Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 11 14 Regular 605 Amend Minimum Setback Requirements within PUD Section 6-86 COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 605 Consent Information Public Hearine: Re~ular X November 13, 2007 Special Meeting MGR. ~~/DePt~ I REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the City Commission provide certain clarification regarding its directive to amend the minimum setback requirements within PUDs, as set forth in Section 6-86 of the City Code. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to get some clarification of the Commission's directive and request the Commission consider an alternative, before taking the new language through the ordinance approval process. CONSIDERATION: At the special August 20, 2007 Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed a request by the residents of Casa Park Villas, to amend the minimum side and rear yard building setbacks within zero-lot-line developments that are located in Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). At that meeting, the Commission voted to instruct staff to bring forward a new ordinance, amending Section 6-86 of the City Code to allow screen enclosures with solid roofs, porches, and additions at the same 7 foot building setback from the rear property line currently allowed for screen rooms and pool enclosures. It appears that the motion included both zero-lot-line and standard detached single family residential developments within PUDs. The concern is that this revision does not address the needs of the property owners within zero-lot-line developments (a zero-lot-line development is designed so that, on separate platted lots, at least one or more of the building's sides may be constructed directly upon the lot line; patio homes may be attached at a common property line and meet the zero-lot-line definition). That was the focus of the original request. Many would still not be able to construct or reconstruct porches or additions to their homes on lots that were designed for no rear yard setbacks (except the applicable life-safety codes - i.e. building and fire codes). Further, staff believes that it would be inadvisable to lessen the minimum rear yard setbacks for detached single family residential from 10 feet in the rear (which was not part of the original request). Considerable coordination between staff and the City Attorney resulted in the existing single family detached residential setbacks and they have not been an issue with the public. November 13, 2007 Regular Agenda Item 605 Page 2 Staff foresees no major concerns in allowing zero rear yard setbacks in established zero-lot- line development in PUDs, other than the applicable life-safety code requirements, and the need to be consistent with the established development pattern (e.g. harmony and consistency). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Commission reconsider its directive for 7 foot rear setbacks in all residential PUD development and direct staff to proceed with an ordinance that allows a zero rear yard setback only in zero-lot-line developments within a PUD. The ordinance would amend Section 6-86 of the City Code. ATT ACHMENTS: A. Item 602, reviewed August 20, 2007 B. Minutes C. Zero Lot Line graphics CITY COMMISSION ACTION: ATTACHMENT A COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 602 August 13,2007 Meeting Consent Information Public Hearing Regular x Mgr. /Dept. REQUEST: Community Development Department requests that the City Commission review the situation regarding zero lot line developments with PUD zoning and provide direction. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to identify the nature of zero lot line development, state the applicable codes, provide a brief description of why these codes were enacted, to allow the Commission assess the existing regulations and to direct staff as they deem appropriate. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 6-85. Screen enclosures. Section 6-86. Minimum setback requirements within PUD zoning districts. CONSIDERATIONS: The process leading up to the current situation evolved through a series of events over a number of years. Staff believes that the following dialog regarding the pertinent terminology (e.g. what a screen room is, vs. a porch) and regulations may foster a better understanding of what we have and how we got it. The City contains a number of older PUDs, which do not have development agreements. For a number of these PUDs, the regulations for setbacks and a number of other important regulations were set forth only in the deed restrictions or homeowner documents. Previous staff actively enforced the homeowner documents, although the City Attorney has generally advised the current staff to not enforce these deed restrictions. The residents of some subdivision homeowner associations have allowed their HOAs and deed restrictions to lapse, further complicating the issue. 1. Screen Enclosures: Prior to 2002, the City Code permitted screen enclosures over swimming pools to be constructed closer to the rear property line than other attached structures, but required that they be over a swimming pool, as defined in Chapter 6 of the City Code. In October of 2002, the City responded to a request to construct a screen enclosure that would not be constructed over a swimming pool, by passing Ordinance No. 2002-31, which removed screen enclosures from under the rubric of swimming pools within Chapter 6 of the City Code. The new Section 6-85 clearly defines a screen enclosure as having and maintaining a mesh covering (roof), not smaller than twenty (20) by twenty (20) mesh or larger than eighteen (18) by March 12,2007 Regular Agenda Item 601 Page 2 fourteen (14) threads per inch. Any modification that, for example, added an impervious roof or impervious sides, required the structure to meet the principal building setbacks for applicable zoning district. Screen enclosures were required to meet all applicable front and side building setbacks, but were permitted within seven (7) feet of the rear property line (assuming no conflicting easements). 2. Minimum PUD building setbacks: The City found itself with building setback variance requests within some of the established Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), where it was determined that the City had no authority (other than applicable life-safety codes) to maintain minimum building setbacks - if a variance or waiver were granted by the applicable homeowners' association. The Commission determined that, under their existing regulations, they could regulate the location of accessory structures and screen enclosures, but were unable to regulate the location of a primary structure within certain PUDs within the City. In response, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 2004-31, which set forth minimum building setbacks within PUDs in Section 6-86. This included minimum setbacks for zero lot line developments (25' front, 10' rear, 5' on one side, and 25' for all comer sides). If there were a conflict between the minimum setback requirements and existing approved deed restrictions occurred, the more restrictive were to apply. If the building setbacks were set forth on a plat, within a development agreement, or within a settlement agreement, these would take precedent over the minimum setbacks in Section 6-86. 3. Relief: Various affected parties have complained that the current minimum PUD building setback regulations, which are more stringent than their deed restrictions, inhibit them from more fully developing and enjoying their property - in the manner in which their neighbors were allowed to do. The Code allows two (2) relief mechanisms, short of amending the Code: (a) a variance, which costs $500 and requires that applicant to demonstrate compliance with all of 7 very stringent criteria and (b) a waiver, which costs $500, but requires the applicant to demonstrate first that the applicable code requirement clearly creates an illogical, impossible, impractical, or patently unreasonable result and then demonstrate consistency with all of six (6) additional criteria (which are difficult, but not as difficult to demonstrate as the variance criteria). 4. Request: Various property owners at Casa Park Villas have written letters expressing their concern regarding the ramifications of Section 6-86 on their properties. They note that those properties without existing porches may be precluded from obtaining a building permit, based on the Code. They note that such porches were permissible, prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 2004-31. Owners of other zero lot line homes have also expressed discontent with Section 6-86. 5. Alternatives: Staff believes that if the Commission, after surveying the scope of the issue, believes that there is a significant problem, that the following alternatives may be considered in consultation with the City Attorney (other more appropriate alternatives may also be proposed and should also be considered): (a) amend Section 6-86 to allow a less stringent rear yard setback than the current 10'; and (b) provide a specific time period when resident owners can apply for a waiver with a reduced fee (a fee adequate to cover copying, signage, and notification). 2 March 12,2007 Regular Agenda Item 601 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Commission consult with the City Attorney, consider the depth and breadth of the issue, and provide staff direction to proceed. Staff recommends alternative "b," ATTACHMENTS: A Ordinance No. 2004-31 and associated Commission minutes B Ordinance No. 2002-31 and associated Commission minutes C Casa Park Request COMMISSION ACTION: 3 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 20. 2001 (CONTINUATION FROM THE AUGUST 13.2001 REGULAR MEETING) PAGE 190Fll .:..:. AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS WERE NOT VOTED ON AT TIDS MEETING. .:. .:. PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA- PREVIOUSLY LISTED ON THE AUGUST 13,2007 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 500.2 Community Development Department Requests The City Commission Review The Vertex Development, LLC Telecommunications Tower Site Plan, On A 70' x 70' Lease Site, At The Tuscawilla Country Club (1500 Winter Springs Boulevard), In The Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development (PUD). PUBLIC HEARINGS 500.3 Community Development Department Requests The City Commission Review The Vertex Development, LLC Telecommunications Tower Aesthetic Review, For A 150' (One Hundred And Fifty Feet) Tall Monopole In A SO' x 50' Fenced Compound With 10' Landscape Buffer On A 70' x 70' Lease Site, At The Tuscawilla Country Club (1500 Winter Springs Boulevard), In the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development (PUD). Manager McLemore left the Commission Chambers at approximately 8: 15 p. m. .:..:. AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLOWING REGULAR AGENDA ITEM WAS DISCUSSED NEXT, AS DOCUMENTED. .:. .:. REGULAR AGENDA - PREVIOUSLY LISTED ON THE AUGUST 13,2007 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA REGULAR 602. Community Development Department Requests That The City Commission Review The Situation Regarding Zero Lot Line Developments With PUD (planned Unit Developments) Zoning And Provide Direction. Mr. John Baker, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department presented this Agenda Item. Discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 20, 2007 (CONTINUATION FROM THE AUGUST 13,2007 REGULAR MEETING) PAGE 20 OF 22 Mayor Bush asked, "You mean the HOA (Homeowner's Association) documents take precedent over the City Codes?" Mr. Baker replied, "No, sir." Mr. Baker continued, "The most restrictive applies." Mayor Bush asked, "What if theirs is more restrictive than ours?" Mr. Baker replied, "Then that applies, yes Sir." Mayor Bush asked, "The HOA (Homeowner's Association's) applies?" Mr. Baker replied, "Yes, sir." Mayor Bush then asked, "What if the HOA (Homeowner's Association's) has expired, then it's the City right?" Mr. Baker noted, "That's a complication that we have consulted the Attorney on, and I'm not sure of the answer on that." Further discussion. "I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CHANGE THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW SCREENED ENCLOSURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODES WITH IMPERVIOUS ROOFS." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILMORE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BROWN. DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER GILMORE ADDED, "SCREENED PORCHES WITH IMPERVIOUS ROOFS." Tape 3/Side A COMMISSIONER GILMORE REMARKED, "I AM NOT SURE THAT IT SHOULD APPLY TO ANY." COMMISSIONER BROWN SAID TO COMMISSIONER GILMORE, "I ASSUMED THAT YOUR MOTION WAS TO JUST MAKE THE IMPERVIOUS ROOF THE SAME AS THE SCREEN ROOF?" COMMISSIONER GILMORE STATED, "THAT IS CORRECT." COMMISSIONER BROWN NOTED, "SO THAT MEANS WE JUST GO TO SEVEN FEET (7') ACROSS THE BOARD." VOTE: COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE COMMISSIONER BROWN: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McGINNIS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. "I MOVE THAT WE HAVE STAFF GIVE US A ROUGH ESTIMATE, I KNOW IT CAN'T BE EXACT, OF THE COSTS TO THE CITY FOR PEOPLE APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE." MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR MCGINNIS. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETrNO - AUGUST 20. 2007 (CONTINUATION FROM THE AUGUST 13. 2007 REGULAR MEETING) PAGE 21 OF 22 VOTE: COMMISSIONER BROWN: NAY COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER KREBS: NAY COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bush mentioned an email from a resident about a damaged recycling bin. Manager McLemore returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:36 p.m. With discussion, Mayor Bush commented on Resolution 2004-41 which includes Fees for replacement bins. "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND THAT - DOCUMENT THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THAT IF A RESIDENT BRINGS IN SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN DAMAGED AND I WOULD SAY TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU TELL THAT, THAT WE REPLACE IT FREE OF CHARGE." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KREBS. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BROWN. DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER KREBS STATED, "EXCHANGE." MAYOR BUSH NOTED, "2004-41, RESOLUTION, TALKS ABOUT THE RECYCLE BIN POLICY." FURTHERMORE, MAYOR BUSH STATED, "SO WE WOULD BE AMENDING RESOLUTION 2004-41 TO ALLOW FOR THE EXCHANGE OF DAMAGED RECYCLED BIN." VOTE: COMMISSIONER BROWN: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR MtGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bush then mentioned a bill for the Conference of Mayors and said that, "I am not going to recommend paying this unless the Commission thinks we should." Deputy Mayor McGinnis stated, "No." Commissioner Krebs remarked, ''No.'' Commissioner Krebs then spoke of Winding Hollow trash cans. ATTACHMENT C U~_,__ .it!l!IIliii@lllill...........~ e..r.nI i ""_11._.11_ i1i:""_''''._ .,<1_. ., . ..- S ft. I 10 fl ,,/~, II "' .. , ... " ..., ... ~" rfI'