HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 05 06 Regular Item A
:-
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM A
REGULAR
x
May 6, 2004
Meeting
MGR. IDEPT
Authorization
REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the Board of Adjustment
hear a request for a variance by Phillip and Janice Tucker from Section 6-85 of the City Code
of Ordinances, to encroach 1.5 feet into the 7 foot rear screen enclosure setback. The applicant
wishes to construct a screened enclosure for a swimming pool in the rear yard, into the rear
setback.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider a request of the Tuckers for a
variance from the requirements of Section 6-85 of the City Code of Ordinances to allow a
screen pool enclosure to encroach to within 5.5 feet of the rear property line, instead of
adhering to the 7 foot rear setback. The site is a comer lot at 105 Inwood Court (Lot 20 of
Winding Hollow Unit I, depicted in Plat Book 47, Pages 94 - 96 of the Public Records of
Seminole County, Florida).
APPLICABLE CODE:
Sec. 6-2. Compliance with Chapter.
Sec. 6-85. Screen Enclosures.
Sec. 20-82. Duties and powers;.general.
Sec. 20-103. Restrictions upon lands, buildings and structures.
CHRONOLOGY:
April 21, 2004 - Variance application was received by City.
"
May 6, 2004
Regular Item A
Page 2
CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicants state that their pool contractor made a mistake, based on misreading the survey.
They state that the pool itself is constructed just beyond the 10 foot setback, but that to meet
the applicable 7 foot rear screen enclosure setback that there would not be room to adequately
walk around that side of the pool. They contend that to construct the pool deck and screen
enclosure to code specifications would make it difficult to clean the pool.
The applicants have verbally indicated that the pool itself is not in conflict with the applicable
10' setback from the rear property boundary. However, the written dialogue (explaining why
they believe they meet the variance criteria) does not appear to support that statement. This
variance request is only for the setback for the deck and screen enclosure. That is what was
noticed to the public.
FINDINGS:
1) The applicant is building a new house and requests to build the pool screen
enclosure that would encroach 1.5 feet into the applicable 7 foot rear
setback (set forth in Section 6-85 of the City Code).
2) A variance requires compliance with all six (6) criteria outlined in Code
Section 20-82 (staff does not believe that the request meets any of the 6
criteria):
a) that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar
to the land, structures or buildings involved and which are not
applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same
zoning district;
Staff does not believe there are any special conditions and
circumstances.
b) that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the
actions of the applicant;
Staff believes that, although an error in the pool location may have
been made, the pool would still be operable and functional, although
not necessarily as desirable as the applicants request.
c) that granting the variance requested will not confer on the
applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to
other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district;
Staff believes that granting the variance would confer special
privileges upon the applicants.
d) that literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
~
May 6, 2004
Regular Item A
Page 3
properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this
chapter and would work unnecessary hardship on the applicant;
Staff believes that a literal interpretation of the provisions of this
chapter do not deny the applicants of any rights and does not work
any hardship - much less an unnecessary hardship.
e) that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make
possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure.;
and
Staff believes that there is already reasonable use of the land, building
or structure.
f) that the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general
intent and purpose of this chapter, will not be injurious to the
neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff believes that to grant the variance would be inconsistent with
the intent and purpose of and undermine the code.
3) Staff does not find that the request meets any of the 6 variance criteria set
forth in Chapter 20 of the City Code of Ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the BOA recommend denial of the request.
ATT ACHMENTS:
A - Location map & Plot plan
B - Variance application
C - Applicants' supporting documentation
BOA ACTION:
Continu d Pg 2410
~;i!~~'~i-----'-----' ,--ATTACHMENT A [i'-~~~~\~\~"I~"'~'~~~/:~:,=,,')
621 :': ' I , ' , ' " -' _ J _ ~ = ~ = - - .
. t:I \ 623 - - ~,:. ~ " : \ ",-.t: :" , ,. '., _ J _ ~ = ~ = : = ': = ':: = ,= = = - - - -
j' ) ~--~" " " "';'1 J~"\" ....~'_===='=='=__--. ESR434
<>>\e! DET AlL ',.......~~~~;). ~ - i.~.'~:~.~.~~.~ - - - - . .
'~~PAGE~2411A;;;~' - - - - ".
EAST ST" TE, RD. 434
"
G
OUT
(
'.'
.,
F
,
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
,
I
I
,
I
\ - --
WATER ,,;..:..:.:;;~t~:':~~M:i':Y:"
SEWER.: .
\E ASEMENl .:.
,..... .'(:~~~, ~~Jfl, ~~1,'82
Q.R.o .
\
\
.----
--
_.---~...
"'~5EMEN~__
o. _ -1'"- J' "-
, ,
I. ,
I ,
. .1.Q'~-r~
. ~~ ~I -:l
," " ~'l
< ' I ~.\
" , , 218 ' -6 \
\216' ,'~o.. - - fTt
{
f
c
DRAINAGE AND
CONSERV A TION
EASEMENT
B
I ,
I
I
I
A
WINDING
1
4
5
(
,~\,~~,
,\1"'. ""'1
. " "
..," I"
. /"~" . O'
.
"~), NOTES:
Municipal Address Map Book
PRINTED:REVlSED:
Oct 2003 1 :' 2 :
City of Winter Springs, FL
0\
.....
,..' ..' "'"
N
bO
~
-e
..j
o
U
o . 200 400
.......~r"c3S0feet I
3 :
Map
Pa e
Developed By: S~rn Surwylng & Mapping Corp. .
2418
Legal Description
Lot 20, WINDING HOLLOW UNIT 1, according to the plat thereof,
as recorded in Plat Book 47, Pagers} 94 - 96, of the Public Records of
Seminole County, FL.
Community number: 120295 Panel: 0135
Su.fj1x: E F.I.R.M. Date: 4/17/1995 Flood Zone: X
Date offield'Jl!ork: 5/27/2003 Completion Date: 5/27/2003
Certified to:
Phillip G. Tucker; Janice G, Tucker; Central Florida Tide Company;
Old Republic National Title 1nsurance Company; Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., its' successors and/or assigns, .
h
Cl::
:::)1
~l
'oJ
Cl
k
~ ~
:t 1 ~
It)
:x:
a
a
~
1
L_
FIR 1/2'
CURVE TABLE
NO.
/
RADiUS on TA ARC
50.00' /3'/3'49" /1.55'
25.00' 90'04'4S" 39,30'
TANGfNT CHORD CHORO BfARING
5.S0' 1/.52' S08'J6'14"W,
1/.5S'(M) N.orI7'02't(M)
25.03' 35.38' N. 44 '59 '22 "E.
35.S], N.44'42'57T(M)
SCALE: 1" = 30'
~
""'~
~.
. '"
"'C>
'" .
<rill)
0,0)
I<ll.j
~~
o.!'<
~O>
~~
;;0>
~
:c:
F1P ,.
.2
LOT 2'
5. 00'00 '38T, 85.00'(P)
S,OO'07'JO"W. 85.00'(M)
-_.--'.__..~~--"
I
.6;,'
-1_1."\
8.6'
~
~
- .
~ I
'"
.::>
I'"
Q
<<l
...
ONE STORY
RESIDENCE
105
7.9'
22.0t-
/4.0'
21.3'
\
'-.
N,OO'OO'OJ"[,
N,OO"OO'J8"w.
INWOOD COURT
- --
50'/?/W
~
~~
Sl!!:.
,")
-")
"'..:
- ~
Jili
8F:
. 0,
:g~
o,~
~vi
Vi
~9'-
F1P ,.
Property Address:
105 Inwood Court
Wintpr ,~n,.;.".~ 1<" ''J7/l0
oV~'''~ '1.~ l
ATTACHMENT B-
/:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
1126 EAST STATE ROAD ~34
WINTER'SPRINGS, FL 3270~~2799
(407)327-1800
FOR:
'X..
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
VARIANCE
'CONDITIONAL USE
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
1. APPLICANTe:'JA"~ i ~ "'PHQNE~'<l'-~'-\~.9l{\\
. ADDRESS: . 'IOC:;-1Z'-l\U~ CI V\ll'ltfA ~\0~ . '.
2 PURPOSE OF REQUEST: ~ L. <;: \ e(f ~ ~ l0~~ 01~' .
. ~
~
3. ATTACH A COpy OF THE'PARCEL SURVEY.
4, ATTACH AN 11 x 17 MAP SHOWING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND
SURROUNDING PARCELS.
5. ATTACH LEGAL' DESCRIPTION.
6 . TAX. P ARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER :sS-. 2.0 ')6-so~ _ <:e8D- ~~~ .
7, LOCAT
Streets):
r 'Near~st Cross
s~7D"6
8, PRESENT ZONING:
FUTURE LAND USE:
By Signing below'I u~derstand that City of ~inter Sp~ings Officials
may enter Upon my property to inspect that portion as relates to
this application:
(If the applicant is not the Owner of the subject property,
applicant must' attach a letter of authorization signed by
owner) .
OQ Y\ i (p T lALl(Q.X' .
~E~~::EASE _TY~ A
.~ . . .'
the
the
, .
'. ,
PERSbNS ARE ADVISED THAT, IF THEY DECIDE~O APPEAL ANY, bECISIONS
MADE AT THESE MEE.TINGS'/HEARINGS, THEYWItL .NEED A. RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, THEY WILL NEED TO INSURE THAT A
VERBATIH'RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS HADE, AT' THEIR COST, WHICH,
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND ',EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE: '
BASED, PER SECTION 286.0105, FLORIDA STATUTES
SECTION 20-84 - APPEALS FROM DECI~IONS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
( 1) Any per Son, 0 l:' per son s, j 0 in t I y 0 r s eve r a I I y a'g g'r i eve d by
any decision of the Board of Adjustment may, within thirty (30)
days after the filing of any decision in the office of the Board of
Adjustment, but not thereafter, appl y to the Ci ty Counci J for
administrative relief. After a hearing. before the City Council an
aggrieved party may, within thirty (30) days after the decision of
the City Council, file an appeal with a court of competent
jurisdic~ion over the subject matter,.
.'."or"'"
~ /
".p
// APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
/
A Staff Report will be developed for each Application. The
Applicant should be p~epared to address each of the issues provided
below for Variance requests.
the Roard of Adjustment must ~ake the
exist which are
s"involved and
structures or
do not resul t
uested t.lill not confer on
e. t hat is den i e d b t his
or structures in the same
on
5.
variance that
he' land. build'n or
the
be
the
7. T
pol icies
ust be consistent
Comprehensive Plan,
THE APP~ICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE CITY WITH. THE NAMES
AND ADJ:1RESSES OF EACH PRQPERTY OHNER 'WITHIN '150. FT. OF EACH
PROPERTY LINE BY THE SCHEDULED TIME.
, ~
THE APP~ICANT IS RESPONSIBLE TO POST THE 'BLUE NOTICE CARD ON THE I
SITE AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE BOARD OF :ADJUSTMENT MEETING ....'. ..'
AT HHICHTHE MATTER WILL BE CONSIDERED: SAID NOTICE SHALL NOT BE '
POSTED WITHIN THE CITY RIGHTS-OF~WAY.
.'
:' ,: .'1'
~
~
ATTACHMENT C
Phillip and Janice Tucker
105 Inwood Court
Winter Springs, FL 32708
RECEIVED
rX APR 2 t 2004
~1
r
'l .CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
':, .. Current Planning
Request for Variance
Overview:
Recently we decided to have a pool installed at our home. Our intent was to install a pool
that would enhance the value of the property and the neighborhood around us. We took
great care to work with three different pool builders and after checlcing references selected
Antigua pools of Oviedo. At the point where the city inspector was checking on the deck
preparations it was discovered.that a mistake had been made in the original layout of the
pool and deck. Antigua pools had used faulty data in determining the location of the rear
property line. The deck, if installed according to. plan, will be 1.5 ft closer to the rear
property line than is currently allowed. If we moved the deck and screen to the proper
location the frame for the screen would overhang the edge of the pool slightly. We. feel
that the deck and screen installed in this manner would negatively affect our property
resale value and by default the value of the homes surrounding ours.
We are petitioning for permission to build the screen and deck 1.5 ft closer to the property
line than is currently allowed.
1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land.
structures or buildings involved and which are not applicable to other lands.
structures or buildings in. the. same. zoning district.
a. The layout of our property caus~s us to have a much larger front and side
property that we maintain for the benefit of our community. To the rear
our property is much smaller and faces the garage side of the neighbor
behind us. Deed restrictions keep us from using the width of our property
in the rear to accommodate a pool.
2. That special conditions andcircutnstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
a. . Our intent was to build the pool, deck and screen enclosure within the
allowable property lines and respecting all city ordinances. The pool
builders error was not discovered until the work had progressed to a point
where remedy would be very difficult and expensive. We don't feel we
should be suffer because of the builder's mistake.
3. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privllege.that is denied by this chapter to otherlands. buildings or structures in the
same zoning district..
r
a. Most of the property in our zoning district have access to the full width of
their property to accommodate pools or other backyard structures or back
up to a conservation zone. Granting us this variance will allow us to make
better use of the unique characteristics of our property in ways that are
already common to many other property owners in our area.
4. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enioyed by other properties in the same zoning
district underthetenns of this chapter and. would work unnecessary hardship on
the applicant.
a. If we are required to observe the offset from the rear property line as stated
in the ordinances, the structure will detract from the value of the home
instead .ofthe desired addition of value. Many homes in our zone have
much deeper back yards and would not face this dilemma. Because of the
location of our lot~ we are maintaining a very visible and large front yard
for the beneHt of our community. This reduces the amount of space
available to us in the rear of the house.
5. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land. building or structure.
a. The variance requested will allow for a 1.5 foot distance between the pool
edge and the screen enclosure at the closest point. This is the minimum
distance that will allow a person to pass by the pool on the deck.
6. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and
purpose of this chapter. will not be iniurious to the neighborhood. or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
a. We have made every effort to make this addition to our property a benefit
to the property and our community. Care has been taken to ensure that it
will be an attractive addition to the landscape. We will be using a dark
color of screen enclosure to make it less obvious to passersby. We will be
making an extensive investment in landscaping to help this addition blend in
better with the environment. We believe that we are benefiting the
community not being a detriment to it's welfare.
7. The request Ihust be consistent with the obiectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. .
a. 1 do not have a copy of the comprehensive plan, but 1 feel that this variance
will only enhance the addition to our house and will have no adverse effect
on our neighbors. Our intent is to better the community we live in and do
everything w(: can to maintain property values for all citizens of Winter
Springs.
'lII~~~
0_.... Aar1ilu UJ&.~
'41-fl".I~
- oN.lf..J<<olL Qlln
01(.0041401
tj,.{yoq
City Of Winter Springs
Upon contract we looked at survey, measured to find 29,3 to rear lot line.
Antigua Pool Co, called survey company to confirm and proceeded with the
job. Upon deck inspection the inspector alerted us to get a hard copy of
survey as deck seems a little close to rear lot line. I called survey and he said
looks like 29', I said to fax a hard copy with your measurement on it. He did
and to my surprise it came out 28', So, we are actually 1.5' short of set back.
We are asking for a variance of 1,5',
Thank you
Scott Whiteway - President
Antigua Pool Co, Inc
Seminole County Property Appraiser Get Information by Parcel Number
PARCEL DETAIL
'....~
"
~::~~:,:l.,
I'fopert.l ~,...*,.
c:Rrvl<<'
1101 ~. liin' St.
Suf4rd 1''''. 3%n I
40''(;li5-'7~06
GENERAL
Parcelld" 35-20-30-502-0000- Tax District. W1-WlNTER
. 0200 . SPRINGS
Owner" TUCKER PHILLIP G Exemptions: OO-HOMESTEAD
. & JANICE G
Address: 105 INWOOD CT
City,State,ZipCode: WINTER SPRINGS FL 32708
Property Address: 1051NNSWOOD CT WINTER SPRINGS 32708
Subdivision Name: WINDING HOLLOW UNIT 1
Dor: 01-5INGLE FAMILY
SALES
Deed Date Book Page Amount Vac/lmp
WARRANTY DEED 0512003 04861 1923 $230,000 Improved
WARRANTY DEED 06/1995 02931 0900 $153,600 Improved
WARRANTY DEED 09/1994 02831 0061 $256,500 Vacant
Find Comparable Sales within this Subdivision
LAND
Lllnd Assess Method Frontage Depth Land Units Unit Price Land Value
LOT 0 0 1.000 40,000.00 $40,000
BUILDING INFORMATION
Page 1 of 1
2004 WORKING VALUE SUMMARY
Value Method: Market
Number of Buildings: 1
Depreciated Bldg Value: $156,738
Depreciated EXFT Value: $916
Land Value (Market): $40,000
Land Value Ag: $0
Just/Market Value: $197,654
Assessed Value (SOH): $197,654
Exempt Value: $25,000
Taxable Value: $172,654
2003 VALUE SUMMARY
Tax Value(without SOH): $2,954
2003 Tax Bill Amount: $2,248
Savings Due To SOH: $705
2003 Taxable Value: $118,722
DOES NOT INCLUDE NON-AD VALOREM
ASSESSMENTS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLAT
LOT 20 WINDING HOLLOW UNIT 1 PB 47 PGS 94
TO 96
Bid Num Bid Type Year Bit Fixtures Base SF Gross SF Heated SF Ext Wall Bid Value Est. Cost New
1 SINGLE FAMILY 1995 1 2,323 2,988 2,323 CB/STUCCO FINISH $156,738 $162,845
Appendage { Sqft OPEN PORCH FINISHED /154
Appendage I Sqft OPEN PORCH FINISHED /70
Appendage I Sqft GARAGE FINISHED /441
EXTRA FEATURE
Description Year Bit Units EXFT Value Est. Cost New
SCREEN ENCLOSURE 1996 624 $916 $1,248
NOTE: Assessed values shown are NOT certified values and therefore are subject to change before being finalized for ad valorem tax
urposes.
-* If ou recentl urchased a homesteaded ro tax will be based on Just/Market value.
K .' , . ~ 1 \ . ,..' -; = ,~. . . 1 . ." .......';. . '. .' ,',." , .
. . . , II '\(,1," ". - ..'.' .,-1 HOI I.H I" A rl H f\ II;[ H , "', ."'... CO"" \1 '1""',,'
.'~:' . .:.~' '. :..:;,:,.:~,\ ,>Y'::':<: : :~;":'.;>'i(:".:~'/"~.~)":\ ~ r_I'~~(:lL'~ .~t 0' '::;::, '::t'.' :. .~~: .:::,/~. :~.' :fj'~(~,:"D';~'
http://www.scpafl.org/pls/web/re_web.seminole_county_ title?P ARCEL=35203050200000... 4/15/2004