HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 02 10 Regular H Code Violation in Greenbriar Development
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM H
2/10/03
Meeting
o CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
PUBLIC HEARING
REGULAR X
MGR. V IDEPT P
Authorization
REQUEST: The Community Development Department is advising the City
Commission that a Code Violation does not exist regarding the existing Barrier ~ence in
the Greenb,riar development.
PURPOSE: This agenda item is responding to Commissioner Martinez' request to investigate
a possible Code Violation in the Greenbriar development.
Y I C I ~J~ leu. . AP
n ,,.
APPLICABLE CODES AND PUBLIC POLICY:
Winter Springs Code, Chapter 6. Buildings and Building Regulations.
Section 6-190. Height limitations generally.
All walls or fences. . . shall adhere to the following heights: If front of the building line, 'no more
than four (4) feet in height; if to the rear of the front building line... no more than eight (8) feet
in height.
February 10, 2003
Regular Item H
Page 2
Section 6-193.Distance from the property line.
Fences or hedges must be at least three (3) inches from property lines.
FINDINGS: Barrier Fencing was installed to separate Phase I and Phase II of the Greenbriar
development. It consists of a 6' high wooden privacy fence. The fence is perpendicular to Old
White Way and separates the properties along Birkdale and Glen Arbor Circle. The Phase II
property at 967 Glen Arbor Circle faces Glen Arbor Circle. The Phase I property at 1001
Birkdale along with the adjacent properties along the north side of Birkdale (including 1103,
1107, and 1109) are addressed on Birkdale, but all have their front doors facing east toward
Old White Way. Both the Birkdale and Glen Arbor Circle properties are setback the same
distance from Old White Way. Old White Way does not have curb and gutter or sidewalks.
Rather, it has a rolled curb. The fence currently extends to 106:5" Gust under 9') of the rolled
curbing. Directly in line with the fence is a street light which is 6' from the rolled curbing.
Myrtle Oak hedging extends along the fencing all the way to the street and has been pruned to
prevent interference with traffic.
Closer inspection of the Barrier Fencing reveals that an eighteen (18) foot extension was added
sometime ago as evidenced by the slightly wider fencing material on the addition. It is not
known when the fencing extension was installed or by whom. According to Code
Enforcement, the residents at 967 Glen Arbor Circle and 1001 Birkdale Trail indicate that the
fencing was existing when they purchased their homes. Both the original fencing and the
extension have been well maintained.
Staff reviewed the Greenbriar engineering drawings and plat. Phase I and Phase II are clearly
indicated, but there is not any mention of fencing on these drawings.
Conclusion:
The fencing was constructed as a barrier between phases of development, rather than as
individual lot fencing. The location of the fencing is not in violation of the City Code as it is
greater than }" from the property line along Old White Way. The height of the fencing is not
in violation of the City Code as the Code allows an 8' rear fence (the fencing is located on the
rear of the property at 967 Glen Arbor Circle) and the fence is only 6' in height.
FUNDING: None required
RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Community Development Division
that the existing fence remain as is and that no Code Enforcement action is required. Code
Enforcement has reviewed the situation and concurs with this conclusion.
ATTACHMENTS: None.
COMMISSION ACTION: