Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-20-00 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING HELD THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Resnik called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The invocation was given by Member Colburn, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. The roll was called and a quorum was declared present. PRESENT: Chairman Resnik, Vice - Chairman Jensen, Members Colburn, Almodovar, Tice and Alternate Member Cox. Also present were Zoning Coordinator Harper, Building & Zoning Official Flippen, Assistant City Attorney Cookson, and Clerk/Stenographer Maxwell. ABSENT: Alternate Member Savino APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chairman Jensen, seconded by Member Almodovar, moved to approve the Minutes of the December 2, 1999 Board of Adjustment meeting as presented. Motion carried 5 -0. fir." NEW BUSINESS Case No. 02VR -99 Garland Zoning Coordinator Harper presented the staff report on behalf of the Building Department. He said the issue was whether or not the Board of Adjustment should recommend approval of the subject variance application for the property located at 622 Sherwood Oaks Avenue. If approved, the application would permit the applicant to retain two storage sheds in their present locations on the subject property. Zoning Coordinator Harper gave a brief history of the case. He stated that the applicant constructed two (2) storage sheds upon the rear of his property without obtaining building permits. The first storage shed is an aluminum structure that was erected within a 10' drainage easement and within a 7 1/2' accessory building rear setback. The second shed being a 12' by 24' wooden structure that was erected within the same 10' platted drainage easement ,within a 5' utility easement, and within the 7 %2' accessory building rear and side setbacks. Zoning Coordinator Harper stated that the applicant requested to come before the Board of Adjustment for a variance application The staff recommends that the applicant's request be denied because the applicant failed to conform to the four (4) prerequisite conditions prescribed by the L.D.C., Article IV, Section 4 -9 (A). The conditions are as follows: Board of Adjustment Regular Noir Thursday, January 20, 2000 1. There are no special circumstances peculiar to the subject land and structures. 2. A literal interpretation of the L.D.C. provisions are necessary in order to prevent the applicant from enjoying rights that are denied to other citizens. 3. The conditions and circumstances in this case are the direct result of the Applicant's actions. 4. That the granting of the requested variances will confer upon the applicant special privileges denied by these regulations to others. Further, that the granting of the requested variances would be in injurious to the surrounding territory and detrimental to the public welfare, if the subject sheds are left in place, because of stormwater drainage impairment and fire hazard due to the proximity of the two sheds to the adjacent property lines. A lengthy discussion ensued. The public hearing was opened. Applicant, Daniel Garland, 622 Sherwood Oaks Circle responded to the staff report. Mr. Garland stated that he has come before the Board of Adjustment to retain the two sheds in their current location. He further stated that he knew the easement was located on his property but that the easement runs throughout his whole development He said that he would have obtained a permit for the sheds if he had known they were necessary. Mr. Garland said that no one in his neighborhood has had a negative response to the two sheds. He stated that he has lived in his home for approximately 9 years and he has never had a water drainage problem. The metal shed was erected approximately 7 or 8 years ago and at that time the two trees by the shed were planted. He stated that you can see by the size of the trees in the pictures that they were not just planted 2 years ago. The applicant stated that he has items that he would like to store in the wood shed so he can clean out his garage and use the garage again. Vice - Chairman Jensen asked the applicant why he had to build such a big shed, the square footage of his home and why the need for an additional shed. Mr. Garland stated that his house is 1300 sq. ft. He has numerous items stored in his house and garage and wanted use of his garage again The applicant stated that he has various machinery tools and equipment that needs to be stored Member Colburn asked the applicant what he would do if he had to move the shed. Mr. Garland said that he would move the shed piece by piece He stated that it would require a bulldozer to remove the foundation of cement slab. He further stated that if he had to remove the slab, he would also have to remove the trees located in the vicinity of 2 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting t,,,, Thursday, January 20, 2000 the slab. Mr. Garland said that if the shed was an eye sore, he felt the neighbors would have spoken up. He submitted a letter regarding the shed from a neighbor who could not attend the meeting and a petition signed by his neighbors.(Exhibit 4 -1) Vice - Chairman Jensen questioned Coordinator Zoning Coordinator Harper as to who filed the complaint against Mr. Garland. Zoning Coordinator Harper said that the complaint came from a neighbor. Vice - Chairman Jensen asked Zoning Coordinator Harper as to how many neighbors complained about the sheds. Zoning Coordinator Harper stated that he was not sure if the sheds were noticed by Code Enforcement or by a neighbor. Grant Shaw, 618 Sherwood Oaks Circle (applicant's next door neighbor)stated that the metal shed has been in the applicants back yard for at least five (5) years. Zoning Coordinator Harper stated that the two (2) sheds were built without permits. Permits have been required for construction of storage sheds for over fifteen(15) years. The sheds are clearly obstructing the drainage easement in a substantial way, they are primarily occupying all of the easement. Assistant City Attorney Cookson asked Zoning Coordinator Harper if there were rear set - backs. Zoning Coordinator Harper stated that all rear and side setbacks on accessory structures are 7 1/2 feet except if an easement exists. If the easement is greater than 7 1/2 feet rear setback then the setbacks have to observe the easement setback. Nelson Gosnell, 613 Sherwood Oaks Circle (applicant's neighbor) stated that the applicant's shed is nicely built. Mr. Gosnell stated that the shed enhances the appearance of the neighborhood and will last longer than a metal shed. He further stated that the original complaint was lodged when Code Enforcement came to look at his drive way under construction without a permit and at that time noticed the applicants shed. Steve Swab, 614 Sherwood Oaks Circle (applicant's neighbor) stated that he has lived in the subdivision since the subdivision was built. He said his family does not have any problem with the shed. This situation has made us all aware of permit requirements. He stated that possibly a notice could be sent out on the water bills as to permit requirements. Assistant City Attorney Cookson stated that he felt the Board of Adjustment should refresh themselves as to the standards the Board is to follow in granting variances. They are as follows: 3 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting vim,, Thursday, January 20, 2000 1. That special conditions and circumstance exist which are peculiar to the land, structures, or requires subdivision improvements involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or requires subdivision improvements. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties with similar conditions. 3. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. That the granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these regulations to other lands, structures, or required subdivision improvements under similar conditions. No pre- existing conditions of neighboring lands which are contrary to these regulations shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Assistant City Attorney Cookson stated that the above are the standards that this Board needs to apply when looking at variances. As there were no further public comments, the public hearing was closed. As had been recommended by staff, Chairman Resnik, seconded by Member Almodovar, yo , moved that the Board of Adjustment recommends denial of variance for Case No. 02VR- 99- Garland. Motion carried 5 -0. Discussion ensued. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of City Commission Findings - Case No. 03VR -99- Christensen Zoning Coordinator Harper gave a brief description on the City Commission findings for Case No. 03VR -99- Christensen. He stated that the staff report was updated with new research that was acquired. The City Commission voted 3 -2 to support staff recommendation to deny the request for the lifts under the canopy. COMMENTS - Member Tice apologized for her absence from the December 1999 Board of Adjustment meeting. Member Almodovar stated that he came to the December 1999 Board of Adjustment meeting on Friday instead of Thursday. Chairman Resnik introduced his father who was visiting from Cape Cod. 4 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, January 20, 2000 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. j 12 , ' : . Clerk/Stenograp r enda Maxwell Chai an John Resnik �rr 5 Now MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING HELD THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Resnik called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m., gave the invocation, and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Mr. Resnik called the roll and declared a quorum to be present. PRESENT: Chairman Resnik, Vice - Chairman Jensen, Member Almodovar, and Alternate Members Cox and Savino. Also present were Zoning Coordinator Harper, Assistant City Attorney Cookson, and Deputy City Clerk Green. ABSENT: Members Colburn and Tice. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chairman Jensen, seconded by Alternate Member Savino, moved to approve the Minutes of the January 20, 2000, Board of Adjustment meeting as presented. Motion carried 5 -0. NEW BUSINESS Nay VARIANCE - CASE NO. 04VR-99 ST. PAUL'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, INC. - SIGNAGE Zoning Coordinator Harper began the presentation of the staff report by reading into the record the issue: "Should the Honorable Board of Adjustment recommend to the Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners that the subject variance application be approved that would enable St. Paul's Presbyterian Church the opportunity to build a site identification sign along its West Colonial Drive property frontage. (See attached Exhibits 1 -5, Site Location Maps)" Mr. Harper gave a brief history of the case. Due to the steep slope of the West Colonial Drive right -of -way, the Church has applied for two variances from the provisions for Free - Standing Ground Signs as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -23, Activity Center Standards regulations. The two requested variances are: (1) a five (5') foot setback instead of the required ten (10') foot setback from the road right -of -way, and (2) a twenty - four (24') foot sign height above ground level, which will be no more than twelve (12') feet above the adjacent paved surface when measured as a right angle projection from the edge of road right -of -way. He said that Staff recommends approval of the requested variances because the road right -of -way conditions are beyond the control of the Applicant and are not self - created. He said Staff has deemed the requests to be minimal departures from the Code in light of the existing circumstances which will not injure the public health, safety and welfare and are consistent with the overall intent of the "Activity Center Standards." Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting r.r Thursday, February 17, 2000 Alternate Member Savino asked if the sign will be located in the utility easement or in Orange County right -of -way. Mr. Harper said there are no utility easements in the area and the sign would not be in Orange County right -of -way. The site for the sign would be measured from the edge of S.R. 50 right -of -way. Chairman Resnik asked if having the sign five feet closer to the road would be a safety hazard. Mr. Harper said the sign should not be a hazard as the poles will be light weight aluminum so that they would break away if a vehicle strikes them at a speed greater than 38 miles per hour. Joseph Hembrooke, 2188 Alclobe Circle, a representative from St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, said four errors need to be corrected in Exhibit No. 6 to the Staff Report, a Memorandum from St. Paul's dated December 3, 1999 listing nine provisions concerning the proposed sign. Mr. Hembrooke pointed out corrections for the following: No. 2 - Setback 15 feet from the west property line (rather than east) No. 3 - Setback 72 feet from the east property line (rather than west) No. 6 - Face of the sign should be 36 square feet (rather than 32) No. 9 - Sign will be illuminated at night by solar panels (rather than will not be illuminated). Chairman Resnik asked if the change in illumination would require any change. Mr. Harper said that none of the corrections are material to the two issues at hand and that these other matters will have to be discussed in the permitting process. He pointed out that the staff report was prepared based upon the application and that he had received no communication to the contrary. Member Almodovar asked if there are any sign lighting limitations. Zoning Coordinator Harper said signs cannot be flashing, changing character, or a message board. He said the signs can be illuminated but there are regulations limiting the maximum lighting level. He said those issues will be determined when the contractor submits the application. Alternate Member Savino asked if the pole shown near the location of the sign in Exhibit No. 5 belongs to Ocoee, Orange County or the state, and if not the City's, if other jurisdictions might have applicable sign regulations. Mr. Harper said he was not aware of any regulations, and that the light would probably be in FDOT's jurisdiction as this is a state road. He said the sign will be closer to the west property line than it appears in Exhibit No. Niro 2 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting ''fir.. Thursday, February 17, 2000 Mr. Savino suggested that staff should check with the Expressway Authority to be sure they have no regulations concerning what may be seen from their road. Mr. Harper said he is sure the Authority does not have such regulations. Mr. Harper said the actual distance of the sign from the property line has to be determined when the building permit is reviewed. Zoning Coordinator Harper said for the record that the proposals heard this evening will have to be given to the City in writing on a formal building permit application. Alternate Member Savino, seconded by Vice Chairman Jensen, moved to recommend that itv ommission a • nr. v - the Variances as re • ueste • in a - No. 04 R -99: St. Paul's Presb & erian hurch th. wo _Id enable th- hur h to .la - a site identificati s n si , alon , it . - s olonial Drive . ro . e fronta . • ursuant to the findin ' s in th- staff re . ort. In a roll call vote. motion to an • rove carried 5 -0. OTHER BUSINESS DISCUSSION OF CITY COMMISSION FINDINGS - CASE No. 02VR -99: GARLAND Zoning Coordinator Harper said that Mr. Garland has requested a postponement and this case will come before the City Commission on Tuesday, March 7, 2000. He said a report will be given at the next Board of Adjustment Meeting regarding this case. COMMENTS Member Almodovar asked Assistant City Attorney Cookson if the Board of Adjustment Members have the right to do visual inspections before making a decision if necessary. Assistant City Attorney Cookson said yes and Zoning Coordinator Harper said members may also contact him if they have any questions. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. p/Vtla44 44194LJ 1` Manan Green, Deputy City Clerk John Resnik, Chairman '41•r. 3 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING HELD THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Resnik called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Member Colburn led the invocation. Mr. Resnik called the roll and declared a quorum to be present. PRESENT: Chairman Resnik, Member Almodovar, Colburn, and Alternate Member Cox. Also present were Zoning Coordinator Harper, Assistant City Attorney Cookson, and Administrative Secretary Maxwell. ABSENT: Vice - Chairman Jensen (resigned), Savino (unexcused), and Tice (unexcused). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Almadvor, seconded by Alternate Member Cox, moved to approve the Minutes of the February 17, 2000, Board of Adjustment meeting as presented. Motion carried 4 -0. NEW BUSINESS VARIANCE - CASE No. 02VR -2000 - GAGE Zoning Coordinator Harper began the presentation of the staff report by reading into the record the issue: "Should the Honorable Board of Adjustment recommend to the Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners that the subject variance application be approved enabling the applicant to proceed with unpaved mobile storage and to allow a portion of the property which lies within a purported flood zone to be used as unpaved mobile storage. Mr. Harper gave a brief history of the case. Staff recommends denial of the Applicant's request to allow outdoor storage of vehicles on an unpaved surface and denial of any land use activity within the F.E.MA. 100 -year Flood Plain. The granting of the requested variances would have "the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations ". Furthermore, such variance shall not be granted by the City unless and until "the following have been demonstrated ", which none have: 1. "Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land involved and which are not applicable to other lands ". 2. "That a literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties with similar conditions ". 3. "That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the Applicant ". Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, July 27, 2000 ``r.- 4. "That the granting of the variance requested will not confer on the Applicant any special privilege that is denied by these regulations to other lands...under similar conditions ". Butch Stanley, City of Ocoee Fire Inspector, stated two areas of concern. 1. Gated access could hinder response time. 2. Unpaved areas would be soggy and emergency vehicles would have to stay on paved roads due to the safety of crew and vehicles. Mr. Harper stated the Planning Department asked him to read two comments on behalf of their department. 1. The Planning Department does not support this application based upon upgraded commercial industrial regulations, which should be applicable to this site, to the site plan review process like any other project in the area before granting any variance. 2. Planning Department feels the applicant can't circumvent requirements of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan, which precludes development of any kind in the 100 -year Flood Plain. ,,,. Mr. C. Randall Freeman, Attorney, representing the Respondent, Mr. Gage, (A Better Mobile Storage, Inc.) addressed the concerns of the City of Ocoee. Mr. Freeman stated the subject property is located in the industrial park and it fronts the new 429 Expressway. The intent is to place a dry storage facility on the property. The City of Ocoee as well as many homeowners associations has a number of rules regarding parking recreational vehicles on residential properties. This creates a problem for residents throughout the city, leaving the residents with no place to park their recreational vehicles. Mr. Freeman further stated there are several storage facilities within the City that are filled past capacity with no apparent controls on what is stored and the condition of the items stored. The respondents propose a first class operation. There will be rules and regulations for the proposed storage facility (proposed rules and regulations were passed out to board members). Mr. Freeman presented diagrams of the proposed storage facility and said there will be no environmental dangers to the property. Mr. Freeman further stated the demand and the monthly storage fee for this type of facility will keep out junk vehicles. Mr. Freeman requested from the Board of Adjustment Members, a positive recommendation to the City Commission for approval of the Variances. Mr. Freeman stated this property was purchased under a 1987 Flood Plain Map, which showed this property was not in a Flood Plain. He has not seen a Flood Map that even shows the proposed Expressway (429). He further stated this property is no lower than and in most cases is higher than any existing property surrounding my clients' property. Now 2 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, July 27, 2000 The second special condition is the surrounding neighbors are fruitfully enjoying their property. My client is not able to use his property unless it is paved, according to the City. The third special condition is that the special condition and circumstances do result in the actions of the applicant. The applicant did not create a problem with the land; the land is in the same condition as when purchased. The fourth special condition will not give the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these regulations to other landowners under similar circumstances. Attorney Cookson advised the board members they were not here to approve a site plan or approve the use for a mobile storage facility. He stated the Board deals with Variances from the City Code and makes recommendations to approve or disapprove Variances from the conditions of the code. Mr. Cookson stated Variance No. 1 request is for parking and Variance No. 2 request deals with development within the Flood Plain. Mr. Cookson advised the Board of Adjustment Members that Variance Request No. 2 is not a Variance issue; it is a Comprehensive Plan issue, which is an issue outside the authority of the Board of Adjustment. Discussion ensued. Chairman Resnik, seconded by Member Colburn, moved to recommend to the City Commission to approve Variance No. 1, subject property being developed with the parkin.- spaces in .-rass condition and all drive areas being paved to meet Code %or requirements. Motion carried 4 -0. Variance - Case No. 02VR - 2000 — Strosnider Zoning Coordinator Harper began the presentation to the staff report by reading into the record the issue: "Should the Honorable Board of Adjustment recommend to the Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners that the subject Variance application be approved enabling the applicant to proceed with the construction of an accessory structure in the side yard of his home, namely an in ground pool. Mr. Harper gave a brief history of the case. The staff recommends an interpretation that considers the following: the unique characteristic of the lot in question and to save the protected sycamore trees. Applicant, Ronnie Strosnider, stated that he would like to install an in ground swimming pool with no screen enclosure. The applicant further stated that he has 2 large trees in his back yard that he does not want to cut down so he would like to install the pool in the side yard. The pool will be fenced in, which his yard is already fenced in but he is putting up new fence after the pool is installed. Discussion ensued. . 3 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, July 27, 2000 Member Almodovar, seconded by Member Colburn, moved to recommend to the City Commission the approval of the Variance as it meets the requirements of the Code Motion carried 4 -0. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE COMMENTS Administrative Secretary Maxwell notified the board members that business cards are being printed and let her know if you would like business cards and approximately how many. Mayor Vandergrift thanked the Board of Adjustment for serving. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. %way , a fie. IN...4 Brenda Maxwell, Adm istrative Secretary Jahn Resnik, Chai an 4 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING HELD THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Resnik called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Resnik led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the invocation. Mr. Resnik called the roll and declared a quorum to be present. PRESENT: Chairman Resnik, Members Savino, Cox, and O'Keefe. Also present were Zoning Coordinator Harper, Assistant City Attorney Cookson, and Administrative Secretary Maxwell. ABSENT: Members Tice and Colburn (unexcused), Member Almodovar (excused) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Resnik, seconded by Member Cox, moved to approve the Minutes of the July 2 7, 2000, Board of Adjustment Meeting as presented. Motion carried 4 -0. NEW BUSINESS VARIANCE - CASE NO. 04VR -2000: Cox Zoning Coordinator Harper began the presentation stating the applicant wished to **.r make an amendment to their application which arrived too late to be made part of the public hearing advertisement and the public record. Mr. Harper said he was prepared to go forward with the original application but the applicant wished to request an extension until the October 19, 2000, Board of Adjustment Meeting. Chairman Resnik stated a packet was received at his home from the applicant and the attorney would like to address that issue. Attorney Cookson advised the board members that this is an ex -parte proceeding and there are restrictions as to contact with the applicants that come before the board. Mr. Cookson further advised the board members they need to make a disclosure to the board prior to the meeting if they have had communication or received information from the applicant. Dave Swisher, Regional Sales Manager for Cox Lumber Company, stated the company mailed a package to each board member explaining the amendment to the original proposal. Mr. Swisher further stated Cox Lumber is asking for a carry -over until the October Board of Adjustment Meeting. Member Savino. seconded by Member O'Keefe, moved to approve Cox Lumber request to carry -over their application until October 19, 2000, Board of Adjustment Meeting. Nor Motion carried 4 -0. Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting I,,,,. Thursday, September 21, 2000 VARIANCE - CASE NO. 05VR-2000: BORI Zoning Coordinator Harper read into the record the issue: Should the Honorable Board of Adjustment recommend to the Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners that the subject variance application be approved enabling the applicant an "after- the - fact" building permit be issued, which would allow an illegally constructed storage shed to remain within the 7.5' side yard setback of the subject property, being approximately 4.5' from the property line. The Land Development Code, Article V, Section 5 -6 (B) prohibits the construction of accessory structures in side yards. Lastly, the subject shed is at least partially built upon into the 5' side yard drainage and utility easements without obtaining the Engineering Department's approval, which is normally reviewed via the building permit process. Mr. Harper gave a detailed history of the case. Staff recommends denial of the Applicant's request because: 1. The applicant failed to follow the correct procedure to first apply for a building permit before erecting the subject shed, thereby assuming the cost and risk of being rejected, as the project violates at least three code provisions. 2. The granting of the requested variances would have "the effect of nullifying the intent .► and purpose of these regulations" (L.D.C. Article IV, Section 4 -9, "Variances ", pages 10893 - 18094). Furthermore, such variance shall not be granted by the City unless and until "the following have been demonstrated ", which none have: a) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar of the land involved and which are not applicable to other lands. b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties with similar conditions. c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the Applicant. d) That the granting of the variances requested will confer on the Applicant any special privilege that is denied by these regulations to other lands under similar conditions. Applicant, Hector Bori, stated he hired someone to help him build the shed. The applicant further stated the man hired told Mr. Bori the one year old pool permit could be addended (sic) to the shed so they proceeded to build the shed which took approximately 2 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting `fir. Thursday, September 21, 2000 two days. Mr. Bori stated the purpose of the shed was to keep the pool pump noise down, cover up the pool pump, and store pool chemicals. Discussion ensued. Chairman Resnik questioned Zoning Coordinator Harper as to how long a permit is valid. Zoning Coordinator Harper stated for six months from the date the permit is issued. Zoning Coordinator Harper stated the pool permit had been reviewed and there was no slab the size of the shed on the pool permit. The Public Hearing was opened. Spencer Solomon, member of the Cross Creek Homeowners Association, stated a letter was sent to Mr. Bori stating his shed was in violation of the homeowners' rules and regulations. Mr. Solomon further stated the Cross Creek Homeowners Association will continue to have problems with the homeowners if Mr. Bori's shed is allowed to remain on the property without a permit from the City of Ocoee and without having come before the Architectural Review Board. Member O'Keefe inquired as to the position Cross Creek Homeowners Association has taken on this matter. Mr. Solomon stated another Cross Creek Homeowners Association *ow Board member was present tonight and the board would not have approved the shed due to lack of permit from the city. Discussion ensued. Member Savino stated there was no documentation of the slab on the "as built survey." Discussion ensued. Paula Sniderwind, 2453 Cliffdale Street, stated she resides in the house facing the shed. The shed muffles the sound of the pool pump. Scott Mackenzie, 2458 Cliffdale Street, stated someone made a mistake in building the cement slab and the applicant should not be blamed for building a shed on the slab. The Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Resnik stated, as chairman of the board, there are rules and regulations of the city and when a home is purchased the owner needs to be aware of the homeowners' rules and regulations. Mr. Resnik further stated if all homeowners built sheds in the easements there would be drainage problems. 3 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, September 21, 2000 Member Savino, seconded by Member O'Keefe, moved to recommend to the Honorable Mayor and City Commission the denial of approval of the variance, Case No. 05VR- 2000: Bori. Motion 4 -0. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of City Commission Findings - Case No. 02VR -2000: Gage and Case No. 03VR -2000: Strosnider Zoning Coordinator Harper addressed the City Commission findings of Cases No. 02VR -2000: Gage and No. 03VR -2000: Strosnider which were: 1. The Ocoee City Commission endorsed the recommendations of the Board of Adjustment for both cases. Elect Vice - Chairman to replace Joanne Jensen Member O'Keefe, seconded by Member Cox, moved to nominate Member Savino as Vice - Chairman. Motion carried 4 -0. COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. At/ Brenda Maxwell, Adm'nistrative Secretary John Resnik, Chai an *liar 4 ,, MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING HELD THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Resnik called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Resnik led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the invocation. Chairman Resnik called the roll and declared a quorum to be present. PRESENT: Chairman Resnik, Members Colburn, Cox, and O'Keefe. Also present were Zoning Coordinator Harper, Assistant City Attorney Cookson, and Administrative Assistant II Maxwell. ABSENT: Members Tice and Savino (unexcused), and Member Almodovar (excused). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Cox, seconded by Member O'Keefe, moved to approve the Minutes of the September 21, 2000, Board of Adjustment Meeting as presented. Motion carried 4 -0. NEW BUSINESS VARIANCE - CASE NO. 04VR -2000: Cox Zoning Coordinator Harper read into the record the issue: Should the Honorable Board of Adjustment recommend to the Honorable Mayor and City Commission that the subject variance application be approved enabling the applicant to construct 700 lineal feet of lumber storage racks to be erected within 5' of the southerly and eastern property lines upon the subject property? The subject property is located at 322 Enterprise Street in the West Orange Industrial Park. It is a 4.09 acre site zoned "I -2, General Industrial District ". Cox Lumber Company primarily builds roof trusses at this location. The applicant has requested a variance to allow the construction of the lumber storage racks within 5' of the rear and east property line. Whereas, Ordinance No. 99 -23 "Commercial and Industrial Development Standards" paragraph C (2)( c )(I), page 18174.13 states that a minimum 10 foot landscape buffer is required between adjacent tracts. Assistant City Attorney Scott Cookson directed the following wording to be placed in the staff report, namely "any approved variance that results in an encroachment into the 47' railroad easement should contain the following condition based on the existence of the easement; "The granting of this variance and the issuance of any resulting building permit shall not be constructed as granting the owner any special right or entitlement concerning use which superseded any rights held by any easement holder ". Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, October 19, 2000 Zoning Coordinator Harper gave a detailed history of the case. Staff recommends denial of the Applicant's two variance requests to increase the percentage lot coverage or impervious coefficient even greater than the presently existing 90% while providing no additional storm water collection and retention facilities. Secondly, the "Industrial Development" standards specify a minimum 10 foot landscape buffer between adjacent tracts. The granting of the requested variances would have "the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations ". Furthermore, such variance shall not be granted by the City unless and until "the following have been demonstrated ", which none have: 1) "Special conditions and circumstance exist which are peculiar to the land involved and which are not applicable to other lands "; 2) "That a literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by the other properties with similar conditions "; 3) "That the special conditions and circumstance do not result from the actions of the Applicant "; 4) "That the granting of the variances requested will confer on the Applicant any special privilege that is denied by these regulations to other lands....under similar conditions ". Dave Swisher, Regional Sales Manager for Cox Lumber Company, stated the racks to be installed are moveable, but Cox Lumber Company decided to bolt the racks down to concrete pads for safety measures, which requires a variance. Mr. Swisher further stated the Ordinance requires a 10 foot landscape buffer between adjacent lots, which means 5 foot off the property line either way. The proposal is to set the racks on the pavement of the eastern side, place pads 5 feet away from the buffer on the rear side and grant the City use of the 5 feet from the property lines. Discussion ensued. The Public Hearing was opened. David Beuler, 3511 Pine Hills Road, stated he has installed several racks for Cox Lumber Company and there is no danger of uplift of the racks. He further stated the purpose of the concrete pad is for leveling and securing the racks. Discussion ensued. The Public Hearing was closed. Now 2 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, October 19, 2000 Member O'Keefe, seconded bv Chairman Resnik, moved to recommend to the Honorable Mayor and City Commission approval of the variance application 04VR- 2000: Cox, with the conditions recommended bv Assistant City Attorney Scott Cookson as follows: Any approved variance that results in an encroachment into the 47' railroad easement should contain the following condition based on the existence of the easement: "The granting of this variance and the issuance of any resulting building permit shall not be construed as granting the owner any special right or entitlement concerning use which supersedes any rights held by any easement holder." Motion carried 4 -0. VARIANCE - CASE NO. 06 St. Paul's Presbyterian Church II Zoning Coordinator Harper read into the record the issue: Should the Honorable Board of Adjustment recommend to the Honorable Mayor and City Commission that the subject variance application be approved enabling the applicant to erect a sign on its West Colonial Drive frontage as depicted upon the attached Exhibits # 1, 2, and 3? Namely, allow a 5' setback from the adjacent edge of road right -of -way in lieu of the 10' specified by Ordinance 99 -23; allow a 160 s.f. sign in lieu of the 40 s.f. authorized by Variance 04VR -99: St. Paul's Presbyterian Church; and, allow the top -of -sign to be 15' above the adjacent paved edge of right -of -way vs. the 12' approved by Variance 04VR- 99: St. Paul's Presbyterian Church. li '"' Zoning Coordinator Harper gave a brief history of the case. Staff recommends approval of the signage depicted in Exhibit 3. The highway signage permitted at the "Best Buy" store located across the road from the churches sign, had an overall size of approximately 319 s.f. but the menu board was 185+ - s.f.. Thus, given the wide 350' open expanse of St. Paul's Presbyterian Church frontage along West Colonial Drive, the presently requested 15' wide sign appears to accomplish the City's expressed goals to upgrade the quality of development within the State Road 50 corridor. Member Colburn, seconded bv Member O'Keefe, moved to recommend that the Honorable Mayor and City Commission approve Variance 06 -VR -2000: St. Paul's Presbyterian Church II as had been recommended by staff Motion carried 4 -0. OTHER BUSINESS - None COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT 3 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, October 19, 2000 The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. al, ilti• Brenda Maxwell, Ad inistrative Assistant II Jo ' esnik, hairman Nor 4 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING HELD THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Resnik called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Resnik led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and Member Ellison led the invocation. Chairman Resnik called the roll and declared a quorum to be present. PRESENT: Chairman Resnik, Members Colburn, Cox, Savino, and O'Keefe. Also present were Zoning Coordinator Harper, Assistant City Attorney Cookson, and Administrative Assistant II Maxwell. ABSENT: Member Tice (unexcused), and Member Almodovar (excused). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Savino, seconded by Member O'Keefe. moved to approve the Minutes of the October 19, 2000, Board of Adjustment Meeting as presented. Motion carried 5 -0. NEW BUSINESS VARIANCE - CASE No. 07VR -2000: STROSNIDER II Zoning Coordinator Harper read into the record the issue: Should the Honorable Board of Adjustment recommend to the Honorable Mayor and City Commission that the subject variance application be approved enabling the applicant to retain two (2) un- permitted accessory structures to remain with the 7.5' accessory structure rear setback? Namely, a 12' X 16' enclosed shed that is situated 39 " +- from the rear property line and a 3' X 6' equipment lean to that is situated immediately adjacent to the rear property line? Zoning Coordinator Harper gave a detailed history of the case and the subject property is located at 2420 Liela Lee Court, Lot 34, Hidden Glenn Subdivision. The applicant built the 12' X 16' shed without first obtaining a building permit and thus no structural inspections have been conducted. Secondly, the shed was erected within 39" of the rear property line instead of the minimum LDC specification of 7.5'm detected by a Code Enforcement Officer on September 27, 2000. On October 2, 2000, the Applicant filed the present variance application in order to forestall further Code Enforcement actions. The Applicant also built a 3' X 6' lean-to equipment shelter situated directly to the west of the subject shed and touching the adjacent 6' fence and rear property line. Zoning Coordinator Harper stated the applicant has meet none of the threshold requirements or prerequisites before a variance(s) may be granted pursuant to the Land Development Code, namely he has not demonstrated a unique "hardship" that is(was) not self - created to his property and situation. Secondly, he is requesting a right to keep the cited structures "as-is" that would otherwise permit two (2) structures to remain but that would be refused to other similarly situated persons. Assistant City Attorney Cookson advised the Board of Adjustments Members that they %iv were not to take into consideration the legal ramifications from the Hidden Glenn Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting r Thursday, November 30, 2000 Homeowners Association if the Applicants Variance request is approved. Assistant City Attorney Cookson further advised the Applicant that if the Variance is approved, the approval does not relieve the Applicant of any legal ramifications that may occur from the Hidden Glenn Homeowners Association and does not put the City of Ocoee in any liability by granting the Variance. Member Colburn asked Zoning Official Harper when the 7 t/2' setback was put in the City of Ocoee Code. Zoning Official Harper stated the setback was in place when he started employment with the city in 1988. Discussion ensued. Applicant, Ronnie Strosnider, stated the shed was built before the pool was constructed which was approximately two (2) years ago. Mr. Strosnider submitted exhibits depicting the shed in the background prior to the construction of the pool. Member Savino asked Mr. Harper if it was brought the attention of the Applicant that the shed was in violation before the pool permit was issued. Mr. Harper stated the applicant was not notified due to the process the inspectors follow once a permit is issued. Applicant Strosnider stated the property was surveyed in 1998 and the shed was in the survey at that time. Mr. Strosnider further stated there are sheds all over the City of Ocoee built without permits that violate the setback codes. (Exhibits presented to depict the neighboring sheds located in the 7 ' /2' setback.) Discussion ensued. Chairman Resnik questioned Mr. Strosnider as to what the homeowners covenants are in his subdivision. Mr. Strosnider stated his homeowners association does not enforce rules and is not a formal functioning homeowners association. Discussion ensued. Member Savino asked Zoning Coordinator Harper what the procedure was when a violation is cited on one side of the fence and there is a possible violation on the other side of the fence. Zoning Coordinator Harper stated the City Manager has directed the Code Enforcement Department to respond only to complaints, so violations are usually noted by complaints from residents. Member Savino stated he could not understand why the applicant was cited for a code violation when the surrounding neighbors sheds could possibly also be in violation but they were not cited. Zoning Coordinator Harper stated he did not know the complaint behind this case but a neighbor is usually the person filing the complaint. Discussion ensued. Mr. Strosnider stated the two (2) sheds behind his property are 39" away from the fence so he used the same 39" measurement his neighbors used to set his shed. Mr. Strosnider 2 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting r Thursday, November 30, 2000 further stated the lean-to was only to hold firewood and when the Code Enforcement Officer observed his shed violation; the Code Enforcement Officer said the lean-to was not a problem. Discussion ensued. The Public Hearing was opened As no one wished to speak, the Public Hearing was closed Member O'Keefe, seconded by Member Colburn, moved recommend to the Honorable Mayor and City Commission to deny the Variance Application. Motion carried 4 -1 with Member Cox voting No. OTHER BUSINESS — Zoning Coordinator Harper advised the Board of Adjustment Members that if they make an information request, the request needs to be a formal request for the record. Chairman Resnik stated he would lice to have written information as to how and why the City Commission voted on issues that come before the Board of Adjustment. COMMENTS — Chairman Resnik announced there would be no Board of Adjustment % ow Meeting for the month of December, 2000, but will meet January 18, 2001. Chairman Resnik advised to the Board of Adjustment members the board has not adopted Rules and Regulations for the Board to follow. Discussion ensued. Chairman Resnik stated the Board of Adjustment will discuss the addition of Rules and Regulations at the January, 2001, meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Brenda Maxwell, A • • • trative Assistant II ' esnic, hairman New 3