CITY OF PALM BAY, FLORIDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING NO

Transcription

1 CITY OF PALM BAY, FLORIDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/ LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING NO Held on Wednesday, April 2, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 120 Malabar Road SE, Palm Bay, Florida. This meeting was properly noticed pursuant to law; the minutes are on file in the Land Development Division, Palm Bay, Florida. The minutes are not a verbatim transcript but a brief summary of the discussions and actions taken at this meeting. Chairman Bob Williams called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. Mr. Conroy Jacobs led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: CHAIRMAN: Bob Williams Present VICE CHAIRMAN: Nancy Domonousky Absent (Excused) MEMBER: Samuel Artley Present (Late) MEMBER: Mike Garrison Absent (Excused) MEMBER: Adam Hill Present MEMBER: Conroy Jacobs Present MEMBER: Juan Molina Present MEMBER: William Pezzillo Present MEMBER: Marty Piatkowski Present APPOINTEE: Vacant The absence of Ms. Domonousky and Mr. Garrison were excused. CITY STAFF: Present were Mr. Patrick Murphy, Senior Planner; Mr. Robert Loring, Planner; Ms. Chandra Powell, Growth Management Recording Secretary; Mr. Nicholas Tsamoutales, City Attorney Emeritus. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 1. Regular Meeting No Motion by Mr. Piatkowski, seconded by Mr. Pezzillo to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried with members voting unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Artley arrived at this time.

2 Page 2 of 7 1. Mr. Williams addressed the audience on the meeting procedures and explained that the consists of volunteers who act as an advisory board to City Council. SCHOOL COORDINATION BUSINESS: 1. FS VACATION FINANCE, LLC (WILLIAM ROCKER) Mr. Williams announced that the applicant had requested another continuance of Case FS to the May 7, 2014 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. No board action was required to continue the request. NEW BUSINESS: 1. V TREVOR R. EARLE Mr. Loring presented the staff report for Case V The applicant had requested a variance to allow an existing pool and a proposed screen room enclosure to encroach 5 feet into the 10-foot rear setback and a maximum 1.2 feet into the 8-foot side interior setback in an RS-1, Single Family Residential District as established in Section (A)(3) of the Palm Bay Code of Ordinances. The board had to determine, based on the facts presented, the degree of minimal relief to meet the needs of the variance request as required by Section , Palm Bay Code of Ordinances. Based on the single letter received in file in opposition to the request, Mr. Molina asked for clarification regarding the pool, screen enclosure, and extension of the patio. Mr. Loring clarified that the home and pool were already in place and just a screen room was being proposed. The pool patio would not be extended since the existing perimeter around the pool would incorporate the proposed screen room. The variance would also accommodate the footer for the screen room. Mr. Piatkowski questioned how a permit was issued to install the pool without first obtaining a variance. Mr. Loring explained that the encroachment occurred in the 1980s when the pool was installed, and the error went undiscovered. Mr. Williams noted the mentioned letter in file from Mr. Stephen Fischer who had concerns regarding rain water runoff because of the subject pool that sat higher than his adjacent property. Mr. Loring commented that the rainwater issue was a civil matter between the two neighbors.

3 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Trevor Earle (applicant) stated that when he moved into his home in 1984 he was told about a previous variance granted for an easement problem with the house and that a temporary variance was issued for the pool that was constructed in He said that there had not been any rainwater runoff onto his neighbor s lot in over four years because of the pipes he had installed onto the downspout from his roof. He was attempting to clear up property issues so that his children would not have to deal with any land problems in the future. His utilities were in his front yard and the cable was in the greenbelt area at the rear of the site, so there would be no impact on the subject easement, and he wanted to eventually vacate the rear easement. The floor was opened for public comments. As stated in his letter, Mr. Stephen Fischer (resident at Meadowbrook Road NE) explained that the subject pool structure was constructed close to his property line and sat higher than his lot. His concern was that an extension of the patio would exacerbate drainage problems that had not completely been alleviated. He was not opposed to a screen enclosure on the existing pad. Mr. Murphy clarified that the variance request did not allow the patio deck to be extended. The proposed variance allowed the existing deck encroachments to remain. Mr. Earle stated that he might need to add concrete for a footer for the proposed screen. Mr. Murphy explained that if a footer was required to withstand the load of the screen enclosure, the footer could not be poured on the outside of the deck. The subject variance would only permit the deck to exist within its current footprint. A further encroachment would require another variance. Mr. Tsamoutales departed the meeting at this time. Mr. Murphy clarified for the applicant the difference between setbacks and easements. Mr. Fischer withdrew his objection to the request based on no further concrete being poured to expand the deck. The floor was closed for public comments.

4 Page 4 of 7 Motion by Mr. Artley, seconded by Mr. Jacobs to submit Case V to City Council for approval of a variance to allow an existing pool and a proposed screen room enclosure to encroach 5 feet into the 10-foot rear setback and a maximum 1.2 feet into the 8-foot side interior setback in an RS-1, Single Family Residential District as established in Section (A)(3) of the Palm Bay Code of Ordinances. The motion carried with members voting unanimously. 2. Z JOHN G. NOONAN, AS BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF ORLANDO Mr. Murphy presented the staff report for Case Z The applicant had requested a change in zoning from an RS-2, Single Family Residential District to an IU, Institutional Use District. The board must determine if the request was consistent with the City s development vision and whether the uses allowed under the IU district would be compatible with the surrounding area. Ms. Ana Saunders, engineer with BSE Consultants, Inc. (representative for the applicant), explained that the subject.97 acres were adjacent to and owned by Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church. Their intent was to unite the subject land with the main church property in order to integrate the site into the church s campus and community outreach ministry. She added that to make the subject site more consistent and congregate with the main parcel, the existing driveway along Antiquera Street SE would be removed so that the sole access to the property would be internally through the parent church parcel. There would be no access to the subject site from residential streets and a waist-high hedge row would be planted along the rights-of-way adjacent to the acreage to dramatically reduce the church traffic that had been a neighborhood issue on the residential streets. Mr. Pezzillo asked whether the home existing on the property would be used by the church. Ms. Saunders confirmed that the church would use the home for ministry. There were no plans at this time to add any additional structures to the property. Mr. Hill asked if the church had met with the residents of the neighborhood. He wanted to know if the proposed hedge would protect the privacy and quality of life of the residents. Ms. Saunders answered that she was not aware of any meetings between the church and the neighborhood; however, the driveway removal from Antiquera Street was in response to residential concerns relayed to staff. She remarked on how the hedge would be planted and taken care of to form a thick buffer to deter foot traffic.

5 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Hill asked about the type of ministry planned for the subject building, and he was concerned about the glare from vehicle headlights impacting the neighborhood. Ms. Saunders noted the applicant s reference to a thrift shop on their zoning application. She said that headlights should not be a problem since thrift stores did not typically operate during evening hours. Mr. Pezzillo inquired about the removal of the driveway and a garage conversion for the home. Ms. Saunders responded that site details would be worked out with staff as the subject request dealt only with obtaining the zoning change. Mr. Piatkowski asked whether the community outreach ministry could occur at the site without the rezoning. Mr. Murphy explained that churches and certain of their accessory uses were allowed in residential districts by conditional use with a minimum of one acre. The IU district, however, was specifically created for church use. The floor was opened for public comments. Mr. Gordon Owen (resident at Battersea Avenue SE) spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that there had been no formal contact from the church. He shared with the board the site plan proposal for the property he had obtained from staff. He believed the main church property was adequate for both their existing food bank and the proposed thrift shop. His main concern was with the vehicle traffic for the food bank that already congested the area. He did not believe a hedge would deter the pedestrian traffic that continued to cut through the side streets. He said that people would park on the street and cut through the hedge instead of maneuvering through the church site to get to the building. There had been serious problems in the past with a resident of the former halfway house operated by the church. He also feared that the IU district would permit the church to use the property for other uses that would not be appropriate in a residential neighborhood. He wanted the site to remain a residence or to be used for church parking. Mr. Chris Imel (resident at Battersea Avenue SE) spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that he would not have purchased his property if he knew the church planned to remove all the shrubbery and turn the subject site into a thrift store. The neighborhood issues with the former halfway-house resident, vehicles that used his driveway to turn around, and the traffic already generated by the food bank did not need to be compounded by a thrift store. He stressed that shrubbery would not be a deterrent as people would take the easiest path to the site.

6 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Mike Deater (representative for his brother who owned two lots on Hinchman Street SE) spoke in opposition to the request. He believed a thrift shop would bring crime into the area and parking along the road was already an issue for the residents. Mr. Pezzillo suggested that the residents contact the Police Department to address illegal street parking. Mr. Williams added that plans to block the driveway access onto Antiquera Street should also help with some of the traffic problems; however, the board could only determine whether the site should be rezoned to IU to match the adjacent main church property. Mr. Williams asked if the present zoning would allow a thrift shop. Mr. Murphy answered that a thrift shop would require a conditional use. Ms. Sharon Owen (resident at Battersea Avenue SE) spoke in opposition to the request. A rezoning would allow a thrift shop to negatively impact residential property values and the quality of life. She said that the existing church site had enough room to accommodate the shop, so there was no reason to change the character of the neighborhood. Allowing the zoning change would give the church leverage to bring more unwanted uses into the area. She commented on how the two proposed parking spaces would only accommodate the thrift store workers. She felt that the church was not taking the residents into consideration. The floor was closed for public comments. Mr. Williams asked if the subject property could be fenced off to buffer the residential area. Mr. Murphy explained that conditions could not legally be placed on zoning requests. Mr. Hill suggested a meeting between the residents, church, and staff to address neighborhood concerns. He wanted to be sure site plan details, such as the hedge, would be carried out to protect the residents. Mr. Murphy commented that input from residents would always be welcomed by staff, but any conditions would be at the applicant s discretion since the site plan was not part of the rezoning process. Mr. Molina disclosed that he was a member of Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church. Motion by Mr. Pezzillo, seconded by Mr. Piatkowski to submit Case Z to City Council for approval of a change in zoning from an RS-2, Single Family Residential District to an IU, Institutional Use District.

7 Page 7 of 7 Mr. Hill and Mr. Williams reiterated how the applicant should attempt to meet with the church and staff prior to the City Council hearing. A vote was called on the motion by Mr. Pezzillo, seconded by Mr. Piatkowski to submit Case Z to City Council for approval of a change in zoning from an RS-2, Single Family Residential District to an IU, Institutional Use District. The motion carried with members voting unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Approximately five cases were scheduled for the May 7, 2014 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. 2. The Palm Bay American Cancer Society Relay For Life event was scheduled for April 5-6, 2014 at Bayside High School. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:24 p.m. Bob Williams, CHAIRMAN Attest: Chandra Powell, SECRETARY