Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 03 05 Board of Adjustment Regular Minutes BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES March 5, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 1:00 P,M. BOARD MEMBERS CITY OFFICIAL James Greene, Chairman, Present Harry Reid, Vice-Chairman, Present Frank Adams, Present Al Becker, Absent John Heninger, Present D. LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coord. L.T. Kozlov, City Engineer Approval of Minutes of November 1. 1991 Adams motioned to approve the Amended Minutes of November 1, 1992. Seconded by Reid. Vote: all aye. Motion carried. Approval of Minutes of February 6. 1992 Reid motioned to approve the Minutes of February 6, 1992. Seconded by Adams. Vote: all aye. Motion carried. Request of SALA, Inc. for a Conditional Use to Section 20-234 of the Code to allow multiple-family residential units within a Neighborhood Commercial District (C-l). Property is located at intersection of State Road 419 and Sherry Avenue. LeBlanc explained that this is a request for SALA, Inc. to a conditional use of Sec. 20-234 of the Code allowing for multi-family units within the C-l commercially zoned area along S.R. 419, between Moss and Sherry. This will consist of four quadruplex units and half of another unit. SALA, Inc. presented this to the. Board of Adjustment in the past and was granted conditional use. Adams asked about the conditions outlined in the previous Board of Adjustment meeting of January 3, 1991. LeBlanc explained that those conditions were for patio homes. These are quadruplexes, similar to those built in DeerSong. Since SALA, Inc. has achieved success, they have decided to continue building quads and this would be an extension; another 22 quads. However, to build multi-family in a commercially zoned area, a condl tional use is required. Reid questioned the density. LeBlanc stated there are 4 acres, 18 units, and the density would be 4,5 units per acre. "", .- - Board of AdJust.ent Minutes March 5. 1992 Page2 Sabeti stated that the setback requirements for R-3 zoning were being met. LeBlanc mentioned a telephone call he received today from a lady on DavId Street. She wanted to know if this was the same type of construction that was going on in DeerSong. He told her that it was, according to Mr. Sabeti. She said she much preferred to see that than a convenience store or something like that there. Adams motioned, that on the basis of earlier approval of this variance and the similarities; to grant the variance as requested, Seconded by Heninger. Vote: Greene, aye; Reid, no; Adams, aye; Heninger, aye. Motion carrIed. Request of Sullivan Materials. Inc. for Variance to Section 9-241(d) of the Code to allow retention/detention pond bottom elevations to be less than one (1) foot above the seasonal hiah water elevation. Greene outlined the purpose of the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment is not here to discuss whether or not the borrow pits can be built. According to City Code, the decision of whether or not to permit building borrow pits goes before the City Commission. Nor is the Board of Adjustment to discuss how deep, wide, how much dirt is taken out, how the dirt goes anywhere, how it is to be landscaped, or who is going to maintain it. The Board is dealing with the hypothetical question which is, if the borrow pits are approved by the Commission, and in the future they decide to develop this property, can these pits/ponds be used as part of the stormwater management system to receive this rainwater, as opposed to having to build dry stormwater retention areas. The City of Winter Springs' Code states that the bottom of retention levels must be 1 foot above the water line, which means that they will be dry at times when there is no rain. To build a wet bottom pond for retention, a variance to the City Code is required from the Board of Adjustment. Greene suggested that public discussion should be limited to whether or not these ponds should be used for stormwater management and retention areas under stormwater management. LeBlanc stated that since the application was made, the developer has consented to a ":1 slope eliminating the need for a variance for slopes less that 2:1, and it also eliminates the need for a fence. Therefore, the only variance Sullivan Materials is requesting is to allow retention/detention pond bottom elevations to be less than one (1) foot above the seasonal high water elevation. David Brown, attorney with Broad and Cassel representing Sullivan Materials, stated they were now in compliance with the Code with the exception of requesting wet bottom vs dry bottom ponds. He introduced the engineer for Sullivan Materials, George Garrett. who would discuss the technical aspects. ~ , ~ Board of Adjustment Minutes March 5, 1992 Page3 George Garrett, engineer-of-record, with Regional Engineers, Planners, & Surveyors, representing Sullivan Materials discussed pond design. The future development concept is to use these ponds for detention storage. The developments will have retention ponds for water quality to ensure that the ponds will remain. The ponds were designed from a level standpoint using standard penetration boring tests to establish seasonal high water level, normal water level and seasonal low water. Each lake will have approximately 1 1/2 foot vertical clearance from the normal water level to the top of the bank. The City Engineer was asked for his comments. Kozlov stated he had no comments, as Mr. Garrett has satisfied the technical requIrements for a wet bottom pond and that it met the City's requirements. Mr. Moti Khemlani, representing Tuscawilla Homeowner's Association requested definition of the words: retention pond, detention pond and lake. Kozlov defined detention pond as a basin to accommodate water, similar to a river with a dam, which is used to detain water and control the flow of water out of the pond into the natural environment (runoff rate). A Retention pond is to control pollution, which is mandated by the st. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). One of the design requirements is that the retention portion of the retention/detention pond accommodate an additional volume to accept a runoff of the first 1/2 inch of runoff from the impervious areas that usually have a variety of pollutants such as greases, oils, pesticides, etc. The purpose is to retain the water with the pollutants and contain it. The city has adopted the SJRWMD's formula to determine how much water to retain for pollution purposes. The City Code has no definition of lakes. Kozlov offered the definition of lakes/ponds as bodies of water. Greene asked if plans submitted to the City must also be reviewed by the SJRWMD. Kozlov stated that this was correct, and that a permit must be obtained from the SJRWMD to continue with the project. Mr. Khemlani questioned whether the SJRWMD permits a lake to be used as storage of stormwater. Kozlov said that according to the SJRWMD, the developer can use this body of water for detention purposes only. The retention aspects of the design is to be in the future. They will design a separate pond for retention only, to take care of the pollutants. Garrett confirmed that their design is for detention use only. The following persons (spelling questionable) spoke against the borrow pits: Mr. Jerry Alcott, Chelsea Woods; Dr. Robert Frilen, Tuscawilla Pines; with discussion and questions by Ms. Ethel Charalavan. Winter Springs Boulevard; Mr. Ted Boger, Mr. John Starzinsky, Chelsea Woods; Mr. Joe Bozik; and Mr. Alex Brown, Chelsea Woods. Board discussion followed. Greene asked if a variance is granted, will it expire in six months. LeBlanc stated that the variance would not, as this - ........ Board of AdJust.ent Minutes March 5, 1992 Page4 was presented beforehand for future planning. If the borrow pits are approved by the Commission, this variance would then become part of it. Also, they would not have to come back before this Board again unless their retention ponds were wet. It they were dry, there would be no reason to come before the Board. Adams pointed out that the City Code. uses the term retention/detention ponds, and the variance requested refers to a detention pond. Reid asked if there was an example of just a detention pond. in or outside the City. Garrett engineered one at the quadrangle at University Blvd and Alafaya Trail. The lakes were borrow pits and now are detention ponds. Discussion followed regarding the retention/detention pond ordinance. Heninger motioned to grant the variance, removing the word retention, with the condition that the Commission grant approval for the construction of the lakes as they are proposed and approved by the Commission and for no other use. Seconded by Adams. Vote: all ayes. Motioned granted. Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfull y submitted, ~~ Fran Gramarosa, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment -'