Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2025 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketJanuary 23, 2025 Board of Adjustments Minutes 1 The Board of Adjustments met Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex, 161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers. Present: Cathy Slagle, Vice-Chair; Ryan Baker; Frank Lamia; Donna Cook; Bryan Flowers; Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director; Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager; Michelle Melton, City Planner and Cindy Beaudreau, Planning Clerk. Absent: Anil Vira Vice-Chair Slagle called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. Approval of Minutes Ryan Baker made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 16, 2024, meeting. Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. BOA 24.11 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, Jason LaSource, for a 15’ front setback variance, a variance for an accessory structure 10.5’ forward of rear building line and a 5’ side setback variance on property zoned R-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. The property is located at 50 Fels Avenue. The property is approximately 0.22 acres. PPIN#: 14503 Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, stated that the Planning Department received an email from the Applicant requesting that this item be tabled until the February meeting. Motion: Ryan Baker made a motion to table BOA 24.11 at the request of the applicant. Donna Cook seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. BOA 24.19 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, S.E. Civil, LLC, on behalf of the Owner, Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast, for a Use Not Provided For – to allow for alterations to an existing church on property zoned R-4 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District. The property is located at 860 N. Section Street and is approximately 9.58 acres. PPIN#: 1090 Mr. Baker stated that he needs to recuse himself from this project. January 23, 2025 Board of Adjustments Minutes 2 Hunter Simmons, Planning Director, introduced this request. Mr. Simmons shared the reason this case is on the agenda and an explanation for Use Not Provided For. Mr. Simmons continued that there is no road connecting to Colonial Acres and no drainage review. There will be a more thorough review during the building permit request. Michelle Melton, City Planner, presented the request of the Applicant, S.E. Civil, LLC, on behalf of the Owner, Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast, for a Use Not Provided For – to allow for alterations to an existing church on property zoned R-4 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District. Ms. Melton shared the aerial and zoning maps. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of BOA 24.19. Larry Smith, S.E. Civil, reiterated that there is no intent to connect to Colonial Acres and underground detention will occur through additional pervious areas on the property. The tree removal will go through the City Horticulturist. Mr. Smith addressed all comments received from the public. Vice-Chair Slagle opened the public hearing at 5:15pm. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed at 5:15pm. Cathy Slagle asked about the timing for phases 2 and 3. Reverend Freeman stated that they are currently raising money for construction over the next 12-18 months. Mr. Simmons explained that the church owns two lots in the Colonial Acres subdivision that are listed in the covenants and that the City does not enforce the covenants. Mr. Smith stated that the project will not affect those lots. Motion: Bryan Flowers made a motion to approve BOA 24.19. Frank Lamia seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. BOA 25.01 Public hearing to consider the request of the Owner, Jack Maulding, for a Special Exception - Use Not Provided For – to allow for indoor car sales on property zoned M-1 Light Industrial District. The property is located at 365 Commercial Park Drive. The property is approximately 0.38 acres. PPIN#: 63899 Michelle Melton, City Planner, presented the request of the Owner, Jack Maulding, for a Special Exception - Use Not Provided For – to allow for indoor car sales on property zoned M-1 Light Industrial District. Ms. Melton shared the aerial and zoning maps. January 23, 2025 Board of Adjustments Minutes 3 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of BOA 25.01. Jack Maulding, 365 Commercial Park Drive, stated that his business will be all indoor sales of between 10-18 luxury exotic cars. Vice-Chair Slagle opened the public hearing at 5:22pm. Ross Givens, address not provided, leases office on the right and is in support of this request. Clint Martin, address not provided, owns the property to the south and has no objections. Mr. Martin asked if the car sales could revert to outdoor sales later. Mr. Simmons stated that request would have to come back to the Board of Adjustments. The public hearing was closed at 5:24pm. Ryan Baker asked if the Industrial Board needed to approve this request. Mr. Simmons stated that he would check before a building permit was issued. Motion: Frank Lamia made a motion to approve BOA 25.01. Donna Cook seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. BOA 25.02 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Kadre Engineering, on behalf of the Owner, Corte, Cave/Mitchell 1 LLC for a Special Exception – Use Not Provided For - to allow for 13 additional “in car dining” parking spots on property zoned B-2 General Business District. The property is located on the northwest corner of Highway 181 and Highway 104, Lot 7. The property is approximately 0.99 acres. PPIN#: 626312 Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the request of the Applicant, Kadre Engineering, on behalf of the Owner, Corte, Cave/Mitchell 1 LLC for a Special Exception – Use Not Provided For - to allow for 13 additional “in car dining” parking spots on property zoned B-2 General Business District. Mr. Jeffries shared the aerial and zoning maps. Mr. Simmons explained the minimum and maximum parking requirements. Discussion included: • how parking was determined at Sonic • parking spaces being used as another point of sale option • in car dining spots considered an extension of the dining room • number of patrons being about to be fed inside • number of staff January 23, 2025 Board of Adjustments Minutes 4 • cross parking agreement with Publix • landscaping ratio • possibility of other customers using the in-dining parking spots • outdoor seating would allow additional parking spots The Applicant requested that this item be tabled indefinitely until they could meet with staff. Motion: Ryan Baker made a motion to table BOA 25.02 indefinitely. Donna Cook seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. BOA 25.03 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Sweet Home Chiropractic, on behalf of the Owner, Tim Hogan for a Special Exception - Use Not Provided For – to allow for a professional medical office on property zoned B-2 – General Business District. The property is located at 68 N Bancroft. The property is approximately 0.20 acres. PPIN#: 64923 Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager, presented the request of the Applicant, Sweet Home Chiropractic, on behalf of the Owner, Tim Hogan for a Special Exception - Use Not Provided For – to allow for a professional medical office on property zoned B-2 – General Business District. Mr. Jeffries shared the aerial and zoning maps. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of BOA 25.03. Tim Hogan stated that he was unaware that he needed a business license. Vice-Chair Slagle opened the public hearing at 6:22pm. Having no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed at 6:22pm. Motion: Frank Lamia made a motion to approve BOA 25.03. Bryan Flowers seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. BOA 25.04 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Dewberry, on behalf of the Owner, Brian Metcalf, for a Special Exception – Use on Appeal - to operate a restaurant on property zoned B-1, Local Shopping District. The property is approximately 2.06 acres and is located to the east of the terminus at Sweetwater Circle. PPINS #: 243332, 281752, 281750, 57219 January 23, 2025 Board of Adjustments Minutes 5 Michelle Melton, City Planner, presented the request of the Applicant, Dewberry, on behalf of the Owner, Brian Metcalf, for a Special Exception – Use on Appeal - to operate a restaurant on property zoned B-1, Local Shopping District. Ms. Melton shared the aerial and zoning maps. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of BOA 25.04, with the following condition: 1. City Council approves ZC 24.10 which includes a restaurant as an allowed use. Cathy Barnette, Dewberry, stated that the request is for a private restaurant with limited hours, they added wetlands to the site, will have a 30’ buffer, are protecting 35% of the property and the common area will be used for access. There will be a robust buffer to allow for lighting that is respectful to the neighbors, and they are adding more trees than required. Vice-Chair Slagle opened the public hearing at 6:35pm. Rob Littleton is in support of the project. The public hearing was closed at 6:36pm. Motion: Frank Lamia made a motion to approve BOA 25.04, with staff recommendation. Bryan Flowers seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. Old/New Business None Adjournment Ryan Baker made a motion to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously with the following vote: Aye: Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Frank Lamia, Donna Cook and Bryan Flowers Nay: None. Adjourned at 6:38p.m. ____________________________ ________________________ Anil Vira, Chairman Cindy Beaudreau, Secretary To whom it may concern: We purchased our property at 50 Fels Avenue in 2017 with the intent to build. The house was in such poor shape that we almost did not even consider visiting the property because the pictures were so terrible. We took a chance and decided to visit the property and upon seeing the live oak, the proximity to the bay and room for a garden we made an offer to purchase the property. Our intention from the beginning was to build a coastal cottage home with a modest footprint to preserve our great outdoor space while preserving the 80+ year old live oak. We are in an area that has a lot of foot traffic and frequently observe people stopping directly in front of our property to admire the massive live oak that hangs over the property. We did the same thing upon our initial visit to 50 Fels. It is a magnificent tree that has many more years to mature and should be preserved. Moving the house up 2-3 feet from where it currently sits and keeping our current set back on the east side (where our house sits now) would allow for that. Even with moving the house forward it will still be set back further than several other houses on our street including the 5 houses that are west of us. With the new house remaining near where the current house is on the east side it will give our neighbor to the west more privacy than if we had to center the house and move it closer to her lot. Almost all of the houses on our side of the street are offset to the left with driveways on the right. Maintaining our left offset will allow us to keep our current level of privacy while maintaining the look of our street. We enjoy teaching our daughter how to garden and having space for friends and family to enjoy in our backyard so do not want to take up our entire property with a house which we would have to do otherwise. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jason and Sarah LaSource 1 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances Summary of Request: The Applicant/Owner, Jason LaSource, is requesting three (3) variances. Requested variances are: 20 ft front setback variance so that the proposed house will be 15 ft from the property line; a variance to allow the accessory structure placed 10.5 ft forward of the rear of the primary structure; and a 5 ft side setback variance on east side of principle structure. There are four (4) heritage trees on site (referred to as “historical trees” on the submitted plans). The requested variances are to preserve the root system of an 80+ year old live oak, a magnolia, and an existing heritage poplar tree. Figures 1-3: Existing Conditions of house and tree. 2 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances Comments: The lot nor the existing structure conform to the current day R-2 dimensions because the lot is less than 10,500 sf (approximately 9,504 sf) and less than 75’ feet wide (66’ wide). None of which are peculiar to the neighborhood. The existing principle structure is built 20’ from the front lot line and 4-5’ from the side lot line and remains a legal non-conforming structure to Staff’s knowledge. See below. The lot was platted with its current dimensions in 1910 -1911. See below. T . ble 3 -2: Dim~n~ion T able-Lots :mcll P ri11dple :Str,u d ure Dimeuioa Min. Lo t Anal lfilL Se,tb:uli:s Mn.lDbllot Mu. District or-ADowm Units P,K Lot Widih Fro:11.t Rear Side-Street cll\°u-~t by au I.eight 111,se AuetUPA) side strucillrts RJA l acre s/ -198 ' 75 ' 75 15 5 0 ' non~• 30 ' R-1 15 .000 s .fJ -100' 4 0' 35 ~ 10 •1b 2-0 ' 4 0% 30' . R-la 40.000 s.f./ -120' 3 0' 30 ' 10 '" 2 0 ' 25¾ 35 , R-lb 30 000 s.f./ -100' 3 01 30' 10 '11, 2,0 ' 2>¾ 35? R-lc 20 ,000 s.f./ -80' 3 0' 30 ' 10 '" 20' 25., ,. 35 , R-.:! n :. fJ ,t -:i l,,;...1 -:..i _5 · '-~,... , :1J Ii,,'-;! "("'1 11' a_ Sl:rucJture may ,e:-:ceedl Ille 'buililing hr>...ight provi.ded the lot width is inCl'ei!sedl by IO f!!el for reach .ai!di • oaJ. foot in bei.gj!I. b . l;J;'bl!Il! a dril7ev,TJ1)' i.;, • 1be side. and ~teml'.;, past ihe ml oftlu! prindp.e S1rucrnre. 1be si.di! setood s1w! 'bi! 15'. ·\•rn, ys !:b.irll. not be v.li1flill 1 f.ea of the side Jot line. The .u:a be1;1,em 1be side .1>t • e 111111 ,llril;ev,1ay slwl be .e;se red 111111 =ill penwu:;. 3 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances It is the intent of the Applicant to completely tear down the principle and accessory structure and rebuild. New structures shall conform to the current Zoning Ordinance unless there is a case for a variance based on the following criteria listed in Section C(e)(1). Article VII, Section D(3) reads the following regarding front setbacks for non-conforming lots: The direct “adjacent lots” are 24 and 52 Fels Avenue with approximately 15’ and 60’ front setbacks, respectively. See below. e. Cn·ren·a - (1 ) An app lication for a v atiance s hall be granted o nly o n the concwring vote of fo ur Board members finding that: (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because o f its s ize, shape, or topography ; (b) The applica tion of the ordinance to this particular piece of prop eity would ere.ate an unnecessary hardship . Personal financial hardship is not a j us tification fo r a v ati ance.. (c) Such conditions are peruliar to the particular piece of property involved; and, (d) Relief, if granted, would not caus e substantial detriment to the public good and imp ail.· the pw:pose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance m ay be granted fo r a use of land or building o r structw.-e that is prohibited by this ordinance. ::S . The uu.nunum ft·ont s etb ack reqmred for the distnct (and, o n corner lots, the stree t s tde setback) shall not app ly to any lo t where the avei-a ge fro nt building line(s) o f the adj acent lot(s), is less than the minimum s etb ack required for the dishi ct. In such cases , the fro nt building line m ay be the same as the average front building lines(s) of the adjacent lot(s). In no cas e, shall the front building line be more than 5' less than the minimtw1 s etb ack requ.in d fo r the disuict. 4 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances Article VII, Section D(3) allows relief, under certain conditions, when adjacent properties are built closer to the street than current front setbacks allow. The average front building line of the two adjacent properties is 37.5’, so there is no relief allowed for this proposal. Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan with Oak and Largest Limbs ---------f11''--------------'I , ;ru I ·_... /;/;½, ,/ />/:::: 1:eo,,o,o<,== /.'" ;t".'"' ./ .. •. ~/ . / lill-"'Oli 5 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances The above site plan illustrates the proposed home with an area cut out to protect the tree and its roots. The above site plan also points out the root systems of a magnolia tree in the front and two (2) trees in the rear. The site plan has shaded areas in red and gray that indicate the estimated main roots area for the tree(s). Exact locations will be determined post demolition as part of a tree protection plan. Applicant has consulted with Chris Francis Tree Service (“Franics”) whereas Francis “verified the tree is healthy” regarding the live oak. The updated site plan was developed with the assistance of Chris Francis. It was stated that the more shaded area kept uncovered the more beneficial it is to the trees. Staff recommendation is confined to the current Zoning Ordinance. The Tree Ordinance does not apply to single family residences per 20.5-4(1). The Planning and Zoning Director may grant a 7’ administrative setback variance to protect and/or preserve an existing Heritage Tree. See Article IV, Section G. Although some of the requested deviations from the required setbacks may be minimal, new builds must conform to current setbacks unless the BOA deems otherwise. In that vein, there have been variances granted based on trees in the past, most of which were prior to the adoption of the Tree Ordinance in 2011 (Ord. No. 1444). The following is a previous case. BOA 13.01 105 Fels Avenue: Granted 30’ rear setback variance (5’ rear setback) to preserve a 60” heritage live oak. Minutes mention Applicant cutting out buildable area to preserve the tree. In the case above, Staff supported the administrative variance, but was limited to the 7’. The Board granted an additional variance based on the merits of the case, including the fact that the lot was only 45’ wide. Analysis and Recommendation: Variance Criteria (a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the piece of property in question because of its size, shape, or topography. Response: The City acknowledges a Heritage Tree is worth saving in various sections of local code. (b) The application of the ordinance to this piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance. Response: The application of the Zoning Ordinance does not create an unnecessary hardship. (c) Such conditions are peculiar to the piece of property involved; and 6 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances Response: A heritage live oak meets the tree preservation criteria of Article IV, Section G, which is unique to this piece of property. (d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted for a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this or dinance. Response: Relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public good because tree variances have been granted in the past to protect heritage trees. When a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment it has the following effect: Article II.C.3.g. Effect of Variance - Any variance granted according to this section, and which is not challenged on appeal shall run with the land provided that: (1) The variance is acted upon according to the application and subject to any conditions of approval within 365 days of the granting of the variance or final decision of appeal, whichever is later; and (2) The variance is recorded with the Judge of Probate. Staff supports any efforts to save the Heritage Trees and feel variances should be granted conditioned on a specific plan that is designed to work around the tree as much as possible. The revised two-story house plan has been designed to protect the heritage live oak, its root system, and its largest limbs as submitted with the plan. The revised plan also aims to preserve three (3) other heritage trees on site. Two (2) arborists have offered support of the updated house plans. A 5 ft administrative setback variance is supported for the east side setback to preserve the heritage poplar tree on the west side and to allow for better protection of the live oak’s root system. Staff met with Applicant and Chris Francis on October 30, 2024, to discuss alternative plans. A different size or dimension of the primary and/or accessory structure or no accessory structure at all may be a viable alternative to the variance requests. Nonetheless, Applicant has made efforts to preserve the heritage trees on site when he did not have to, and the updated plans are supported by professional arborists. Recommendation: The following recommendations are specific to the site plan contained herein. If the proposed house is not built within the required time limit from this BOA meeting or is ever torn down, then 7 BOA 24.11 50 Fels Avenue (LaSource) – Front Setback, Accessory Structure, and Side Variances these recommendations are null and void and shall not be applicable to any other site plan(s) for 50 Fels Avenue. 1) Based on the Zoning Ordinance the Planning & Zoning Director supports the 5 ft (east) side setback to protect the existing heritage poplar on the west side and the live oak’s roots. 2) Staff recommends Denial of a 20’ front setback variance request of the primary structure. But staff could support a 12’ front setback variance. Using the current plan this would require the removal of the 8’ front porch. 3) Staff supports a 10.5’ setback variance for the accessory structure to be located forward of the rear building line in case BOA 24.11. However, it may be the pleasure of the BOA to decide otherwise. As stated, an alternative is to not have the accessory structure. 4) A tree-protection plan done by a licensed arborist shall be approved as part of the land disturbance and building permit applications.