Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 05 05 Board of Adjustment Regular Minutes BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MAY 5, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman Greene BOARD MEMBERS: James Greene, Chairman, Present Wendy Austin, Absent Al Becker, Present Frank Adams, Present Greg Smith, Present CITY OFFICIALS: Carl D. Gosline, Community Dev. Coord. Approval of Minutes of March 3, 1994 Greene asked for any questions, corrections, or additions. None submitted, the minutes were approved as presented. Request from Intomm, Inc. for variance to ~9.241 Cd) to alleviate fencinq requirement for Stormwater Ponds with slopes areater than 4:1 Gosline presented the case to the Board of Adjustment stating that the Staff recommends granting the variance for the ponds with the condition that the 4 to 1 slope be measured two or three below the surface of normal high water. Greene asked Gosline if the developer had received a variance to use a wetbottom pond. Gosline answered, "I believe so". Gosline stated that technically there isn't anything wrong with wetbottom ponds; however, it's something that we will have to look at in terms of the code because the code does not address wetbottom ponds. Greene stated that the preV10US City Engine~r specifically prohibi ted wetbot tom ponds because there was so many wetbot tom ponds that were not being constructed properly or maintained. The engineer indicated by virtue of the fact that they are prohibited, and by prohibiting them in the code, any time a wetbottom was to be built, the case would have to brought before this Board. Discussion. Becker made a motion for approval. Seconded by Smith. Discussion. Adams made a motion to amend the motion to allow the 4:1 slope to go further in and make the water depth at least four (4) feet. That would make it a four (4) foot drop in the water table before we'll have a problem with children at risk. Seconded by Smith. - ... - Board of Adjustment Minutes May 5, 1994 Page 2 Greene asked for any further discussion on the amended motion. No further discussion. Vote: All Aye. Motion carried. Request from Demetree Builders, Inc. for a variance to ~6-219 (a,c) to allow a swimminq pool to be built nearer than ten (10) feet, and a screen enclosure to be built nearer than seven (7) feet to the rear property line. Relief is also requested from the twenty-eiqht (28) foot setback line shown on the plat. Gosline stated that there should have been two separate variance requests here; however, the Staff has recommended approval of the variance for the front yard, but denial of the variance for the back yard. The reason for denying the back yard variance is that, there is al ternati ve designs that could be done to reshape the pool, or move the patio, etc. to fit within the required rear yard setbacks. Brief discussion as to the twenty-eight (28) foot setback line. Bland, who is the General Manager with Demetree, Inc. presented his first variance request to the Board, and asked that they be allowed the front setback to be the same as all the other houses they have built in Country Club Village, Phase III. He stated that, "he bel ieves that the setback is there because the lot is a "pie" shaped lot, and that's the point at which it becomes forty-five (45) feet wide which is the width of the other lots." He went on to say that it didn't restrict them because they have still met the side yard requirements. Bland stated his second variance request for a swimming pool at the rear of the lot. The requirement is that the water's edge be ten (10) feet from the property line which is absolutely valid when properties back up to each other. In most subdivisions there is no common area between lots, and where two lots back up to each other it should be ten (10) feet. We would never request it otherwise. Because there is a twenty (20) foot buffer here, we have requested a four (4) foot relaxation of that so that we can get a twelve (12) foot pool in. Bland stated that they have had several variances on pools where it has backed up to common area. Greene corrected Mr. Bland, and stated that the area he was speaking of was not common area, but a green area, and there is a difference between the two. Board of Adjustment Minutes May 5, 1994 Page 3 Greene asked Bland if he would consider putting this in the form of two variance requests. Bland agreed. Greene asked for discussion on the front yard setback line, and asked for public comments. Randy Kelly stated that he lives at 1178 Winged Foot Circle which is lot IDS. He stated his concerns with regard to the driveways, and the lack of sufficient space. Bland stated that there are no deed restrictions for Country Club Village on this particular point. The excepted norm and what we follow with the City of Winter Springs is that there would be a minimum twenty (20) foot setback from the edge of the street to the garage. That has been the practice that has been followed for a hundred houses that we have built. Greene stated that the only reason why the Board is considering any question on the twenty-eight (28) foot setback 1 ine is simpl y because it is recorded on the deed, and it is a legal fact as opposed to a deed restriction which is up to you as a developer to enforce. Bland stated that there are no deed restrictions as far as setbacks; side yards, rear yards, within the regulations. There are no setbacks, and this has been the norm that has been adhered to by the City of Winter Springs. Gosline said that he wanted to be sure that everyone understands that whatever you all do, they (the builder) will also have to satisfy the Homeowner Association, or the Architectural Review Committee for Country Club Village. Greene asked Bland if Country club Village had an Architectural Review Board that approves these. Bland answered, "that is correct, and they have approved the plan that has been submitted to the City of Winter Springs." Greene asked if the fact that they have approved this was indicated on any of the information that was given to us. Bland stated that it was approved when we submitted for a building permit, and the Architectural Committee approved the site plan that was submitted. At the time it was submitted, the City Engineer's noted that there was a note on the plat stating that we would have to get a variance. - - Board of Adjustment Minutes May 5, 1994 Page 4 Discussion with regard to setbacks. Gosline, (in answer to the chairman's question concerning ARB approval appearing on any of the information submitted), answered, no, because he didn't find out about it until about four o'clock this afternoon. Greene stated that the chair will except a motion for discussion on the allowance of the front setback of eleven (11) feet from the front property line. Smith moved to allow the front setback line of eleven (11) feet from the front property line. Seconded by Adams. Greene asked for any further discussion. Discussion with regard to deed restrictions, and setbacks. Vote: Smith - Aye; Becker - Nay; Greene - Aye; Adams - Aye. Motion carried. Request of Variance for swimminq pool and screen enclosure: Greene, (after a brief opening statement) asked for any input from the public for or against stated variance. Max McCoy - 1180 Winged Foot Circle, Lot 104. McCoy addressed his concerns with regard to elevation, and his house in relation to the site in question. Randy Kelly - 1178 Winged Foot Circle, Lot 105. Kelly also stated his concerns with regard to elevation and noise. Dale Malone - 1176 Winged Foot Circle, Lot 115. concerns with elevation; flooding when it possibility of fencing problems. Malone stated his rains, and the Bland responded to the residents concerns. John Langellotti 1102 Winged Foot Circle West. Langellotti stated .that what is going on is typical of all the developers in Winter Springs who want to squeeze every piece of property they can get. He went on to say that he is definitely against the variance because the developer is infringing on common ground, and on the peoples property. Board of Adjustment Minutes May 5, 1994 Page 5 Greene asked for a motion. Smi th made a motion to grant the variance. NO SECOND. Motion died for lack of a second. Greene once again asked for a motion. Adams made a motion to deny the variance as requested. Seconded by Becker. Discussion. Vote: All Aye. Motion carried. Greene stated that the variance for the rear yard setbacks on the pool and screen enclosure are denied. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M. Respectfully SUbmitt~d.. . ) . AAC Shirley . Frankhouser, Administrative Secretary