The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004 05 27 Regular Item A ,- I BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM A REGULAR x May 27,2004 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 and from Section 6-219 to allow the pool to remain encroaching as much as 2 feet into the 10 foot rear pool 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 and from the requirements of Section 6-129 to allow a recently constructed pool to remain as close as 8 feet from the rear property line. The site is a comer lot at 105 Inwood Court (Lot 20 of Winding Hollow Unit 1, 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. ;. .i May 27,2004 Regular Item A Page 2 May 6, 2004 - BOA heard variance request, deferring a decision until proper notification was provided for a variance from both sections 6-85 and 6-219 ofthe Code CONSIDERA TIONS: The applicants state that their pool contractor made a mistake, based on misreading the survey. They state that the pool has already been constructed as much as 2 feet into the 10 foot pool setback and 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. Staff has researched the files from the last 3 years to determine how the City Commission has addressed variance requests where structures were built in the wrong location through no apparent fault of the property owner. This information is provided in the attachments. FINDINGS: 1) The applicant's pool contractor has constructed the pool as much as 2 feet into the 10 foot rear pool setback and the applicant requests that the encroachment remain and 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 peculiaf to the land, structufes Of buildings involved and which afe not applicable to othef lands, structures Of buildings in the same zoning district; Staff does not believe there are any special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structures or buildings which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. b) that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; The applicants do not appear to be responsible for the error. 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. May 27,2004 Regular Item A Page 3 d) that literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other 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 dp not deny the applicants of any rights and does not work any hardship - much less an unnecessary hardship. A monetary issue, among the applicant, the pool contractor, and the surveyor is not a hardship in terms of a variance request. 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. The pool could be modified to meet the code requirements, although it might not be as desirable as what the applicant requests or contracted for. 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 might undermine the code. 3) Staff does not find that the request meets any ofthe 6 Valiance criteria set forth in Chapter 20 of the City Code of Ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BOA recommend denial of the request. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location map & Plot plan B - Variance application C - Applicants' supporting documentation D - Previous variance requests BOA ACTION: ro" ~h!,_~~~L - - - - - - - - -, ,- - ATTACHMENT' A ;i'-~~~~",~\~"'~"'~~~'rl: ~:,~,J 621 :': ' I , I I ' ',_ J _ ~ = ~ = :!: = - - - l~rj' :: _'. ,rj"<, - -%OOO";"o!o!O'O'o'o,,,oo_-- eSR434 Y, ~~ej DETAIL 'I.........~.~~:;)j~- i.~.'~:~.~.~O~----. .' .' =~PAGE~2411A.;.;.;.~~---- . G . EAST STATE RD. 434 Continu d Pg 2410 ( f F , I , , I , , , I , I I I I J I' , , I , I I I I I OUT I , I ~ -- . ..------ - ~.~::~.~.~::..:'.:-::i.y:::: WATER" ::.....Z.O'Ut'IL. ESM . SEWER. . \E~SEM~N.~ WT. \.. '-130' WATR. ~~ 682 O.R.B.1571. .' \ \ 0\ .... .......~ <"l bll ',:1., "l:l .J .j:l o U -- .'ASEMENI __ ...... ---;--;-'... I. , I , 1Q'pE ""--'-1 "'~~~:-:':l\ " I':". < \ I v;, ,', '218' ,6\ ',216' ,'~o..""';' B I , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _\ c DR A1N AGE AND CONSER V AnON EASEMENT A WINDING ( ~1",M1k~ """.\ "1"'" ._ ...,~....." ""'" ::,/' o' \.~ .NOTES: ':.)P 1 . . 4 5 Municipai Address Map Book PRlNTED:REVlSED: Oct 2003 1 : 2 : City 'of Winter.Springs, FL o . 200 400 ~~). c 350 feet I 3 : ~:Pe 2418 Developed By: Soulhea&rn Slll\ItyiIlg cl Mapping c"rp. . "" ~~ ~ij ~!;j .... R6::..~ '4 - g,~D.t-l . Fl\ou ~~'1~,\~. '. .J It. . 4'" . '.' .. '\. .": l:'~ ":"" :l . ;-....x.. ;. ::., :; ,,-t. ", Legal Description t 20, WINDING HOLLOW UNIT I, according to the p/a( thereof, recorded in Plat Book 47; Pagers} 94 - 96. of the PI/hlle Records of ;,Inole County, FL. . Immunity number: 120295 Panel: 0135 fJ1x:E F.Llthf. Date: 4/17/1995 Flood Zone: X rteo/field wotk: 512712003 Completion Date: 5127/2003 rtified to: 'illip G, Tucker; Janice G. Tucker; Central Florida Title Company; d Republic' National Title Insurance CompallY; Countrywide /fame ans, Inc" its' successors a1ld/or assigns. NO. RADIUS I ~O.OO' 1 25.00' CURVE TABLE MTA ARC: TAHGM CHORD CHORD f1€,l.fI/NG 'J'IJ'49" 11,55'. 5.80' ";5,i" s'OS'J6'14'W, II.$S'(M) N.07'/7'02"E(M) 10'04'44" Jg,JO' IS;03' J5,.18 , N.44'Sg;{2"E. . J5.!J.J'(i.I) N.44'42 ~l"E(AI~ LOT 21 .1 s.oo'OO'JIY. 8S.00'(P} So OO"07'JO"\Y. 8S.oo'(M) I . nR 1/2" I , I .1 I I =- , I ~I E:~ I I 8 8~ ~~ >22./' ~ ~ 5.8' I ~~ I 8.S' ~r I ~,~ :. ~~ ~.I ~ I~ ~ b ONE STORY ~ f:i I ~ RESIDENCE ,,,, CO tos . I I I 14.0' FlP ," \ " I I I N. 00'00 'OJME, I N. 0() '00 'JS 'W, L_ INWOOP COURT_ 60'R;1V - " SCALE: f. ... 30' ---<W'~ , . FIP ,. As . ~~L\ 4-\9-0L\ k \S \l~ SHf:.U-.. '~Ti\.~ LJ~".... 1'1 -' Lor /$ 'Q ~~N. rl.\.)NJ;f::.-\).:. '\i,~1,;:.. . ~t a~ ~~ It! L 1 ~ ~j' ::~}:. .i . .. ". : ( ~.. . s % ~ r . J..l\~';i :;...:...... Tf';~ ";':" . ': . ::.l.:..:..:....:. Property Address; T~'("': . 1051nwoodCourt . . 1 .'. Winter Spr~ng.s, FL 32708 ?t:::, --./' ATTACHMENT B- at'-........~ 'r!' ,I 'BoiRD O~ ADJUSTMENT AP~~ICATION CITY O~ HINTER SPRINGS 112 6 EAST STATE ROAD 4,'34 HINTER'SPRINGS, ~L .32708"';"2.799 (407)327-1800 ~OR: - ,. ~.. SPECIAL EXCEPTION VARIANCE 'CONDITIONAL USE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION x ~11~....'TllI:'''-: rJ:'_.'..A"> .' , ')'", ..,\..1I\.9l{\\ ' 1. APPLICANT :~-4A.""'\Ul:.. H)L,~-~ ",' 'PHQNE~<;;.\-c:::.\"\ , ,ADDRESS: ,'r~ ll~\U~ C:I ~\btIl^ ~\0~ , " ' 2 PURPOSE' OF REQUEST: ~ L, c;:. e(f ~ . ~ l0~iW 01~~' ' , ~ -= 3, ATTACH A COpy OF THE 'PARCEL SURVEY. 4, ATTACH AN 11 x 17 MAP SHOHING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING PARCELS, 5. ATTACH LEGAL'DESCRIPTION. 6, TAX PARCEL ~DENTIFICATION NUMBER ; "?.s--2.0 ')6-s6~- ~-b1.CO 7. LOCAT Streets): r ,'N ear !;..S t C r 0 s s '$~7D"6 8. PRESENT ZONING: FUTURE ,LAND USE: By Signing below' I understand that City of Winter Springs officials may enter upon my property to inspect that portion, as relates to this applicacion; (If the applicant is not the Owner of the subject property, the applicant must' attach a letter of authorization signed by the owner) VQ Y\ i (0 T tAr hx'" , NER-PL'EASE TYPE , ' " PERSONS ARE ADVISED THAT, IF THEY DECIDE ,TO lIPPEl>iL ANY.. DECISIONS MADE AT THESE HEETINGS/HEARINGS, THEYWI.L,L ,NEED A ,RECORD O~ THE PROCEEDiNGS AND FOR SUCH PU~POSE, THEY WILL NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, 'AT'THEIRCOST, HHICH , 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 person, ot: persons, jointly or severally a'gg'rieved by any decision of the Boat:d of Adjustment may, \.Iithin thit:ty (30) days aftet: the tiling of any decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment, but not thereafter, apply to'the City Council for administrative relief. After a heat:ing,befot:e the City Council an aggrieved party may, \.Iithin thiLty (30) days after the decision of the City Council, file an appeal, \.lith a court of competent jurisdiction Over the subject matter.. <'...or"" .-' " i' / / /..~ // APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS A staU: Report will be developed for' each' Application, The Applicant should be ptepared to addres~ each of the issues provided below for Variance requests. the.Board of ~djustment must ~ake the exist which are s "involved and structures o.r do not resul t 3. ce re uested will not confer on that is denied b this structures in the same the inimum variance that use of the' land. buildin or fI ith the be to the 7. T .Policies with the ob 'ectives and' THE APP~ICANT IS RESPONSIB~E rOR PROVIDING THE CITY WITH,THE NAMES AND liDI:.iRESSES OF EACH PROPERTY OHNER .HI.THIN '150. FT, OF EACH PROPERT~ 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:ADJUSTHENT HEETING .,' ~ AT HHICHTHE MATTER HILL BE CONSIDERED: SAID'NOTICE SHALL NOT BE'" POSTED WITHIN THE CITY RIGHTS-OF~WAY; .' \ ~ '. .' ~ , .. . '" .~ ATTACHMENT C Phillip and Janice Tucker 105 Inwood Court Winter Springs, FL 32708 RECEIVED APR 2 1 2004 ; fJ:;' i~ . ~.~ r l CllY OF WINTER SPRINGS c... 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 checking 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 detennining 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. Ifwe moved the deck and screen to the proper location the frame for the screen would overhang.theedge 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 pennission to build the screen and deck 1.5 ft closer to the property line than is c~rrently 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 causes 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 and.circumstances do not-resultfrom the actions of the applicant. a, Our intent was.to.build.the.pool, deckand screen enclosure within the allowable property lines and respecting all city ordinances. The pool builders error was not .discovereduntil the work had progressed to a point where remedy would be very difficult and expensive. We don't feel we should be suffer because.ofthebuilder's mistake. 3, That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege. that is denied by this chapter. to otherlands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district.. # 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 lUlique 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 deprivethe applicant of rights commonly enioyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms Df this chapter and would work unnecessary hardship on the applicant. a. Ifwe 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 benefit 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 ofthis 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 must be consistent with the obiectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, a. I do not have a copy of the comprehensive plan, but I 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 we can to maintain property values for all citizens of Winter Springs. ~ ~..--..~ 0".... n..-. un$ ~-t"-ISQS -wili"fCdo.lIQon OIC~ 140) Lj,.{yO'f 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 ;Semmole County Property Appraiser Get Information by. Parcel Number Page 1 of 1 PARCEL DETAIL =::@= Pfvpe';'~~_r ~. 1101 K. "lnl St. Sllof{lN! f'1. 31n I 40'7-4\6s..7!\06 SALES Deed Date Book Page Amount Vacllmp WARRANTY DEED 0512003 04861 1923 $230,000 Improved WARRANTY DEED 06/1995 02931 0900 $153,600 Improved WARRANTY DEED 09/1994 02831 0067 $256,500 Vacant Find Comparable Sales within this Subdivision 2004 WORKING VALUE SUMMARY Valu~ 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 GENERAL Parcelld' 35-20-30-502-C000- Tax District' W1-W1NTER . 0200 ' SPRINGS Owner' TUCKER PHILLIP G Exemptions: OO-HOMESTEAD ' & JANICE G Address: 105 INWOOD CT City,State,ZipCode: WINTER SPRINGS Fl32708 Property Address: 1051NNSWOOD CTWlNTER SPRINGS 32708 Subdivision Name: WINDING HOLLOW UNIT 1 Dor: 01-SINGlE FAMILY LAND LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLAT Land Assess Method Frontage Depth Land Units Unit Price Land Value lOT 20 WINDING HOllOW UNIT 1 PB 47 PGS 94 LOT 0 0 1.000 40,000.00 $40,000 TO 96 BUILDING INFORMATION 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 I 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 certffied values and therefore are subject to change before being finalized for ad valorem tax urposes. *** If au recent! urchased a homesteaded TO tax will be based on Just/Market value. . " ~ I ' . '" "/l ~(,J\:' '. " .... .>-I'IUJI'EHTY i\I'I'HI\lSI It;, '.~', :... :.: co""ni:"{ (: .:.,'-(:.:>~..,~::,,:,> ...:>.:.:.";-',:;..:. L;:'.;.\3 .,I.~,~Y~!~.I~\~~l::. -""."" ,.::./i'.' ,.~',/<.'_<.:;':::.:: '.'~:ij~ :/:' http://www.scpafl.org/pls/web/re_web.seminole_county _ title?P ARCEL=35203050200000... 4/15/2004 ATTACHMENT D COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM A Consent Information . Public Hearin~ Regular X JUNE 25.2001 Meeting MGR. /Dept. REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests that the City Commission, at the request of builder John Saudani, on behalf of the homeowners, Howard and Libby Baity, consider removing May 14, 2001, agenda item "E" from the table for final disposition. PURPOSE: This agenda item is needed to respond to a request from builder John Saudani, on behalf of Howard and Libby Baity to have their minimum finish floor elevation variance request removed from the table for final disposition. CONSIDERATIONS: 1) On May 14, 2001, the Commission tabled regular agenda item "E" involving a request of builder John Saudani, on behalf of Howard and Libby Baity, to approve a finished floor flood elevation variance. 2) Subsequent to that action of the Commission, Howard and Libby Baity have requested that the Commission remove the item from the table and approve the variance they requested. 3) Although staffrecommended approval of the variance as the only practical resolution of the problem, staff pointed out to the Commission that several requirements of Subsection 20-82 (1) (c) of the City Code were not met, and that the builder completed construction of the house after being advised by inspectors of the finished floor deficiency. In consideration of the facts in this matter, staff recommends the Commission consider some f0l111 of punitive action as part of an agreement to approve the vanance. June 25,2001 Regular Agenda Item A Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: I. May 14,2001, Agenda item and attachments thereto. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission: 1) Remove the item from the table for final disposition. 2) Grant a finished floor elevation variance of 0.36 feet from the required 35.50 feet (1 Y2 feet above the base flood elevation) to 35.14 feet, which currently exists. 3) Impose punitive measures as a condition of approval which could include a monetary donation or community service hours. COMMISSION ACTION: CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 25, 2001 PAGEI90F30 CONFLICTING LANGUAGE REGARDING THE CONSERVATION AREAS, VOLUNT ARY OR INVOLUNTARY." VOTE: COMMISSIONER GENNELL: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Partyka said to Manager McLemore, "If the Arbor Ordinance is not good from your standpoint, we should have, in the Commission's possession, some kind of statement to say why it's no good." Mayor Partyka further stated, "And that needs to be ,:::::. handled at some point in the future, as to why." Manager McLemore explained that he . : : :~. : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : .felt that, "The Ordina~ce wa~ a punitive Or?inance and it does not ~reate incentives." " " ::. .,...: :Mayor Partyka then SaId, "I thmk that somethmg needs to come back -If that's true." ::~~~~~~~:" '~~~~,::' .... ... , : : : : : : : . . . , REGULAR . : : : : ,: : ' A. Community Development Department Requests That The City Commission, At The Request Of Builder John Saudani, On Behalf Of The Homeowners, Howard And Libby Baity, Consider Removing May 14,2001, Agenda Item "E" From The Table For Final Disposition. "MOTION TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GENNELL. DISCUSSION. VOTE: DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER GENNELL: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Carrington introduced this request for a Variance. Ms. Libby Baity, 627 Sailfish Road, Winter Springs, Florida: addressed the Commission and said that they had not experienced any flooding. Discussion ensued withMr. Dennis Franklin, Building Official. "Point of Order" by Commissioner Blake who stated, "The flood level is 34 feet. FEMA 's number is 35 feet. That's what is required. " CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 25, 2001 PAGE 20 OF 30 Mr. John Laudani: explained to those in attendance that this was the first house that he had built and the problem was due to an honest mistake on his part. Much discussion. Tape 4/Side. A Commissioner Blake discussed with Attorney Garganese his preferences for three (3) things to happen. Commissioner Blake summarized his suggestions for a possible Motion and stated, "Three (3) things happen. The Builder goes to Code Enforcement for whatever penalties there are there. The homeowner has to file and record a document stating that the foundation or the level, or whatever it is, the base flood elevation is below code and that holds Winter Springs harmless against any actions caused by that. When those two items are done or completely completed, then they come back before us and we will attempt to utilize the Variance to issue a e.O." Further discussion ensued regarding possible options, and Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "Let our Building Official put this information in the file, in the Building Department, put it on record with the individual's file." Deputy Mayor McLeod added, "I would follow the recommendations of the Code Enforcement to put this thing on file at the County." Discussion ensued on these options. "I MOVE THAT ITEM 'A' ON THE REGULAR AGENDA, THE REQUEST FOR HOWARD AND LIBBY BAITY, THAT THE CITY MANAGER TAKE THAT BACK AND REVIEW IT, APPLYING THE FLOOD CRITERIA, BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT ANTHONY IS TALKING ABOUT, AND AT THE SAME TIME, I'LL REFER THE BUILDER - BACK TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GENNELL. COMMISSIONER GENNELL WAS ASKED TO REPEAT HER MOTION AND STATED, "I MOVE THAT THIS PROPERTY VIOLATION BE REVIEWED IN VIEW OF THE FLOOD - DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE - CHAPTER EIGHT (8) OF THE EXISTING CODE, A VARIANCE UNDER THAT ORDINANCE. AND AT THE SAME TIME, THAT THE CODE VIOLATION PER SE BE REFERRED TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER." COMMISSIONER MILLER ASKED FOR A CLARIFICATION AND STATED, "WOULD THE FLOOD DAMAGE ORDINANCE COME BACK TO US, WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ATTORNEY, OR WOULD IT BE SETTLED BY THE CITY MANAGER?" COMMISSIONER GENNELL STATED, "IT WOULD COME TO US." ATTORNEY GARGANESE ADDED, "I JUST \VANT TO MAKE THE RECORD CLEAR. I THINK CHAPTER EIGHT (8) WOULD AFFORD THE PROPERTY OWNER MORE RELIEF THAN - YOUR REGULAR V ARIANCE PROCEDURES." COMMISSIONER GENNELL ST A TED, "I AGREE." SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 25, 200 I PAGE 21 OF 30 "I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO COMING BACK FOR A FINAL VARIANCE DISPOSITION OF FILING A RECORDED DOCUMENT WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF SEMINOLE COUNTY WITH THE INFORMATION AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSL Y THAT THE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION IS BELOW THE EIGHTEEN INCHES (18") ABOVE FLOOD LEVEL - THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD LEVEL REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS BUT IS IN EXCESS OF THE TWELVE INCHES (12") REQUIRED BY FEMA." MOTION BY COMMISISONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. DISCUSSION. DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD ADDED, "I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO SEE. WITH THAT AS THEY COME BACK, A LETTER FROM THE OWNER AND THE BUILDER THAT THEY WILL HOLD THE CITY HOLD HARMLESS WITH ANY FUTURE FLOODINGS ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY." COMMISSIONER BLAKE STATED, "IT WAS ACTUALLY PART OF MY LANGUAGE ORIGINALLY, SO I GUESS I WOULD INCORPORATE THAT IN THERE - IN THE AMENDMENT." VOTE: (ON THE AMENDMENT) COMMISSIONER GENNELL: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: (ON THE MAIN MOTION) DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER GENNELL: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Manager McLemore advised the Commission that the "hardship" issue could be brought to the Commission at the next Meeting. "I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EXTEND FOR ONE (1) HOUR." MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER GENNELL: AYE MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM F Consent Information Public Hearing Regular X SEPTEMBER 24,2001 Meeting MGR. /Dept. REQUEST: The Community Development Department presents to the City Commission the request of Heidenescher Homes for a variance from the established front yard setback line at Lot 11, 136 (formerly 132) Cherry Creek Circle, in The Reserve at Tuscawilla, Phase IA. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider a request by Heidenescher Homes for a variance to allow a portion of the garage to encroach to within 17.37 feet of the front property line at the northwest comer (a variance for 2.63 feet) and 18.94 feet of property line at the southwest comer (a variance for 1.06 feet), in contrast to the 20 foot front yard setback set forth in note number 4 on the face of The Reserve at Tuscawilla, Phase lA, final subdivision plat (Plat Book 58, Page 100 of the Public Records of Seminole County). APPLICABLE CODE: Sec. 6-2. C~mpliance withcha,pter. (a) No .building or structure shall hereafter be constructed, altered.. ..except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. September 24,2001 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM F Page 2 Sec. 6-4. Violations. Any person who shall violate a provision of this chapter or fail to comply herewith or with any of the requirements hereof, or who shall erect, construct, alter or repair, or has erected, constructed, altered or repaired a building or structure in violation of a detailed statement or plan submitted and approved hereunder, shall be guilty of a violation of the Code and shall be punished in accordance with Section 1-15. Sec. 20-103. Restrictions upon lands, buildings and structures. (b) Percentage of occupancy (lot). No building or structure shall be erected.. ..nor shall any open space surrounding any building or structure be encroached upon or reduced in any manner except in conformance with the building site requirements.. ..for the district in which such building or structure is located. Sec. 20-82. Duties and powers, general. The Board of Adjustment shall make recommendations to the city commission to grant any variance or special exception as delineated in this chapter. (1) The board of adjustment shall have the additional following specific powers and duties: a. ..;. b. .... c. To recommend upon appeal such variance from the terms of this chapter as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in unnecessary and undue hardship. In order to recommend any variance from the temlS of this chapter, the board of adjustment must and shall find: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or September 24,2001 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM F Page 3 building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district; 2. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. 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; 4. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary hardship on the applicant. 5. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; 6. 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. d. .. .. (2) In recommending the granting of any variance, the board of adjustment may recommend appropriate conditions and safeguards. Violations of such conditions and safeguard, when made a pari of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this chapter. The board of adjustment may recommend a reasonable time liniit within which the action for which the variance is required shall be begun, or both. (3) Under no circumstances shall the board of adjustment recommend the granting of a variance to pennit a use not generally or by special September 24, 2001 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM F Page 4 exception pennitted in the zoning district involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of this chapter in the zoning district. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning classification or district, and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other zoning classifications or districts shall be considered grounds for the authorization of a variance. (4) (5) Sec. 20-83. Procedures. (a) Upon receipt, in proper form and with appropriate fees, an application for a variance, special exception or conditional use as delineated in this chapter, the board of adj ustment shall schedule such application for consideration at a public meeting. (b) All such applications will be processed within sixty (60) days of receipt of same. (c) All meetings for consideration of a variance, special exception or conditional use shall be noticed for at least seven (7) days prior to the date of the meeting in the following manner: (1) Posting the affected property with a notice of the meeting which indicates the matter to be considered. (2) Posting in city hall a notice of the meeting which indicates the property affected and the matter to be discussed. (3) At least seven (7) days prior to the meeting the board of adjustment shall also notify all owners of property adj acent to or within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the property to be affected of the time, date and place of the meeting. Such letter must also indicate the variance, special exception, or conditional use requested, and must require proof of delivery. (d) All interested persons shall be entitled to be heard at such meeting or to be heard by written statement submitted at or prior to such meeting. September 24, 2001 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM F Page 5 ( e) In the event a special exception, variance or conditional use is not authorized by ordinances of the city, the person requesting the unauthorized action must submit an application pursuant to section 20- 28. (f) Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, board or bureau of the city affected by any decision of an administrative official under the zoning regulations. Such appeals shall be taken within thirty (30) days after such decision is made by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board of adjustment, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The administrative official from whom the appeal is taken shall, upon notification of the filing of the appeal, forthwith transmit to the board of adjustment all the documents, plans papers or other material constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. (g) The board of adjustment shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal, give public notice thereof, as well as due notice to the parties in interest, and make recommendations to the city commission for the appeal within a reasonable time. Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. For procedural purposes, an application for a special exception shall be handled by the board of adjustment the same as for appeals. (h) Any variance, special exception or conditional use which may be granted by the council shall expire six (6) months after the effective date of such action by the city commission, unless a building permit based upon and incorporating the variance, special exception or conditional use is obtained within the aforesaid six-month period. However, the city commission may renew such variance, special exception or conditional use for one (1) additional period of six (6) months, provided good cause is shown and the application for extension shall be filed with the board at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the six-month period. Any renewal may be granted without public hearing, however, a reapplication fee may be charged in an amount not to exceed the amount of the original application fee. It is intended that provisions contained within this subsection are to be retroactive to the extent that any variance, special exception or conditional use previously granted shall become void if a period of time in excess of twelve (12) months shall have lapsed, and a building permit based upon and incorporating the variance, special exceptions or conditional uses has not been used prior to expiration of such time limit. September 24, 2001 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM F Page 6 CHRONOLOGY: March 2, 2001 - City received application for building permit for Lot 11 March 6, 2001 - City Land Development Coordinator Don LeBlanc approved zoning and setbacks for building permit application as consistent with the 20' front building setback depicted on the final subdivision plat. March 30, 2001 - City issued building permit No. 01-00349 August 7, 2001 - City Staff performed frame inspection and "as built" Survey, incorrectly reflecting a 20' front yard setback, (dated May 17, 2001) received by the City. August 16,2001 - Inspector noted potential problem in setbacks; builder provided second corrected "as built" survey (dated August 16,2001); stop work order issued. August 20,2001 - Variance application received by City. August 24,2001 - Building Official Dennis Franklin provided a Memorandum recommending the encroachment be removed. August 29,2001 - City receives letter from HOA president stating that Richland Properties had granted a variance from the 30' front building set forth in the homeowner documents to 22'. August 30 and September 4, 2001 - City Staff requested an original or copy of the May 17, 2001, "as-built" survey from the surveyor. September 5, 2001 - City received another copy of the August 16,2001, "as-built" and was advised by the surveyor's staff that the May 17, 2001 "as-built" no longer existed. September 6, 2001 - City received faxed letter from Richland Properties in support of the variance and City Board of Adjustment hears the variance request. September 24, 200 I REGULAR AGENDA ITEM F Page 7 FINDINGS: 1). Lot No. 11 is one of the five (Lots 10-14) floodway lots approved for development under a letter of map revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) dated February 7,2001. 2). A building permit was issued for the site, based upon the required 20-foot front yard building setback. 3). On August 7,2001, the City received an "as built" survey (dated May 17, 2001) depicting a 20-foot front yard setback at the southwest corner. 4). Also on August 7, 2001, the City did a framing inspection at the subject property. 5). On August 16,2001 the developer provided a second "corrected" as-built survey showing a 17.37 foot front yard setback instead of a 20 foot setback as shown on the May 17, 2001 survey. City staff compared the survey to the original plot plan and issued a stop work order because the structure failed to meet the required front yard setback. 6). On August 20,2001, the applicant, Richard Heidenescher, President of Heidenescher, applied for a variance, providing a letter of authorization from the property owner. 7). On August 24,2001, Building Official Dennis Franklin provided a memo addressing the situation at the site and recommending that the encroaching portion of the garage be removed. 8). On September 6,2001, the Board of Adjustment heard the request for a variance and was unable to provide a recommendation for approval or denial (2-2 vote). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: At its regularly scheduled meeting of September 6, 2001, the City of Winter Springs Board of Adjustment could not agree on a recommendation to the City Commission. Those opposed to the variance referenced the criteria in the code for granting variances. Those in favor of granting the variance stated that they felt that granting the variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. September 24,2001 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM F Page 8 RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Adjustment could not agree on a recommendation. Staff recommends that the variance be denied and that the builder remove that portion of the garage that encroaches into the required front yard setback (see memo from the Building Official, Attachment E). ATTACHMENTS: A - Plot plan submitted with building application B - Two "As-built" surveys c - Variance application D - Authorization letter E - 8/24/01 Memo from Building Official Dennis Franklin F - Letters of Opposition & Support G - LOMR & 2/07/0 1 letter from PEC H - BOA Summary COMMISSION ACTION: ,,' .' UNAPPROVED CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 6.2001 PAGE 2 OF 6 Chairman Smith closed nominations. WITH CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD THE MOTION WAS APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Smith opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chairman. MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER McGINNIS. "ELIZABETH RANDALL, I'LL NOMINATE HER." Board Member Tom Waters arrived at 7:06 p.m. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER TAYLOR DISCUSSION. Chairman Smith closed nominations. WITH CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD THE MOTION WAS APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. REGULAR B. Variance For Setback At 132 Cherry Creek Circle. Mr. John Baker, AlCP, Current Planning Coordinator introduced the Agenda Item and spoke of six criteria's for a Variance. Mr. Baker stated, "Staff feels that the encroachment into the front yard building setback clearly results from the actions of the applicant builder, criteria number two (2). And that criteria one (1) through six (6) are not met for granting a Variance." He read the following from the Agenda Item: "The Board of Adjustment may recommend a reasonable time period to accomplish any recommendation' such as the Building Official's recommendation to modify the building to remove the encroachment. This Variance request has been noticed as'required by Section 20-83. of the Code of Ordinances. I would note and enter into the record a letter that we received today from Richland Investments." Discussion followed regarding the house number being changed from 132 to 136 Cherry Creek Circle (Lot Number 11). Mr. Baker read the chronology, the findings and reviewed the attachments. Mr. Mark Queen, President, Reserve at Tuscawilla Homeowner's Association, 129 Cherry Creek Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: said "Personally it doesn't bother me too much that the house is a little close but on the other hand I have been instructed by the Board of the Reserve at Tuscawilla Homeowners to express our general unhappiness with .' I b UNAPPROVED CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 PAGE 3 OF 6 the fact that it has gone beyond what the Variance permitted. We have pretty much talked to a lot of Homeowners, a lot of Homeowners have called to expressed their displeasure at this in varying degrees but not one of them have recommended that the house be tom down. I think everyone is more concerned that this type of thing doesn't happen again. We still have some lots that are available in our neighborhood and we're 'concerned that - no more violations like this occur but no one like I said, is advocating that this house be tom down." Discussion. Mr. Rick Heidenescher, 101 Cherry Creek Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: as the builder distributed a handout to the Board Members. He stated "First of all I want to acknowledge, yes, we did make a mistake and it was a honest mistake and it was just really a series of misfortunes and I'll try to do this just briefly - you may not be to concerned about why." He explained that after he had submitted for a permit, and shortly after the Homeowners requested an additional two (2) feet to be added to the home. New plans were drawn and the revisions were submitted for the building permit. Mr. Heidenscher further stated "Our intention was to maintain the 20' 5" setback at the front of the house and this is the second plot plan that was submitted to the building Department and again our intentions were to have the house sit on the lot like that and obviously it wouldn't have encroached on the twenty (20') foot setback. Well what happened was that somehow the house did not get staked properly. It was never staked _ it was staked from the first plot plan and not for the second plot plan. To compound that a foundation man did .not question it and took it upon himself to make a educated decision as to what to do with the problem, obviously it was not the right answer." He continued to speak regarding house placement on the lot; and columns along the garage; while reviewing a handout and photographs. Chairman Smith asked how could we stop this from occurring again? Mr. Heidenescher commented that the Building Department "Has taken a good step to getting rid of the possibility and that is, they will not grant a slab inspection - not a footer inspection but a slab inspection - until the survey shows the setbacks on it." Mr. Dennis Franklin, Building Official stated, "It has been policy to get the "As-Built survey" at the frame inspection which the frame inspection is - the house is built, the structure is there. So we changed that, I believe about four (4) to six (6) weeks ago and we require a form board survey and that would make that determination even prior to pouring the footing or foundation." Discussion continued Tape I/Side B , . UNAPPROVED CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 6. 2001 PAGE 4 OF 6 Ms. Heidi Heidenescher, 101 Cherry Creek Circle, Winter Springs, Florida; addressed the Board and requested they grant the Variance. Ms. Maggie Goodenbury, 136 Cherry Creek Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: asked that the Variance be granted. Mr. Franklin was asked if he had any other comments and he said, "I think I submitted my comments in my letter to you. From a structural point of view Mr. Heidenescher is correct what it mayor may not do to the structure if we go ahead and have him bring it to compliance. Mr. Franklin added, "I don't believe those columns would have to be removed and perhaps that would maintain some of the aesthetics that they set out to have." Discussion. MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER WATERS. "I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE NOT GRANT THE VARIANCE." SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER TAYLOR. DISCUSSION, Chairman Smith asked if any of the Board Members had any comments. Board Member Waters stated, "The only comment I have is that I have been on this Board for a couple - three (3) years now and every time we hear a Variance about something - we get it thrown up in our faces that it happens some place else - it happens some place else and I think we have to take a stand to prevent that from happening. I hate to see this happen to anyone." Chairman Smith said, "I agree with that it seems that we're - normally that's all we hear about are requests for variations and so forth. I guess my belief is that I guess I would probably go ahead and request that the property owners strongly consider some type of landscaping, other type things to soften that in front of there. But I just, I think - to me the real culprit in this is probably the developer because they have gone ahead and purposely set the lots way to small to support - houses of these desired market value - the Homeowners I think would be unjustly penalized. I'll probably not vote in favor of that. Board Member Jack Taylor commented, "Well my comments are that it appears in this particular case that the Homeowner's Association has been trying to work with the Contractor and that the original CCR's actually call out the thirty (30) feet and as it was pointed out it's been - a legal Variance granted to put it down to twenty-two (22) feet and now you are asking for one to put it down to seventeen (17) feet. My personal opinion is that Richland needs to work much more closely with the Homeowner's Association and this wouldn't have happened." Board Member Sally McGinnis asked, ''I'd like to know what the Homeowner's Association has actually done?" '. UNAPPROVED CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 6. 2001 PAGE 5 OF 6 Mr. Queen replied, "What we did originally is when the original Variance was granted by Richland we sent a letter to them that said that one; we would appreciate if anytime you grant a Variance you would submit - through our regular ARB and so that we are. aware of it and we - I want you to know that we, the Homeowners do not want to grant this 'Variance at all. But I also want to say, we really don't want part of this house to be taken down because - also under our CCR you have to have a three (3) car garage. If you push th~t in two (2) feet you may not have a three (3) car garage. I'm telling you I believe that, as I said, while the Homeowners are disappointed in this, it is a beautiful house and I will tell you that nobody wants to see them have to take down part of this house. We just want to make sure it doesn't happen again. And we can work much more closely with the developer; in fact I'll put in a call tomorrow and we'll see if we can't get something worked out on that." Chairman Smith asked if there were any other comments and then called for the Vote. CHAIRMAN SMITH SAID, "ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE." VOTE: BOARD MEMBER TAYLOR: AYE BOARD MEMBER WATERS: AYE CHAIRMAN SMITH SAID, "ALL THOSE OPPOSED." CHAIRMAN SMITH: OPPOSED BOARD MEMBER McGINNIS: OPPOSSED MOTION DID NOT CARRY. Further discussion. Chairman Smith stated, "I'm open for another suggestion, recourse regarding this issue. And if there is any common ground or not that the Board can come to as far as presenting a unified Motion to the City Commission." Discussion. Chairman Smith said, "Let the record show that this matter is a deadlock between the Members of the Board and at this point I'm ready to entertain a Motion for Adjournment. IV. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS V. REPORTS Board Member Tom Waters requested a Workshop with the City Attorney and all the Board Members agreed. CITY OF WfNTER SPRfNGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETfNG - SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 PAGE 21 OF 28 suggesting is you don't go that route; you transition over some time." Commissioner Blake further commented on the transition process and suggested, "Next year, they only have a two percent (2%) mandatory contribution, and we put nine percent (9%) in. The year after that, they only have one percent (1 %) mandatory contribution. You still have some early years where you have to take care of this problem of what happens when somebody leaves and you make a policy decision on that, but the idea is, ultimately they will end up with more money later on, a bigger benefit and it will cost the City less." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "This evening, the City would not have to come up with anything else, as far as the $25,000.00, if we took this back, to the time that they contribute the three percent (3%). "I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO TAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES." MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. DISCUSSION. "I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION - AMEND THE MOTION TO FURTHER DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO MEET WITH STAFF AND THE CONSULTANT TO DO SOME INVESTIGATIVE WORK ON HOW COST- SHIFTING MIGHT AFFECT THE NUMBERS OVER A TEN (10) YEAR PERIOD." AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. VOTE: COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE DEPUTYMAYORMcLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: NAY MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Partyka thanked the Consultants. REGULAR F. Community Development Department. Presents To The City Commission The Request Of Heidenescher Homes For A Variance From The Established Front Yard Setback Line At Lot 11, 136 (formerly 132) Cherry Creek Circle, In The Reserve At Tuscawilla, Phase IA. Mr. Baker introduced this Agenda Item to the Commission. Discussion. Mr. Ric Heidenescher, 101 Cherryl Creek Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: addressed the Commission and explained several mistakes that happened. Documents were handed out to the Commission. CITY OF WfNTER SPRfNGS MfNUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETfNG - SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 PAGE 22 OF 28 Much discussion. "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING BY THIRTY (30) MINUTES." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. DISCUSSION. VOTE: DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: NAY COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Further discussion ensued with Members of the Commission, Attorney Garganese, and Mr. Heidenescher on the proposed Variance; related circumstances; special privileges/special benefits; and the criteria required for a Variance to be approved. Tape 4/Side B Further discussion. Mr. Greg Goodenbury, 136 Cherry Creek Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke to the Commission regarding the problems with the building of his home. Ms. Maggie Gooden bury, 136 Cherry Creek Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: addressed the Commission on this situation. Deputy Mayor McLeod asked Attorney Garganese how this affects the Commission "From a legal standpoint." Attorney Garganese responded, "This particular Variance application is - much different than the previous one that you had." Attorney Garganese further said, "This case really falls on applying the six (6) criteria. It's based on the facts that are presented." Discussion. Deputy Mayor McLeod asked for Attorney Garganese to guide the Commission in this matter. Brief discussion. Commissioner Miller suggested, "I would like to recommend that we strongly consider tabling this until the next Commission Meeting." "MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING THIRTY (30) MINUTES." MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. SECONDED. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MrNUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETrNG - SEPTEMBER 24,2001 PAGE 23 OF 28 VOTE: DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: NAY COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Martinez departed at J 2:34 p.m. Attorney Garganese asked Mr. Heidenescher about several issues, which dealt with the construction of this house, and the lot that the house was built on. Mr. Mark Queen, J 29 Cherry Creek Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: addressed the Commission as the Homeowners Association President, and advised those in attendance that at the annual Homeowners meeting, "The majority of the people that attended the meeting were in favor of doing nothing to the house - leaving it as is." Attorney Garganese consulted with the City's Building Official, Dermis Franklin on the structure in question, and the lot. Deputy Mayor McLeod further spoke of Attorney Garganese assisting the Commission with this matter. Attorney Garganese stated, "Do you want me to go over the criteria, to say what I think would support a decision? The decision is yours, but I would be happy to go over each criteria." Attorney Garganese then stated, "What you see in front of you, I think is potentially a special condition or circumstance peculiar to the land regarding the setback. The fact that the roadway is not up - against the property line, which is relevant to the setback." Further discussion ensued with Mr. Heidenescher. COMMISSIONER BLAKE STATED, "I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MAKE A FINDING THAT THE SIX (6) CRITERIA HA VE BEEN MET AND..." COMMISSIONER BLAKE CONTINUED WITH HIS MOTION AND STATED, "I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS, BASED ON TESTIMONY THIS EVENING THAT THE SIX (6) CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET AND THAT WE HEREBY GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY AT - RESERVE - LOT 11, TO ALLOW A MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK - NOT TO BE LESS THAN 17.37 FEET AT ITS' NEAREST. POINT." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. DISCUSSION. Tape 5/Side A CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 PAGE 24 OF 28 COMMISSIONER MILLER SAID, "I WOULD ENTERTAIN TO GO ALONG WITH IT IF THERE IS - I THINK REALLY THIS IS A MINIMAL AMOUNT, I THINK WITH A FINE OF $5,000.00 I'LL GO ALONG WITH IT, AGAINST THE BUILDER." AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. MAYOR PARTYKA STATED, "I NEED AN EXTENSION." "FIFTEEN (15) MINUTES - I'LL GO ALONG WITH IT." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. DEPUTY MAYOR MCLEOD SAID, "IS YOUR MOTION FOR FIFTEEN (15) MINUTES?,' COMMISSIONER MILLER SAID, "YES." SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. DISCUSSION. VOTE: (TO EXTEND THE MEETING) COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE MOTION CARRIED. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Further discussion. VOTE: (ON THE MAIN MOTION) DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: NAY MOTION DID NOT CARRY. Brief discussion. "TO APPROVE A MOTION FOR A $5,000.00 FINE AGAINST THE BUILDER FOR THE VARIANCE THA T \VE WILL APPROVE." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Discussion. "I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND REQUEST A VARIANCE ON THE PARCEL AND THE BUILDER BE FINED A $3,000.00 FINE." MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON WHERE THE MONIES WOULD GO, CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 24,2001 PAGE 25 OF 28 "A $3,000.00 FINE THAT WILL BE APPROPRIATED FOR THE SPECIFIC USE OF AN UPGRADE TO THE ENTRANCE AT - TUSCORA ROAD FOR TBD (TUSCA WILLA BEAUTIFICATION DISTRICT)." AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. VOTE: (ON THE MOST RECENT MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD) COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE DEPUTYMAYORMcLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: NAY MOTION DID NOT CARRY. Further discussion. "MY MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITH ALL STIPULATIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY STATED AND TO CREATE A FINE OF $3,000.00 THAT WOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE TUSCA WILLA BEAUTIFICATION FUND THAT WILL DIRECTED TO UPGRADES AND IMPROVEMENTS AT THAT ENTRANCEWAY ONLY." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. DISCUSSION. Brief discussion. "THAT WE PUT HALF THE MONEY IN THE TBD (TUSCAWILLA BEAUTIFICATION DISTRICT) AND WE PUT HALF IN THE GENERAL FUND." AMENDMEMT TO THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. DISCUSSION. VOTE: (ON THE AMENDMENT) COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE DEPUTYMAYORMcLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: (ON THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED) DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Partyka clarified, "Just so you are clear. A $3,000.00 fine. $1,500.00 goes directly to TBD for that area and $1,500.00 will go into the General Fund." COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM A CONSENT INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR X 08/26/02 Meeting MGR. IDEPT Authorization REQUEST: The Community Development Department recommends denial of a request for an after-the-fact variance by Richard Grimes from sections 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, and 20-103 of the City Code of Ordinances, to allow his porch to encroach 10 feet into the 20 foot rear building setback at the rear of the house. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider a request by Richard Grimes for a variance from the requirements of sections 6-2, 6-3, 6-4 and 20-103 of the City Code of Ordinances to allow an existing screen porch to encroach 10 feet into the 20- foot rear building setback at 1622 Fox Glen Court, Lot 118 of Fox Glen at Chelsea Parc, Tuscawilla, (depicted in Plat Book 49, Pages 78-82 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida). The applicable 20 foot rear building setback is set forth on the final subdivision plat, cited above. APPLICABLE CODE: Sec. 6-2. Compliance with Chapter. Sec. 6-3. Use of building erected or altered in violation of this chapter. Sec. 6-4. Violations. Sec, 20-82. Duties and powers; general. Sec. 20-83. Procedures. Sec. 20-103. Restrictions upon lands, buildings and structures. CHRONOLOGY: June 4, 1999 - Mr. Grimes obtained a pem1it to pour concrete patio slab behind his house (slabs are allowed within building setbacks, but porches must be built consistent with the setbacks) . August 26, 2002 Regular Item A Page 2 March 27, 2000 - Mr. Grimes signed a contract with Affordable Screen & Patio to construct porch by April 30, 2000. February 1, 2002 - City Building Permit Specialist Max Epstein rejected after-the-fact building permit application as inconsistent with the 20' rear building setback depicted on the final subdivision plat. March 19,2002 - City Code Enforcement Board heard Case No. CEB-01-1298, finding both Richard Grimes and Affordable Screen & Patio in violation of Section 6-46 (no building pemlit for screen room) of the City Code of Ordinances. The Code Enforcement Board allowed Mr. Grimes and the contractor 90 days to come into compliance. If a variance were not obtained within 90 days, the case is to come back to the board for re-hearing. May 28,2002 - Variance application and fee received by City. July 4, 2002 - No BOA meeting, due to holiday. July 18,2002 - No meeting, due to lack of quorum. August 1, 2002 - Board of Adjustment (3 members present) heard the request but could not agree on recommendation. The board did vote 3-0 to recommend that the City Commission impose a fine upon the contractor and bar the company from obtaining pemlits or working within the City for an appropriate time period. FINDINGS: 1) Lot No. 118 of Fox Glen at Chelsea Parc (in Tuscawilla) is zoned POO and has a Higher Density Residential Future Land Use designation. 2) The required rear yard building setback is 20 feet in Fox Glen at Chelsea Parc at Tuscawilla, as set forth on Plat Book 51, Page 1. 3) The lot backs up to a wall easement (with wall) that abuts the south side of the Winter Springs Boulevard right-of-way. 4) The applicant obtained and presumably posted a permit (and received at least one inspection) to pour the slab himself, but did not require the contractor to demonstrate that he had obtained or posted a pemlit. Although the applicant had received at least one inspection when he poured the slab, he did not question the lack of any apparent inspections for the porch. 5) On February 1, 2002, the after-the-fact building permit application was rejected by Building Permit Specialist Max Epstein for being inconsistent with the applicable 20' rear yard building setback. 6) On March 19,2002, the Code Enforcement Board heard Case No. CEB-Ol- 1298 and found Mr. Grimes and Affordable Screen & Patio in violation of building a screen room without a permit. The board allowed Mr. Grimes 90 days to obtain a variance. Mr. Grimes applied for the variance within 90 days. 7) On May 28, 2002, the variance application and fee to encroach 10 feet into the 20-foot rear building setback was received by the City. August 26, 2002 Regular Item A Page 3 8) 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; b. that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 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; d. that literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights conU1lOnly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary hardship on the applicant; e. that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; and 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. 9) The Board of Adjustment, at its August 1,2002, meeting, had three (3) members present and could not reach the required unanimous decision regarding a recommendation to approve or deny the variance request. 10) The Board of Adjustment did, however, vote 3-0 to recommend that City Commission impose an appropriate fine on Affordable Screen & Patio and bar them from obtaining permits within the City for an equally appropriate time period. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: At its regularly scheduled meeting of August 1,2002, the City of Winter Springs Board of Adjustment heard Mr. Grimes' request for a variance but could not agree on a recommendation of approval or denial. The board recommends that the City Commission determine and impose upon the contractor, Affordable Screen & Patio, both a fine and a time period during which that company will be barred from obtaining permits or doing work within the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff did not find the request to be consistent with any (with the possible exception of condi tion No.2) of six criteria necessary for granting a variance and recommends denial of the request. The BOA recommendation regarding the contractor appears fitting, although Mr. Grimes should not be absolved of the responsibility of ensuring that proper procedures were followed. August 26, 2002 Regular Item A Page 4 ATTACHMENTS: A - Plot plan B - Photocopy from final subdivision plat C - Variance application D - Board of Adjustment Draft Minutes E - Letter to property owners F - Applicants' support documentation COMMISSION ACTION: CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 1,2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Board Member Thomas Waters called the Regular Meeting to order Thursday, August 1, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the East Conference Room of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). Roll Call: Board Member John Herbert, present Board Member Jack Taylor, present Board Member Thomas Waters, present The Pledge of Allegiance follo'vved. .:. .:. AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLO'VING AGENDA ITEMS ARE DOCUMENTED IN THE ORDER DISCUSSED. .:..:. III. REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR A, Election of Officers, The Members of the Board, by consensus decided to forgo the Election of Officers until the next Regular Meeting. REGULAR B. Variancc Rcqucst For Rear Yard Building Sctback - Richard Grimes 1622 Fox Glen Court/Lot 118 Fox Glen At Chclsca Parc (Tuscawilla) Scction 6-2. (Compliance 'With Chaptcr) Scction 6-3, (Usc Of Building Efccted 014 Altcred In Violation Of Chaptcr) Mr. John Baker, AICP, Current Planning Coordinator, Community Development Department introduced the Agenda Item. Mr. Baker explained that Staff felt that the request did not meet all of the criteria with the possibility of number two (2) and recommended the request be denied. It was suggested by Mr. Baker that if the Board "Did find in favor of Mr. Grimes for the granting of the Variance that you would go through each one of the Variance criteria, those six (6) criteria that are in your Code book and in your packet, and show how you feel that it does meet that." ~ P=~- I"-C:1 .'~\,:\ .." :~; ~'...::'..'J ,.._.~ . . .t ......-.. .. .. r.-..~.1.. .... .. -... . " l:?=- . .:. t:::=; CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MrNUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETfNG - AUGUST 1,2002 PAGE20F6 Mr. Richard Grimes, 1622 Fox Glen Court, Winter Springs, Florida: distributed photographs and a packet of material. Mr. Grimes spoke of where the Affordable Screen's contract price included the permit and assumed that the permit was obtained; felt the City should take some action against Affordable Screens for violating the permit requirements; reviewed the definitions of a enclosed pool and screen enclosure from the Winter Springs Code of Ordinances (Sec. 6-211.); and the history of the home, slab and enclosure. Additionally, Mr. Grimes addressed each of the six (6) criteria and explained how his request met each of the criteria and presented a petition from the surrounding neighbors in support of the screen enclosure remaining as is. Discussion. Note: During the above discussion there was no in-depth review by Staff of the six (6) criteria requiredfor the Variance. Tape II Side B MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER TAYLOR. "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO GRANT THIS MINIMAL VARIANCE DUE TO SPECIAL EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES AS NOTED BY MR. GRIMES AND \VHICH IS NOTED IN THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THIS MEETING, AND IN ADDITION, I BELIEVED IT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP FOR HIM TO REMOVE THIS - ALSO I BELIEVE WE NEED TO - PASS TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THEY NEED TO REVIEW THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING AND FURTHER INVESTIGA TE THE PERMIT VIOLATION THAT HAS OCCURRED." SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERBERT, DISCUSSION, Board Member Jack Taylor further said, "J just would like to say that you presented a good case and J did go out and look at this area and I do not see it causing an undo hardship to anybody. r understand there are people in the neighborhood that have pool enclosures and have pools that back up to this area. This is a very small enclosure and I believe that it is extenuating circumstances that makes my recommendation." Board Member John Herbert said, "I don't want to add to that - it sounds fine, just the way you said that." Board Member Waters suggested that a recommendation be made to the City Commission to fine the contractor. ~ ..){-,.... t.:"'\~:1 ~~~::.~ ,.-....... -II ~,,,...._.iiJ c.:::.::;~ -:-.~~ I:.:r.:f' t:::::=: CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES 1l0ARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 1,2002 PAGE30F6 VOTE: BOARD MEMBER HERBERT: AYE BOARD MEMBER TAYLOR: AYE BOARD MEMBER WATERS: NAY MOTION DID NOT CARRY, Board Member Waters suggested that he would like to see Affordable Screens and Patio "Get fined at least twice what Mr. Grimes has spent. I would like to see, I am not sure that that could be done, I hate for him to have to spend $500.00 for someone else's mistake but that is what you had to do. I am a believer in that when someone does something wrong the cost involved should out-\veigh the how they benefited from this. r would like to entertain a Motion that we would pass on to the City Commission that they look into the process where they could fine the company at least twice what Mr. Grimes has spent and look at not allowing them do business in the City for a reasonable amount of time." MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER rrAYLOR. "I '''aULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT A MOTION." Discussion. BOARD MEMBER TAYLOR RESTATED TIlE MOTION. "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS' COMMISSION NEEDS TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER THIS PERMIT VIOLATION AND THAT WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE - COMPANY NAMED, AFFORDABLE SCREEN AND PATIO, SHOULD BE FINED $5,000.00 FOR THE HARDSHIP THEY HAVE CAUSED. I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT, ALSO TO ADD THAT - NOT TO ALLOW THEM NOT TO DO BUSINESS IN THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AS STIPULATED BY THE COMMISSION." SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERBERT. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER WATERS: AYE BOARD MEMBER TAYLOR: AYE BOARD MEMBER HERBERT: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Board Member Taylor advised Mr. Grimes to attend the City Commission Meeting to present his case before them. ~ ~, ~:;ao ~'" 1'"""C1 1"..... .., .,. ~~:~" ,~.> ~.:~ ~..J L J CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE 28 OF 41 "I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE - TO SECOND READING." MOTION. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Finance Department Requesting The City Commission Hold A Public Hearing On The Non-Ad Valorem Tax Assessment For Streetlighting Within The Country Club Village Subdivision And Provide Directions As Deemed Appropriate. Brief discussion. "MOTION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL STAFF CAN GET US A COPY OF THE AGENDA PACKET." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED. DISCUSSION. VOTE: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE MOTION CARRIED. XI. REGULAR - PART III (NEW AGENDA ITEMS FOR THIS MEETING) REGULAR A. Community Development Department Recommends Denial Of A Request For An After-The-Fact Variance By Richard Grimes From Sections 6-2., 6-3., 6-4., And 20-103. Of The City Code Of Ordinances, To Allow His Porch To Encroach 10 Feet Into The 20 Foot Rear Building Setback At The Rear Of The House. Mr. Baker introduced the Agenda Item. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 26,2002 PAGE 29 OF 4] Mr. Richard Grimes, 1622 Fox Glen Court, Winter Springs, Florida: addressed the Commission and spoke of his request for a Variance. Tape 3/Side A Discussion developed on screened enclosures; setbacks; and the possibility of installing a pool on the property. Commissioner Blake read from the City's Code of Ordinances and stated, "The solution is get a pool. That is my opinion." Further discussion. Commissioner Blake stated "Point of Order" and further spoke about pools. Commissioner McLeod spoke to Mr. Delmis Franklin, Building Official, Conmmnity Development Department about problem contractors and what should be done. Commissioner McLeod stated, "If we have significant infomlation that shows - several times this has gone on through the years - Mr. Grimes could write that, you can also support it and it would carry an awful lot of weight by you supporting it, going to Tallahassee." Furthemlore, Commissioner McLeod pointed out, "He is a licensed Contractor by the State of Florida, and you as a Building Official can definitely go after his license - and so can you sir [Mr. Grimes], and I would highly recommend you do that." Mr. Grimes explained that, "With Mr. Franklin's assistance, we did write and fill out a large form and sent it off to Tallahassee but we have not gotten a response back." In regards to the Contractor, Commissioner Martinez asked Mr. Franklin, "Don't you have grounds to stop him from performing within the City of Winter Springs?" Mr. Franklin said, "I believe the Statute gives the authority to the Building Official to suspend his permitting privileges in the City until he clears up all his violations." Commissioner Martinez added, "That would be you. Thank you very much. I await your response." Mr. Franklin stated, "I would probably like a little bit of guidance from the City Attorney on that; but I believe that's a fact, we can work on that I guess." Attorney Garganese stated, "That is an issue for another - time and place right now." "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McLEOD. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: NAY MOTION CARRIED. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 26. 2002 PAGE 30 OF 41 "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE STRUCTURE AT - FOX GLEN, CHELSEA PARK, LOT 118, BE DEEMED TO BE A SCREENED ENCLOSURE UNDER SECTION 6-211. OF OUR CITY CODES, IF IN FACT IT IS FOUND TO CONTAIN A POOL AS DEFINED ALSO IN SECTION 6-211. IN OUR CITY CODES." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL. DISCUSSION. MANAGER McLEMORE SAID, "WE NEED A PERIOD OF TIME BY WHICH WE BRING THIS TO CONCLUSION." COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ ADDED, "AS THE GENTLEMAN HIMSELF POINTED OUT, I THINK THIS CODE NEEDS TO BE REVISED. THERE HAS TO BE CHANGES TO ALLOW FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS NOT TO HAPPEN AGAIN." ATTORNEY GARGANESE ASKED, "IS THIS A CODE PROBLEM THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY AMENDING THE CODE TO MAKE IT MAKE MORE SENSE?" DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL ST ATED, "YES." COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ STATED, "YES." COMMISSIONER BLAKE STATED, "YES." COMMISSIONER BLAKE ADDED, "\VITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, HE WILL HAVE TO GET SOME INSPECTION FROM THE CITY THAT SAYS THAT IT IS A POOL ENCLOSURE ACCORDING TO OUR FINDINGS, BUT IT HAS TO HAVE A POOL IN THERE IN ORDER TO DO THAT." ATTORNEY GARGANESE ADDED, "IS THERE A MORE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH THE CODE..." COMMISSIONER BLAKE STATED, "...ABSOLUTELY..." ATTORNEY GARGANESE CONTINUED, "...THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED." COMMISSIONER BLAKE THEN SUGGESTED, "SO WHAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING IS INSTEAD OF THAT MOTION IS THAT WE - GRANT SOME SORT OF A STAY ON ANY ACTION AGAINST HIM DURING THE TIME FRAME THAT WE READDRESS THE CODE?" ATTORNEY GARGANESE STATED, "THAT IS ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT." COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ SAID, "YES." MANAGER McLEMORE STATED, "THAT IS A BETTER WAY TO DO IT." COMMISSIONER BLAKE ADDED, "I WOULD GO FOR THAT." FURTHER, COMMISSIONER BLAKE SAID, "BUT IF WE DO THAT, THEN THE GENTLEMAN IS STILL AT RISK BECAUSE THERE IS NO GUARANTEE AS TO WHAT LAW MIGHT BE PASSED, IF ANY, AT ALL. SO IF WE COULD DO THAT AND DO THIS AS WELL, THEN THAT GENTLEMAN COULD GO HOME SLEEPING BETTER." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE3IOF4I MANAGER McLEMORE STATED, "ADMINISTRATIVELY, HERE IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. BASED ON YOUR FINDINGS, THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE. WE ARE NOT GOING TO PURSUE THIS AGAINST HIM AS FAR AS MAKING HIM TEAR IT DOWN OR ANY PENAL TIES OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. WE ARE GOING TO BRING A CODE AMENDMENT AT THE NEXT MEETING IF POSSIBLE. THEN IF THAT CODE AMENDMENT DOES NOT PASS, THEN WE ARE COMING AFTER YOU - UNLESS YOU HAVE A POOL." "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT WE GIVE THE GENTLEMAN 120 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, IN OTHER WORDS THERE WOULD BE A POOL ON THE PREMISES." AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. DISCUSSION. VOTE (ON THE AMENDMENT): DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER McLEOD: NAY MOTION CARRIED. VOTE (ON THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED): COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER McLEOD: NAY DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Partyka stated, "City Attorney, what is your suggestion in terms of what ought to be done next from this - in terms of the major Code?" Attorney Garganese suggested, "I think that the Commission should amend the Code to permit screened enclosures within - the rear setback regardless of whether you have a pool or not." Commissioner Blake stated, "So, it would just amend the definition of screen enclosure in Section 6-211.?" Attorney Garganese stated, "Unfortunately, that Section is just pertaining to - it is the Pool Code..." Manager McLemore suggested, "... You need to direct Staff to bring it back..." Attorney Garganese added, "... We will bring back an Ordinance that is going to apply - in all situations." Mayor Partyka stated, "Does this Commission agree with all that? Come back - okay, you have it." COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM B CONSENT INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR X 03/1 0103 Meeting MGR ID EPT REQUEST: The Community Development Department presents a request for variances by James and Adele Kelsay from sections 6-2, 20-103, and 20-186 of the City Code of Ordinances, to allow the Kelsays to care for Ms. Kelsay's grandmother. The variances would (a) allow the existing house to remain encroaching approximately 2 feet into the 25 foot front yard and (b) encroach 10 feet into the 25 foot rear building setback to construct an additional bedroom on the concrete slab where an existing screened porch with an impervious roof is located at the rear of the house. An alternative location for the new addition, one which would encroach only 2 feet into the rear building setback, is also addressed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to first address the existing non-conforming situation (front and rear setback violations) and then address the request to allow expansion of this non-confornling building (Lot 16, Block E, North Orlando Terraces, Unit 1, Sec. 2, depicted in Plat Book 16, Pages 64 of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida). The applicable 25 foot rear building setback is set forth in the R-l zoning regulations (Section 20- 186), cited above. The pool deck encroachment into the 10 foot utility easement is a separate issue (not addressed in this item). The shed has been removed and is no longer an issue. CONSIDERATIONS: The applicants wish to add a bed room for Ms. Kelsay's grandmother, who currently lives in the house with the Mr. and Ms. Kelsay and their children. In 2002, the voters amended the state Constitution to provide property tax relief for construction or reconstruction of property for the purpose of providing living quarters for one or more natural or adoptive grandparents or parents of the owner of the property or of the owner's spouse if at least one the grandparents or parents for whom the living quarters are provided is 62 years of age or older. In response to staff suggestions, the applicant investigated constructing the addition on the side of the house. Due to the way the existing floor-plan (the way the rooms are laid out) a hallway would need to be constructed along the rear of the house. The architect has stated that the outside of the hall needs to extend up to 6 feet off the rear of the house to provide an adequate internal dimension. This would entail a variance to encroach as much as 2 feet into the rear February 6, 2003 Regular Item B Page 2 building setback to accommodate this hallway. This compromise was accepted and recommended by the BOA and staff as consistent with the concept that variances, if granted, should reflect the minimum necessary to accomplish a specific need. APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY: Florida Constitution Sec. 6-2. Compliance with Chapter [Chapter 6]. Sec. 20-82. Duties and powers; general. Sec. 20-103. Restrictions upon lands, buildings and structures. Sec. 20-186. Front, rear and side yard regulations. CHRONOLOGY: 1973 - Single family residence constructed 1981 - Pool & pool deck patio constructed 1997 - Screen porch constructed 2000 - Kelsays purchase house and property January 23,2003 - Variance application was received by City. February 6, 2003 - BOA hears request and makes recommendations to City Commission FINDINGS: 1) Lot No. 16, Block E, North Orlando Terrace, Unit 1, Section 2, is within the R-I zoning district and Moderate Density Residential Future Land Use designation (3.6-6.5 D.U./acre). 2) The required front and rear yard building setbacks are 25 feet, as set forth in Section 20-186 of the City Code. A note on the faces of Plat Book 16, Pages 63 and 64 states "ALL LOTS ARE A MINIMUM OF 60.0 FOOT WIDE AT A 25.0 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK LINE." 3) The applicant requested a variance to encroach 10 feet into the 25 foot rear building setback and approximately 2 feet into the 25 foot front yard building setback (setback encroachments that have existed since before the Kelsays purchased the house). Staff suggested several alternatives and the applicants investigated these with an architect. The BOA recommendations reflect a solution that incorporates one ofthe staff alternatives. 4) A variance requires compliance with all six (6) criteria outlined in Code Section 20-82 (staff does not believe that the request to encroach 10 feet into the 25 foot rear building setback meets any of the 6 criteria - the proposal recommended by the BOA appears to meet the criteria): February 6,2003 Regular Item B Page 3 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; The site is an existing non-conforming situation - all of the non- conformities occurred before the Kelsavs purchased the house. If the house were to be expanded, available space on either side of the house exists for a substantial room. Both locations (sides) are more expensive that the applicant's original proposal. The applicant has indicated interest in constructing a room on the side of the house, as suggested by staff, but states that, due to the internal layout of the house, the addition would need to be cOlmected with a hallway at the rear of the house. An architect has stated that to provide an adequate internal hallway width, the exterior of the addition would need to encroach as much as 2 feet into the rear setback. Staff believes the request meets criteria set by Code. The internal layout of the house renders other alternatives for adding a room for the grandmother impossible for all practical purposes. b) that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; The applicant did not create the situation. The builder and previous owner created the non-confonnity. 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; Granting the variance to the existing front setback encroachment for a mistake from 30 years past would not confer a special privilege; to expand the non-confom1ing structure 10 feet into the rear yard would confer special privileges upon the applicants; to allow the existing screened room with an impervious roof to remain and receive routine maintenance, would not confer any special privilege; to allow the hallway structure (leading to a new room or rooms on the side of the house) to encroach as much as 2 feet into the rear building setback of this 30 year-old non-confonning structure is the type of variance that maintains the integrity of the Code, while allowing a reasonable action - therefore staff does not feel that a special privilege would be conferred. d) that literal interpretation of the pfovisiollS of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary hardship on the applicant; February 6, 2003 Regular Item B Page 4 A literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter may be considered to deny the applicant's rights and may be considered to constitute a hardship - in terms of the 2 foot encroachment into the front setback or the 2 foot encroachment into the rear setback. The existing non-conforming situation may be maintained indefinitely as long as the non-conformities are not destroyed or demolished. e) that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure.; and There is already reasonable use of the land, building or structure, but the variance to the existing front setback encroachment and the 2 foot encroachment into the rear setback to add a hallway appears to be a reasonable solution and the minimum that does not penalize the applicant. The BOA and staff do not recommend a variance to the existing screen porch encroachment - only to allow it to remain as a non-conforming structure, to receive normal repair and maintenance, but not to be replaced. 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. To grant the original request for a 10 foot variance would be inconsistent with the intent and purpose of and undermine the code. Staff believes that the 2 foot front and the alternative 2 foot rear variance, given the layout of the existing house that was built 30 years ago, before the owner purchased it, would be consistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter, would not be injurious to the neighborhood, and would not be injurious to the public welfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff found the original variance request to build a room addition over the site of the existing non-conforming back porch addition inconsistent with the 6 criteria necessary for granting a variance and recommends denial of the request. Staff does, however, recommend approval of (1) a variance from the existing approximately 2 foot front yard encroachment and (2) as much as a 2 foot rear yard variance to allow construction of a hallway to lead to an addition on the northwest side of the house. Staff recommends that the existing rear porch remain as a non-confonning structure - to be either maintained or removed, but not to be replaced, except ifit were replaced as a screen enclosure (as set forth in Ordinance No. 2002-31). February 6, 2003 Regular Item B Page 5 ATTACHMENTS: A - Plot planJ"Land Description" B - Variance application C - Applicants' supporting documentation D - BOA Minutes BOA RECOMMENDATION: At its regularly scheduled meeting of February 6,2003, the City of Winter Springs Board of Adjustment (BOA) heard the variance request and made and passed three (3) separate motions to address the situation. The first motion was to approve a variance to the existing 2 foot front yard encroachment into the 25 foot front building setback. The second motion was to deny the request to build a new addition 10 feet into the 25 foot rear yard setback, but (as an alternative) to recommend approval of a variance for a 2 foot encroachment to allow for a confom1ing room to be built on the northwest comer of the house. The third motion was to recommend that the existing rear porch remain as is and repaired as needed and not to be altered in any way except for the addition of an entryway [the hallway] to the additional room to be located on the northwest comer of the house. CITY COMMISSION ACTION: MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 6, 2003 PAGE 2 OF 5 "I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE LEAVE THE OFFICERS AS THEY ARE." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERBERT. WITH CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD, THE MOTION WAS APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. REGULAR B. Request For A Conditional Use Within The City Of Winter Springs C-2 Zoning District, To Allow A Tattoo And Body Piercing Business At 883 and 885 North Highway 17-92. The Agenda Item was introduced by Ms. Eloise Sahlstrom, AlCP, ASLA, Senior Planner, Community Development Department. Chairman Waters disclosed past "Dealings with the Property Owner of this business in my other job. I did talk to the City Attorney about it and we agreed that it does not effect the decisions We make here tonight. I don't stand - anything to gain financially from it- and it is my responsibility to go ahead and hear and vote on it as anything else." "I MAKE A MOTION TO PASS ON TO THE COMMISSION THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT APPROVAL OF THE PRIMAL URGE TATTOOING AND BODY PIERCING AS A CONDITIONAL USE BE ApPROVED." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERBERT. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER HERBERT: AYE CHAIRMAN WATERS: AYE ': '~':.':' VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: AYE . ::':': .::: .MOTION CARRIED. . . : '. . : : . : : - REGULAR . C. Request Of .James and Adele Kelsay For A Variance To Allow. Construction Of A New Bedroom Addition To Encroach An Undisclosed Distance Into the 25-Foot Rear Building Setback Set Forth For the Property Located At 200 Birch Terrace. Mr, John Baker, AlCP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department introduced the Item and said, "We don't see that they meet the six (6) criteria for the Variance. We do however feel that the front setback where the house extends two feet (2') into the twenty-five foot (25') setback should be granted. I don't believe however that the rear setback Variance should be granted" and spoke of various alternatives for the addition. I I.~ l-- ~ L I CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 6, 2003 PAGE30F5 . Discussion followed regarding alternatives. Ms. Adele Kelsay, 200 Birch Terrace, Winter Springs, Florida: Spoke of working with and architect; requested two feet (2 ') in the setback; reviewed photographs with the Board Members; and referred to her letter addressing the six (6) criteria. Mr. Baker said Staffwould support a Variance for a "Reasonable width hallway". Further discussion.. Chairman Waters said he would entertain a Motion regarding the front setback. "I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE :rHEIR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES AS REFERENCED IN AGENDA ITEM 'c' TO ALLOW THE EXISTING HOUSE TO REMAIN ENCROACHING APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET (2') INTO THE TWENTY-FIVE FOOT (25') FRONT YARD." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERBERT. DISCUSSION. VOTE: VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: AYE CHAIRMAN \V A TERS: AYE BOARD MEMBER HERBERT: AYE MOTION CARRIED biscussion followed regarding the rear encroachment. "I am prepared to extend'the additional two foot (2') to allow them to build the room on the side of the house. I believe that is a fair and equitable solution to be honest with you. The way the law reads the way the Statutes read it is impossible for us to see where it can meet the six (6) criteria. - for the screened porch" was said by Vice Chairman Taylor. Board Member John Herbert said, "Everything I am listening to makes a lot of sense to me as to the location and what you are recommending." "I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A TEN FOOT (10') ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK AS REQUESTED, HOWEVER, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT A T'''O FOOT (2') ENCROACHMENT FROM THE REAR OF THE HOUSE INTO THE REAR SETBACK BE APPROVED TO ALLOW FOR A CONFORMING ROO1\1 TO BE BUILT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT HOUSE." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR. SECONDED BY BOARD l\1EMBER HERBERT. DISCUSSION. Tape I/Side B ~ trl ~. I / / CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTEs BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 6, 2003 PAGE40F5 VOTE: VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: AYE CHAIRMAIN WATERS: AYE BOARD MEMBER HERBERT: AYE MOTION CARRIED Chairman Waters said he would entertain a Motion to recommend to the City Commission to allow the porch "To stay as is and/or repaired as/when needed to maintain it - but not enclose or improved upon in that matter - except add the hall." "I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION - THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE REAR PORCH TO REMAIN AS IS AND REPAIRED AS NEEDED AND NOT TO BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY EXCEPT FOR THE ADDITION OF AN ENTRYWAY TO THE ADDITIONAL ROOM TO BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE HOUSE." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERBERT. DISCUSSION~ VOTE: CHAIRMAN WATERS: AYE BOARD MEMBER HERBERT: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: AYE MOTION CARRIED Chairman Waters commended Ms. Kelsay "On all her work and efforts." IV. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS V. REPORTS Members of the Board discussed with Staff the status of former Variance requests. VI. ADJOURNMENT "I MAKE A MOTION WE ADJOURN." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERBERT. DISCUSSION, WITH CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD, THE MOTION WAS APPROVED, MOTION CARRIED. !i8 ~ .~ --- --:.. ~ ~. .:, .. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 10,2003 PAGE 13 OF 20 "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER AND LEGAL COUNSEL TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON THE REFUNDING OF THE 1993 - REFUNDING OF THE IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING REVENUE BOND SERIES 1993 UTILIZING THE NEXT LEAD UNDERWRITER IN ROTATION WHICH I HAVE BEEN TOLD IS WILLIAM R. HOUGH [& CO.] - AS THE SENIOR, WITH HANIFEN IMHOFF [DIVISION - STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED] AND GARDNYR MICHAEL [CAPITAL, INC.] AS THE CO-UNDERWRITERS." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McLEOD. DISCUSSION. MANAGER McLEMORE STATED, "I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK AND READ THAT - WHAT YOU ADOPTED AND SEE IF IT PROVIDED FOR THIS TYPE OF THING." FURTHER, MANAGER McLEMORE SAID, "WE WOULD GO FORWARD WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. IF I FIND IT DIFFERENT, I WILL BRING IT BACK TO YOu." VOTE: COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE . : : . COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE .::::::. DEPUTY MAYOR MILLER: AYE , : : ~ .~: : ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : :VoIOTION CARRIED. ......... .......... ......... ....... ....... ...... '::::::.. '::~~GULAR ~:: :: : ::: .. 18. B. Community Development Department . " .' Presents A Request For Variances By James And Adele Kelsay From Sections 6-2., 20-103., And 20-186. Of The City Code Of Ordinances, To Allow The Kelsays To Care For Ms. Kelsay's Grandmother. The Variances Would (A) Allow The Existing House To Remain Encroaching Approximately 2 Feet Into The 25 Foot Front Yafd And (B) Encroach 10 Feet Into The 25 Foot Rear Building Setback To Construct An Additional Bedroom On The Concrete Slab Where An Existing Screened Porch With An Impervious Roof Is Located At The Rear Of The House. An Alternative Location For The New Addition, One Which Would Encroach Only 2 Feet Into The Rear Building Setback, Is Also Addressed. Mr. John Baker, AICP, Current Plmming Coordinator, Community Development Department presented his opening comments. Discussion. -;. (, ..... CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 10,2003 PAGE 14 OF 20 Tape 2/Side B Ms. Adele Kelsay, 200 Birch Terrace, Winter Springs, Florida: addressed the City Commission about this issue and advised those in attendance that she had notified all of her neighbors. Discussion ensued on the six (6) criteria. MOTION THAT STAFF WORK WITH - "THE HOMEOWNER TO PUT THE ROOM ON THE BACK WHERE THE LADY ORIGINALLY WANTED TO PLACE IT." MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR MILLER. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. DISCUSSION. DEPUTY MAYOR MILLER STATED, "POINT OF CLARIFICATION, "I ASSUME IT IS GOING TO CONFORM TO THE SLAB BACK THERE - IT IS NOT GOING TO EXCEED THAT SLAB - EXCEPT IN THE CORNER MAYBE, RIGHT?" MS. KELSAY STATED, "YES." DEPUTY MAYOR MILLER ADDED, "IT IS NOT GOING FURTHER BACK?" MS. KELSAY RESPONDED, "NO, SIR." VOTE: DEPUTY MAYOR MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: NAY COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE MOTION CARRIED. REGULAR 19. C. Community Development Department Recommends Approval Of A Request For A Conditional Use Within The City Of Winter Springs C-2 District, To Allow A Tattoo And Body Piercing Business At 883 And 885 North Highway 17-92. Ms. Sahlstrom said to the Commission, "I would like to request this Item be tabled, until I can obtain the withdrawl from the applicant, that I understand may be forthcoming." MOTION TO TABLE. MOTION. McGINNIS. DISCUSSION. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOTE: COMMISSIONER BLAKE: NAY COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR MILLER: AYE MOTION CARRIED.