concern. It is a dead end street but no one pays attention to the sign. Chair Griffin suggested a "No Outlet" sign. Mr. Rice explained the request can be made by contacting City Traffic Engineer Joan Rice. Grant Painter of 984 Howard Avenue stated, he lives next door to Mr. Allen and is also the property owner and they have no intention of having any on-street parking at the site. With no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Wright asked if the unisex restroom building would look similar to Bayou Bites in terms of architecture. Mr. Painter explained they would be using repurposed wood on the fagade keeping the same look and architecture with a tin roof and a vanity barrier. MOTION: VOTE: Motion was made by Vice-Chair Wright and seconded by Ms. Bushnell to approve Application 14-5 A and to allow up to 24 seats for outdoor dining. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Griffin announced the next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 23, The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. NOTE: This meeting was recorded and those recordings are a part of the official file. I~ Sharon Toner, Assistant City Clerk Secretary, 04-22