HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Agenda Pkt. 12-7-2009rinto• r)on kor I 7(lrl�
vac. I wk -.-II I , cvvo
To: Board of Adjustment members
From: Barry Brown, Planning and Development Director
RE: December 07, 2009 Board of Adjustment Meeting
The first item on the agenda is a request for five variances to accommodate a pool
screen enclosure, a privacy fence, accessory structure (shed), and pool accessory
(pump) at 201 Tyler Avenue. Please see my memo for a detailed description.
The second item on the agenda is a review and discussion of the "draft" Final Visioning
Report. The City Council has requested that all advisory boards review the visioning
report and provide their thoughts which will be conveyed back to the Council. A CD of
the report is included in your packet. You can also visit the East Central Florida
Regional Planning Council website and download the report.
To access the report visit www.ecfrpc.org and click on "ftp access" on the right hand side of the
homepage.
To view in Windows Explorer, click "Page", and then click "Open FTP Site in Windows Explorer"
To download files type:
Username: pdownload
Password: 219dlpublic
The document is under the folder titled "Cape Canaveral Final Report". This is a large file and may take
several minutes to download.
Finally, the Board needs to pick a new night to meet as Monday night will no longer be
available when we move into the new Council Chambers located in the library. See
calendar for possible dates.
Don't hesitate to call me if you have questions, 868-1206.
ROLL CALL:
NEW BUSINESS:
Ci f Cape Canaveral
Community Development Department
gRD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
AGENDA
111 POLK AVENUE
DECEMBER- 7; 2009
7:00 P.M.
1. Motion Re: Approval of Meeting Minutes - August 31, 2009.
2. Motion Re: Variance Request No. 09-02 to Allow a Screen Enclosure Side
Setback of 10 ft.; a Screen Enclosure Rear Setback of 4 ft.; a Side Yard Setback of 9
ft. from a Public Street Right -of -Way for a 6 ft. High Fence; a Rear Setback of 3.3
ft. for a Shed; and a Side Yard Setback of 4 ft. 8 in. for Pool Accessories - Section
23, Township 24 South, Range 37 East, Block 42, Lot 1.01, Avon by the Sea
Subdivision, (201 Tyler Avenue) - David D. Jones, MD and Heather Parker -Jones,
PHD, Petitioners.
3. Consensus Re: Selection of a New Meeting Night.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
ADJOURN:
Pursuant to Section 286.1015, Florida Statutes, the City hereby advises the public that: If a
person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of Adjustment with respect to any
matter considered at this meeting, that person will need a record of the proceedings, and for
such purpose that person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be
based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission
into evidence of otherwise allowed by law. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to
participate in any of these proceedings should contact the City Clerk's office at 868-1221
(48) hours in advance of the meeting. This meeting may include the attendance of one or
more members of the Cane Canaveral City Colzncil and/or Ch„aci-„dirial Board mAmb--
who may or may not participate in Board discussions held at this public meeting.
7510 N. Atlantic Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Building & Code Enforcement: (321) 868-1222 • _Planning & Development (321) 868-1206 • Fax & Inspection: (321) 868-1247
www.cityofcapecanaveral.org , email: ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com
City of Cape Canaveral
Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
August 31, 2009
A Meeting of the City of Cape Canaveral Board of Adjustment was held on
August 31, 2009 at the City Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Assistant Ciiy Attorney, Kate Latorre, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
The Secretary called the roll.
John Bond
Paula Collins
Dennis Jenkins
George Sweetman
Linda Brown
Douglas Raymond
OTHERS PRESENT:
Susan Chapman
Kate Latorre
Bea McNeely
Robert Hoog
Barry Brown
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
1 st Alternate
Secretary
Assistant City Attorney
Ex officio Member
Mayor Pro Tem
Planning & Development Director
All people giving testimony were sworn in by Assistant City Attorney, Kate
Latorre.
John Bond, Chairperson, announced that the Planning & Zoning Board Meeting
Minutes contained in the board packets were in a draft version only and would
not be official until they were approved by the Planning & Zoning Board.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion: Approval of Meeting Minutes - June 22 2009
John Bond, Chairperson, made a clarification on page 4 of the June 22, 2009,
where he advised that he would add a condition onto a motion. He requested
that the minutes be clarified that the motion was never made.
Motion by John Bond, seconded by Linda Brown, that the meeting minutes of
June 22, 2009, is approved with the noted clarification. Vote on the motion
carried unanimously.
Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
August 31, 2009
Page 2
2. Motion Re: Variance Request No. 09-03 to Allow a Six -Foot Hiah Chain
Link Fence Within 25 Feet of a Public Right -of -Way in the C-1 Zoning
4 ADisL.:cL, (8 801 1/lksL ro au1 Boulevard),
Section
15 Township
ownship 24 South,
Range 37 East, Parcel 817.0 - David Gal Applicant for Xtreme Fun LLC
Petitioner.
John Bond, Chairperson, read the agenda item for the record.
Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, gave a staff report. He advised
that this was a request for a Variance to allow for a fence to be 6 feet in height
rather than the four feet called for in Section 110-470(3) of the City code; the
applicant and owner was David Gal; the subject property was the Traxx Family
Fun Center located at the northwest corner of Al and Central Boulevard; the
surrounding zoning was as follows: North - C-1, East - C-2, South - C-1, and
West - R-3; surrounding uses were as follows: North - Race Trac, East -
Sheldon Cove, South - Zachery's Restaurant; and West - Puerto del Rio
condominiums. Mr. Brown described the property as Traxx Family Fun Center,
an amusement center that includes: go-carts, golf, arcade games, batting cages,
and laser tag. A six foot high chain link fence was currently located along the
west, north, and portions of the east (A1A) and south (Central Blvd.) sides of the
property. A 4 ft. high multi -colored wood fence was currently installed along the
remaining portions of the east and south sides of the property, at the intersection
of A1A and Central Boulevard. Because of theft and vandalism, the applicant
would like to extend the 6 ft. high chain link fence along the remainder of the east
(A1A) and south (Central Blvd.) boundaries to completely enclose and secure the
property.
Mr. Brown advised that the City Code of Ordinances, Section 110-470 (3), in
part, stated that: "In any commercial or industrial district, no fence or wall in any
side or rear yard shall be over ............. four feet in height if within 25 feet of any
public riaht-of-way." He clarified that accordina to thn rndP a $cAnrr may only he
4 ft. high if located within 25 ft. of the right-of-way, therefore the applicant would
need a Variance to install the requested 6 ft. high chain link fence within 25 ft. of
the right-of-way.
Mr. Brown explained that he could see where this type of use has special
security needs not anticipated in the code; other businesses in town have
equipment that might be the target of thieves, but this type of use probably has
more equipment and machines that are desired by thieves. He referred the
Board members to the attached reports from the Brevard County Sheriffs Office,
contained in their board packets, confirming the owner's claim of theft and
vandalism. He further explained that the amusement center does not operate 24
ours per day nor does it rrdve on-site security Z-4 nrs/day. /'Also, Funni;i4ia trip_
other amusement center in the city, has a 6 ft. high chain link fence around the
perimeter of its operation. In addition, the chain link fence is probably safer from
a child containment standpoint than the existing fence.
Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
August 31, 2009
Page 3
Mr. Brown advised that the Planning & Zoning Board recommended approval
with the following conditions: That the new fence be located a minimum of 2 112
feet from the existing sidewalk and on the applicant's property; and the existing
wooden fence be removed when the new fence is installed. He advised that staff
recommended approval to the Board of Adjustment with the conditions
recommended by the Planning & Zoning Board, as well as the following: The
Variance be conditioned on the property remaining in the current use as an
amusement center; and the entire fence including: chain link, rails, and posts be
vinyl coated in either dark green, dark brown, or black color.
Mr. Gal, applicant, described the type of theft and vandalism that occurred on his
property. He advised that his type of business was an attractive nuisance to
thieves and vandals. He explained the various safeguards were already in place,
and planned to continue to improve and expand them; however, the thefts were a
result of easy access to the property over the existing 4 ft. fence; and kids have
been seen going over the fence and jumping off the rocks into the pond area. He
agreed that if the Variance is granted, he would remove the existing 4 ft. wooden
fence when the 6 ft, chain link fence is installed. Mr. Gal advised that he did not
price -out aluminum fencing, because a 6 ft. green vinyl chain link fence would
match the existing fence that already exists. Mr. Brown advised that he had a
price quote for an aluminum fence and stated that it was almost twice as
expensive as vinyl chain link. Mr. Gal clarified that the existing chain link fence
was green vinyl. The Board members held discussion regarding fencing around
the pond. The Board members voiced concerns regarding aesthetics of chain
link fencing along Al A.
Discussion was held regarding if fences needed approval by the Community
Appearance Board. Mr. Brown advised that in the past, fences were brought to
Communitv Aooearance Board. but staff en(ipd that nrartir.p at the PnrI of 9nrr7
He advised that he reviewed the City code regarding responsibilities of the
Community Appearance Board, and he did not interpret the code as calling for
fences going to the Board.
John Bond, Chairperson, advised that based on the police reports some type of
added security was needed. He commented that he drove around to various
locations throughout the City and found some of the chain link fences needed
maintenance; and it was evident the businesses that had chain link fences (some
with barbed wire) were trying to protect their property. He noted that some of the
businesses had items and equipment that could not be kept inside buildings;
therefore, protection and security measures such as chain link fences were in
place.
Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
August 31, 2009
Page 4
Assistant City Attorney, Kate Latorre, directed the members to page 15 of the
board packet. Discussion was held regarding criteria to form a motion.
1"viotioni by john i Bond, seconded by Paula Collins, to grant the applicant's request
for a Variance for a 6 ft. high chain link fence to be located within 25 feet of a
public right of way, in the C-1 zoning district, with the following conditions:
• The new fence shall be located a minimum of 2 1/2 feet from the existing
sidewalk and on the applicant's property.
• The existing wooden fence shall be removed when the new fence is
installed.
• The new fence shall be located a minimum of 2 1/2 feet from the existing
sidewalk and on the applicant's property.
• The existing 4 ft. wooden fence shall be removed when the new fence is
installed.
The Variance is granted, based on the criteria that special conditions and
circumstances exist, which are unique to the land, structure or building involved,
that are not applicable to other lands, buildings or structures, in the same zoning
district. The literal interpretation of the provisions set forth in Section 110-470.(3)
of the Cape Canaveral code of Ordinances, under which the Variance is being
sought, would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same zoning district, and would work unnecessary and create
undue hardship on the applicant. The special conditions and circumstances do
not result from the actions of the applicant. The approval of the Variance will not
confer on the applicant any special privileges that are denied by the Ordinance to
other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The granting of the
Variance is the minimum that would make possible use of the land, building or
c++r��n���rr, i ice,.., r, r.r"�.�,I ..f+111. \/...- -- .... ....J:1:----1 ..."I V- :._ t--'-'--- --- ----°ii_
ou uk,cuo c. o o is aNN1 oval lJ1 ti 1c v Ci11Cl1 II.C, c1J GUI IUIIIVf 1CU, WIII Ue ill (idr(TlUny Wltn
the general intent and purpose of the zoning code, will not be injurious to the
neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
OPEN DISCUSSION
Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, invited all the members to attend
the next Visioning workshop. He advised that the results of visual preference
survey would be announced; the visioning mission statement would be finalized;
and the results of the real estate analysis would be explained, including the
properties that were being underutilized, and of how certain properties might ight be
aggregated to have a large enough parcel to create a modern development.
Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
August 31, 2009
Page 5
Dennis Jenkins asked Mr. Brown how the City would start implementing and
migrating toward the visioning change without undue hardship to businesses,
suchTr Vv � mild G - -r Center. nn.- D. -r... n .J "I L 1__ L__:.__.
v. i as inn a, u��r u� vc� ��GI . IVu . ul VVYI a1 IsvVe1 eU Mat I IC was 11U FJ 111(J, one
of the outcomes of the visioning would be a call for some architectural design
standards, of which fencing would be part of that. Discussion continued
regarding various aspects of visioning for the city's future.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
Approved on this day of .2009.
John Bond, Chairperson
Susan L. Chapman, Secretary
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
Board of Adjustment
December 7, 2009
STAFF REPORT
Request: For the following Variances: (1) a screen enclosure side yard setback of 10
ft• rather than the 15 ft rr-Aleri fnr hu Rertinn 11 n-5Rd(;gV 11• 171 a screen enclosure rear
setback of 4 ft. rather than the 5 ft. per Section 110-384(a)(4) of the code; (3) a side
yard setback from a public street right-of-way of 9 ft. for a six ft. high fence rather than
the 25 ft. per Section 110-470(1); (4) a rear setback of 3.3 ft. for an accessory structure
(shed) rather than the 5 ft. per Section 110-468(a); and (5) a side yard setback for pool
accessories (pump) of 4 ft R inches rather than the 15 ft. per Sectio i 110-5v4(c) of the
code.
Applicant and Owner: David D. Jones, MD and Heather Parker -Jones, PhD.
Subject property: 201 Tyler Ave. Corner of Tyler and Poinsetta.
Future Land Use and Zoning designation: R-2, Residential
Surrounding zoning:
North — R-2, Residential
East — R-2, Residential
South — R-2, Residential
West — C-1, Commercial
Surrounding uses:
North
— Residential
East —
Residential
South
— Residential
West —
Lavilla Apartments
Description
The Joneses purchased a townhome at 201 Tyler in June of 2008 for weekend use.
The townhome was constructed in 1983 and the pool was constructed in 1986 without a
screen enclosure. Members of Jones family are highly allergic to mosquito bites. In
addition, cabbage palms and a banyan tree located adjacent to the pool drop leaves,
berries, and blooms into the pool creating a maintenance issue. Therefore, the
Joneses decided to have a screen enclosure constructed over the pool. Earlier this
year they retained Coastal Craftsman to construct a screen enclosure. Unfortunately,
Coastal Construction failed to pull the proper permits resulting in a screen enclosure
that was constructed illegally, was not property engineered, and does not meet our code
for side and rear setbacks. The Joneses did not realize that the enclosure Was not
properly permitted and that it did not meet our code. When it was brought to their
attention, they wanted to file for the proper permits and follow the provisions of our
code. In evaluating their application for a screen enclosure, it was discovered that there
were several nonconformities with the recently constructed screen enclosure and as
well as existing privacy fence, shed, and pool pump.
Our current code calls for a 15 ft. side yard setback for the pool, enclosure, and
accessories. The pool is 15 ft. from the side yard property line and meets the current
code. However, without a variance the screen enclosure would have to be built on the
lip of the pool and therefore one would not be able to walk around the perimeter of the
pool. In order to allow for reasonable use of the pool and ability to walk around
perimeter of the pool the applicant is requesting side setback of 10 ft. for screen
enclosure rather than 15 ft. per code. The applicant is also requesting a rear setback of
4 ft. rather than 5 ft. per code in order to keep the screen enclosure as is currently
installed along the rear of the pool deck. The applicant is requesting a fence sethack of
9 ft. rather than the 25 ft. per code in order to have a 6 ft. high wooden stockade fence
for privacy. In addition, they are requesting a variance for the pool equipment setback
of 4'8" rather than 15 ft. per code. And finally a request for a rear setback variance for
the shed of 4ft. rather than 5 ft per code.
Pertinent sections of code:
Sec. 110-584. Minimum setbacks.
(a) The minimum setbacks for swimming pools, enclosures and accessories shall be
as follows and shall be in compliance with the electrical code as adopted in Chapter 82
of the City of Code of Ordinances:
(1) Front, 25 feet (see subsection (b) of this section).
(2) Side (interior lot line), eight feet.
(3) Side (corner lot line), 25 feet; on all nonconforming lots of record 15 feet (see
subsection (b) of this section.)
(4) Rear, five feet (see subsection (c) of this section).
(b) See section 110-536 for special setbacks.
(c) In no event shall a swimming pool, screen enclosure or accessory feature be
located within 15 feet of a property line that abuts and runs parallel to a public street.
Sec. 110-470. Fences, walls and hedges.
(a) Fences and walls may be permitted in any yard, except as specified in section 110-469,
provided the following restrictions shall apply:
(1) In any residential district, no fence or wall in any side or rear yard shall be over six feet in
height or over four feet in height if within 25 feet of any public right-of-way, unless otherwise
specified in this section;
Sec. 110-468. Accessory structures.
(a) No accessory structure shall be erected in any front yard, and the accessory structure shall
not cover more than 30 percent of any required rear setback. No separate accessory structures
shall be erected within tee feet of any building on the same lot or within five feet of any lot line.
An accessory structure shall not exceed 24 feet in height. However, a lot with a one- or two-
family residence only may have one additional accessory structure erected per unit, not to
exceed 100 square feet with a maximum height of ten feet if detached or 32 square feet with
maximum height of ten feet if attached in rear setback. In new construction an accessory
building may not be constructed prior to the construction of the main building. No accessory
building shall be used for any home occupation or business or for permanent living quarters; it
shall contain no kitchen or cooking facilities. It may be used for housing temporary guests of the
occupants of the main ill lilding, It is not to hP rented or ntheRklise used as a separate d:yelling,
(b) Storage or utility sheds of a temporary nature, without a permanent foundation, not over
100 square feet in size or more than seven feet high, are exempt from this section, provided
thevnrP in the rear vara only
- --- --- - --- . - -- - -- -...J.
Variance evaluation criteria per Sec. 110-37 and Staff Analysis
All variance recommendations and final decisions shall be based on an affirmative
finding as to each of the frArllA;ing;
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands,
buildings or structures in the same district.
Screen enclosure - the pool is 15 ft. from the property line; without a variance it is not
possible to construct an enclosure that would allow a person to walk around the pool.
There ,s nothing peculiar about the pool and deck that would preclude the applicant
from meeting the rear setback per code.
Fence - a side yard setback of 25 ft. for a 6 ft. high fence is onerous. A corner lot
cannot have a privacy fence that any other lot could have without giving up 25 ft. of side
yard.
Shed - A permit was pulled for a shed in 1986, but we are not sure that existing shed is
the one the permit was pulled for. Regardless, the shed is not located per the permit or
current code. There are no conditions peculiar to this property that would support the
need for a rear setback variance.
Accessories - given size and shape of the yard and location of the pool, there is no
._1_- J_ i_ 1___i_ it__ _t
place per code co ioca�e the pool accessories.
2. Literal interpretation 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 and undue hardship on the
applicant.
Screen enclosure - They would be deprived of having a screen enclosure over pool that
allowed reasonable use of the pool.
Fence - The applicant wnuld be deprived of having a privacy fence that others in the
same zoning district enjoy.
Shed - No, the applicant would not be deprived of right to have accessory structure
(shed) that others would have.
Accessories - Yes, no location per code for accessories.
3. The special conditions and circumstances referred to in subsection (1) do not
result from the actions of the applicant.
The only circumstance requiring a variance that is of the applicants doing is the rear
setback for the screen enclosure. All other circumstances were existing when the
applicants purchased the property.
4. Approval of 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.
No, it is not a special privilege to have a screen enclosure, privacy fence, and pool
accessories in this zoning district. It is a special privilege to have an accessory
structure (shed) that does not meet code.
5. The requested variance is the minimum variance from this chapter necessary,
to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure.
All requested variances are the minimum variance from the code to make reasonable
use of the pool, enclosure, fence, shed, and accessories.
6. The approval of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and
purpose of this chapter, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
All requested variances are in harmony with general intent of the chapter and are not
injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to public welfare.
Staff Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board
Staff does not support variances necessary to allow for the screen enclosure as
constructed, but it is clear that without a screen enclosure adequate mosquito control is
not possible and maintenance of the pool would be burdensome. Staff supports
necessary variances to reasonably accommodate a screen enclosure, privacy fence,
and pool accessories, but staff does not support rear setback variances for pool
enclosure and shed. Specifically, staff supports a side yard of 10 ft. for the screen
enclosure and 0 ft. for the fence as this will allow for reasonable use of the pool while
minimizing the encroachment and variance requested. Staff also supports pool
accessory variance as theapplicantinherited the pool pump where it is; it is not causing
a problem; and there is no place to locate the pump per code. However, staff does not
M
support rear setback for enclosure and shed. The screen enclosure can easily be
relocated to meet code and the shed is in disrepair and deteriorating and not suitable as
a host structure for support of the enclosure. The shed should probably be demolished
and replaced with a new shed per code.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: P&Z Board recommended approval
of the side setback variance for the screen enclosure, the setback for the fence, and the
setback for the pool accessories (pump) and recommended denial of the rear setback
for the screen enclosure and the shed. This is the same as staffs recnmmenriatinn_
Staff Recommendation to the Board of Adjustment: Same as recommendation to
the P&Z Board and the P&Z Board recommendation to the Board of Adjustment.
5
--l— l\ Jul,DL LN". Vl—VG
201 Tyler Avenue
City of Cape Canaveral
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Date Filed Co -ani-o9 Fee Paid$s<,�i� $250 Filing Fee is non-refundable
Description of Request: (Insure that the specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance
that allow & support your request are noted). Attach separate sheet if necessary.
-e
Address of request:
Legal Description:
1) 0 / %;
e, 02 � a/ / i /
'72-Z8 ®vt e FL 3ar165
Lot(s) Block 1 Subdivision AffibLi'�tL e Sent,,
Section a j _, Township a15 Range -�'] F
PrvOrl by e �u.b c L) 31 o ri
STATE. —ENT OF FACT: State of Finrida
- 111 SLY V1 Lre VQrU
I, i <i �fbr zvl�rsl ;Scnh s , � ,b being duly sworn, depose and say that:
� I am the owner.Cs) J
I am the owner(s) designated agent.(Attach notarized letter of authorization).
Owners) Name: 'Dp vid D. )C Ai eS. Alb /ZAIC 1111 j)
Address: 2 ----7'v14 Y- Ove , L: CG'
Home Pho9 )10/ Work Phone: V7 31? AFS 2- FAX: f 3S f; a7J`�z i
All information, sketches and data contained and made part of this request, are
honest and true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Sworn to Arid subscribed before me
on th; s �`V-day of _t Orr t� Zc 1
Notary Public, St -45 %df Florida
Signature,of Applicant:
r-'
MIA 6QFGRTH
Notary Public - State of Florida
W
Ay COMM. CwAira4 &Ahi... at Tina
r..T....r rJ iV, a.vIV
�COMMIU1on 0 DO 553695
The completed request form and the $250.00 filing fee mus o s. 14 days
prior to the, PIanning & Zoning Board meeting. The Board of Adjustment meeting will be set after the request is
heard by the Planning & Zoning Board.
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Notice of Public Hearing Published in Newspaper on
Notice to applicant be Certified Mail No.
Notice posted on Bulletin Board on
Notice posted on subject property on
Property owners w/ in 500 ft- notified on
Variance Application/ Aug.00 /Page 1 of 4
on
VARIANCE APPLICATION WORKSHEET
ianance Request No. 09-02
Allow a Screen Pool Encl. in
ide setback at 201 Tyler Avenu
This worksheet must be completed, legible, and returned, with all required enclosures
referred to therein, to the Building Department, at least 14 days prior to the scheduled
meeting to be processed for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board for study and
recommendation to the Board of Adjustments. You and your representative are required to
attend the meetings and will be notified by certified mail of the date and the time of the
meetings. The Planning & Zoning Board holds its regular meeting on the 2nd and 4th
Wednesdays of every month at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape
Canaveral, Florida, unless otherwise stated. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
MUST BE SUPPLIED TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION.
1. See STATEMENT OF FACT (attach notarized letter of authorization if not actual owner)
2. PROPERTY ADDRESSOFREQUEST: (if address is not available, give general location)
3. COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
PROPERTY-
Lot: �.t Block_ - ( Subdivision:
Parcel: Section �) Twp,
4. Size of Subject Property (calculate acreage):_, 11 O..CMS
5. Ordinance Section under which Variance is being sought: �c AIC>d? 110-50 7
. 6. Current Zoning Classification of Subject Property:
7. Attach to this worksheet a letter giving a complete description of the Variance requested
and any and all pertinent details and information.
8. VAR A� �7CES ARE TO BE AUTHORIZED WHERE THEY ARE NOT CONTRARY TO
THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHERE, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS A LITERAL
ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN
UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE ORDINANCE SETS FORTH SPECIFIC x_
CONDITION Y HICH l,TUST ALL BE DEMONSTRATED BY THE APPLICANT
BEFORE THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, PLEASE
ADDRESS EACH ONE IN WRI ING. IF THE APPLICANT CAN NOT
SATISFACTORILY ADDRESS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, THIS SHOULD SERVE AS A
PP.ELIMINAP.Y INDICATION THAT THE APPLICATION 2vZA�' BE REJECTED.
Variance Application/Aug.00/Page 2 of 4
THE CONDITIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS AND ITEMS (A) THROUGH (F) MUST BE
ANSWERED IN FULL: (Ordinance 110-62)
A. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are unique to the land,
structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, buildings or
structures in the same r—Est-rict. / ,^L
i�A�r J l C
Al
f' o Y �A
l/_ �l t" 6/a k-1 l' /'C Z'
5f/P7 fv/<
✓% C C c��!'�l�lC ?0
B. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would deprive
the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning
district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
7oal
i Pio / . -fit . — /.
I e v
C. That the special conditions and circumstances referred to in item (A) above do not
result from the actions of the appl;cant.
CIL-
WC GCl rrc - c' 1 / ,Z�5 -
/Y 6,c- llaVi-�' c�7lGl�rGy-�J P• %lrr'Y lr s r �.n / S;
� D. That granting the variance requested will not corLfer�on the applicant any special
privileges that are denied by the ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in
the sa-,ne district.
7,
Variance Application/ Aug.00/ Page 3 of 4
CaVJf
tAylo&- CcJ'Tal,11
LL,,,
(�ca U' G7ctt�fG
T/7i-r e 1'G(14,
!a,ff
�L r i
iG�lc�cj��r'
I e v
C. That the special conditions and circumstances referred to in item (A) above do not
result from the actions of the appl;cant.
CIL-
WC GCl rrc - c' 1 / ,Z�5 -
/Y 6,c- llaVi-�' c�7lGl�rGy-�J P• %lrr'Y lr s r �.n / S;
� D. That granting the variance requested will not corLfer�on the applicant any special
privileges that are denied by the ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in
the sa-,ne district.
7,
Variance Application/ Aug.00/ Page 3 of 4
E. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and
that the variance, if granted, is the minimum that would make possible use of the
land, building or structure.
Cp /GrGN/�� /yzu"7ou%1 l9 +er� c��l v! �c rz_44 c/1G"del TG /
F. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and
purpose of the zoning code, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or nfkP-nA7ise
detrimental to the public welfare.
'�41 S b"A V, i ca Pi
Too l e- VC/L" 54Lrc- 6.t.i;/% e�}�Tec% ON (f Ai��,�
rtv'-' c A4ef /-� iG�..r �� k',lrs c c14/1/
6�7-e
WHILE THESE CONDITIONS MAY SEEM UNDULY HARSH AND STRINGENT TO THE
INDIVIDUAL APPLICANT, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS
ENACTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE BE REQUIRING AN
ORGANIZED AND CONTROLLED PATTERN OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
IT SHOUT D'BE NOTED THAT THE DIFFICULTIES OR HARDSHIPS RELIED UPON MUST BE
UNIQUE TO THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY (E.G., PECULIAR LOT SHAPE) NOT GENERAL IN
CHARACTER, SINCE DIFFICULTIES OR HARDSHIPS SHARED WITH OTHERS IN T -HE AREA
GO TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ZONING GENERALLY, AND WILL NOT SUPPORT A
VARIANCE. IF THE HARDSHIP IS ONE THAT IS COMMON TO THAT AREA, THE REMEDY IS
TO SEEK A CHANGE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
9. At -tach a list of names and addresses of all property owners within 500 feet of subject property
accompanied by a certified survey or portion of the tax assessors map show: ig boundaries of the
attached property.
10. The following items or documents must be attached to this submittal.
a. Notarized affidavit of all property owners.
b. Check for the required fee.
c. Map showingy properties within 500 feet and a list of all property nwner.s and arl-irPGgP�
d. Survey or portion of tax assessors map showing boundaries of subject property.
e. Legal description showing metes and bounds of subject property.
f. Copy of recorded deed of subject property.
11. THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER/ AUTHORIZED AGENT AGREES THAT THIS APPLICATION
MUST BE COMPLETED AND ACCURATE BEFORE CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY OF
CAPE CANAVERAL PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND BOARD OF ADJUS—NiENT.
APPLICANT SIGNA
PRINT NAME: 7-1
Variance Application/Aug.00/Page 4 of 4
411
t{
i
City of Cape Canaveral
Request for. Variance
June 29, 2009
Property Owners; Dr. David A Jones
Dr. Heather Barker -Janes
Mailing Address: 7228 Winding Lake Circle, Oviedo, FL 32765
Contact Phone #: (407) 619-8616
Property Address: 201 Tyler Avenue, Cape Canaveral, FL 2292
Lot 1 Block 42
In June of last year we purchased the above-named property and immediately began to
make improvements to this unit. Like many new property owners in this area, we are
committed to contributing to the city's efforts to making this area as safe, aesthetically
pleasing, and as attractive to visitors as possible. To this end, we have embarked upon a
plan to beautify and make more functional our corner lot. One of the improvements we
desire to make is to enclose our backyard and pool area with a screen. This screen will
protect our family and our visitors from attacks from mosquitoes and other insects.
Several members of our family are extremely allergic to mosquitoes and the only way
that they can enjoy being in the yard is for us to enclose the area.
Further, in order to attract the types of renters that will respect our property and the
property of our neighbors; we must provide any and all amenities that will ensure a safe
and pleasant rental experience. An enclosed pool and backyard area is a means to this
end.
In order to create this screen enclosure, we hired a reputable company called Coastal
Craftsmen. 'Phis company assured us that they could erect this screen and that they .
would take care of any paperwork necessary to begin working on this project. On June
4th, we were on the property as a Coastal Craftsmen worker was completing this screen
enclosure when city representatives (puree Alexander and Michael Richart) in *-rmed us
that no permit had been issued for the screen enclosure and that all work on the screen
must be brought to an immediate halt. At this point, the screen was 95% complete.
When Coastal Craftsmen subsequently applied for a permit they were informed that
according to Section. 110.584 (Minimum Setbacks) there was not enough room between
the screen and our property line for work on the screen to be approved.
As the property owners, we are respectfully requesting a variance because the odd
configuration of our lot and the way that our lot is situated makes it impossible for any
screen enclosure to comply with the number of specified feet that must exist between the
edifice and the property line. Such compliance would place the screen within the actual
pool. At this point the edifice is near completion, requiring only one more day of work.
Our neighbors are excited about the improvements that we have already made and that
we will continue to make to this property and our research indicates that this screen
enclosure poses no environmental, aesthetic, or safety threat to the surrounding area.
Further, we are in need of the enclosure for health reasons for our family and for any
renters who are hyper -allergic to mosquitoes.
Thank you for considering this request.
XzII-�---;�zI-__--
Tir T-Teat}�er Pnrker_Tnnno
• JV11VJ
FIRr CSM ,
15'rrdy:GO
�ala,: FI
[Home] [Meef Jim Ford] [Appraisers Job] [General Info] [Amendment ]) [Save Our. Homes] [Exemptions ) [Tangible Property] [Locations]
[Forms] [Appeals] [Property Research] [Map,Search][Maps ,%ata] [Unusa.b..le Property] [Tax Authorities] [Tax_Facts] [FAQ] [Links] [in The
-Ne-Y4 [layx E.st LnatQr] (ContacLS31
General Parcel Information for 24-37-23-CG-00042=0-0-0-0-1-•-01-
Parcel Milla e
Parcel Id: ImaptOrthoA.....e...riai g Use0001.01Code; 26G0 Exemption:JICode: 135
* Site 201 TYLER AVE, CAPE CANAVERAL 32920 ax
Address: I I'Acet• I2434076�
a Site address mfonmation is assigned by the Brevard County Address Assignment Office for E9-1-1 purposes; this information may not
reflect community location of property.
Tax mformatton_is available at.the Breva, d.County.Tam. Collector's wel.. site
k3eiect the back button to return to the Property Appraiser's web site)
Owner Information
Abbreviated Description
Plat Book/Page: )Sub Name: AVON IW 36 FT�LIT4
0003/)007 BY THE SEA _ LOT LB
Vi_ew._Plat...requires_Adohe_Acrobat._Reader-fle size
may be. large)
Value Summary for 2005
Land Information
Market Value Total:
$146,000
Acres: 0.11
Agricultural Assessment:
$0
Site Code: 0
Assessed Value:
$146,000
Book/Pa
Book/Page
e
** Homestead Exemption:
$0
Code
** Additional Exemption:
$0
6/2008 $135,000 WD
Other Exemptions:
$0
1
***Taxable Value:
$146,000
9-
92469/201%
* This is the value established for ad valorem purposes in accordance with s.193.01 !(I) and (8), Florida Statutes. This
value does no represent anticipated selling price for the property.
** Exemptions as reflected nn the Value Summary table are ..plica.__ r-_
- :. a.:, a[�ycicau�c for rine year shown and may or may not be
applicable if an owner change has occurred.
*** The additional exemption does not apply when calculating taxable value for school districts pursuant to amendment
1. Therefore the taxable value used to compute school district tax is $25,000 higher.
Sales Information
Official
Sale Sale Deed
s*x Sales *** Sales
Physical
Records
Date Amount Type
Screening Screening
Change
Vacant/Improved
Book/Pa
Book/Page
e
.
Code Source
Code
-870/8753
6/2008 $135,000 WD
1
4104/0354
12/1999 $83,000 )VL)
9-
92469/201%
I
410-04' 496
4;1999 $72,000 1 1 Y'D
2469/2017111/1982
11/1983 $51.000 WD
http://www.brevardpropertyappraiser.coin/as-o/Show
_parcel. asp?acct=2434076&gen=T&... 00/29/2009
x ** Sales Screening Codes and Sources are frorn analysis by the Property Appraiser's
staff. They have no bearing on the prior or potential marketability of the property.
Building Information
PDC
#
Use
Code Built
Year
Story
Height
Frame Exterior
Code Code
Interior
Code
Roof
Type
Roof
Mater.
Floors Ceiling
Code Code
11.35
RV
Car ort
p
1983
8
03 03
03
02
04
03 03
------------
Building Area Information
PDC
#
Base
Area
Garage
Area
Open
Porches
Car
Port
Screened
Porches
Utility
Rooms
Enclosed
Porch Basements
Attics
Bonus
Rooms
RV
Car ort
p
RV
Gara e
g
Total
Base
Area
11
8821
01
102
0
01
241
01
01
01
01
01
882
Extra FeafnrpInfnri-nnfinn
Extra Feature Description Units
(POOL DECK 1410 i
POOL 1
Data Last Updated: Monday, June 29, 2009- Printed On: Monday, June 29, 2009.
New Search Help
[Home] [Tdeet Jim_Fardj [Appraiser's Jobj [General Info) jAm.endment 1] [$aue_Qur.Hcmesj [Exemptions] [Tangible Property] (Locations]
[Forms] [ARp.eais] [Property Raseamhj [Map._Search] [Maps &_R.ataj [.Unusabfe_Propertyj [Tax Authorities] [Cax_Eacts] [FAQ] [links] [1n The
News] [Tax.atimator] [Contact. is
Copyright 0 1997 Brevard County Property Appraiser. All rights reserved.
http://www.brevardpropertyappralser. com/asp/Show_parcel. asp?acct=243 4076&geii=T&_... 06/29/2009
)9
PO/NSET TA AVENUE
125.00
5 01'5351' W
LOT 2, BLOCK 42
�<
50' R/W
N O 1'53'51 E
a
125.00
�
a, j
4' WD FEWCE
� v
3 t2-2
SHED -
p
N 12.2
p^�
1:110- rte:
_
O
1
m
ZU
moa
�Q`O
1
^dip
OOc��n
n
125.00
5 01'5351' W
LOT 2, BLOCK 42
�<
p^�
ZZ�C
1
m
ZU
moa
-4D
Q
aao
m�
(�
Q-
C"q n
��
y
o c�
I
y
Q)
Tl
r^
VJ
`
24:3
P47
a
0
O
d
Z
Q
O
c
z
E3
I
0
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 2009
A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on November 18,
2009, at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Bea
McNeely, Chairperson, called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary
called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Bea McNeely
Lamar Russell
John Fredrickson
Donald Dunn
Harry Pearson
John Johanson
Ronald Friedman
OTHERS PRESENT
Barry Brown
Kate Latorre
Duree Alexander
Todd Morley
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
1 st Alternate
2nd Alternate
Planning & Development Director
Assistant City Attorney
Recording Secretary
Building Official
All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Kate Latorre, Assistant City
Attorney.
NEW BUSINESS
Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 12 2009
Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to approve the
meeting minutes of August 12, 2009, with minor corrections. Vote on the motion
carried unanimously.
Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board. He
advised that the Board would be considering three agenda items at this meeting.
The first was a request for five variances to accommodate a pool screen
enclosure, privacy fence, accessory structure (shed), and a pool accessory
(pump) at 201 Tyler Avenue. The other two items were proposed ordinance
revisions to amend Chapter 102 - Vegetation, to remedy a number of tree code
related complaints; and Chapter 110, Section 110-482 - Underground Utilities, to
extend the requirement for undergrounding utilities to include: redevelopment,
and renovations of existing buildings.
ammmr*i •M i • . •
Meeting Minutes
November 18, 2009
Page 2 AO 4
2: Recommendation to the Board of Adjustment Re: Variance Request No.
09-02 to Allow a Screen Enclosure Side Setback of 10 ft,; a Screen
Enclosure Rear Setback of 4 ft.; a Side Yard Setback of 9 ft. from a Public
1......1 L.1 F \ A / �.. L,... r_ n LJ. 1 1 : r n Setback
Street Right-o�-Vva`� [cue a o ft. nigh Fence; a near Setback of 3.3 ft. for a
Shed; and a Side Yard Setback of 4 ft. 8 in. for Pool Accessories - Section
23, Township 24 South, Range 37 East, Block 42 Lot 1.01 Avon by the
Sea Subdivision, (20 1 Tyler Avenue) - David D. Jolles MD and Heather
Parker -Jones, PHD, Petitioners.
Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board. He
advised that the , equest "v""vas for variances, from various city codes, to allow: a
screen enclosure side yard setback of 10 ft., rather than 15 ft.; a screen
enclosure rear setback of 4 ft., rather than 5 ft.; a side yard setback of 9 ft. from a
public right-of-way for a six ft. high fence, rather than 25 ft.; a rear setback of 3.3
ft. for an accessory structure (shed), rather than 5 ft.; and a side yard setback of
4 ft. 8 in. for an accessory (pool pump), rather than 15 ft.
Barry Brown stated what the future. land uses and zoning designations were of
the surrounding properties. He testified that the Petitioners purchased the
property in June 2008 for weekend use; the townhouse was constructed in 1983
and the pool was constructed in 1988, without a screen enclosure; the family is
highly allergic to mosquito bites; and Cabbage Palms and a Banyan tree located
adjacent to the pool drop leaves, berries, and blooms into the pool, creating a
maintenance issue. The Petitioners decided to have a screen enclosure
constructed over the pool, and earlier this year retained Coastal Craftsman; the
contractor failed to obtain the required building permit, which resulted in the
screen enclosure being constructed illegally, not being properly engineered, and
side and rear setbacks not meeting requirements of the city code. The
Petitioners did not realize that the screen enclosure was not properly permitted
and that it did not meet the city's code, and when it was brought to their attention,
they wanted to file for the proper permit(s) and follow the provisions of the city's
(-odp(S)_ He gdvisPrl that in Pvnli iatinn thair annlir-atinn fnr n crraan anrincl mn
._e..a
staff discovered that there were several nonconformities with the recently
constructed screen enclosure, as well as an existing privacy fence, shed, and
pool pump.
Barry Brown explained that the current city code allowed a 15 ft. side yard
setback for a pool, enclosure, and accessories; the pool was 15 ft. from the side
yard property line and met the current code; however, without a variance, the
screen enclosure would have to be built on the lip of the pool, and therefore one
could not walk around the perimeter of the pool. In order to allow for a
reasonable use of the pool, and the ability to walk around the pool perimeter, the
applicant was requesting a variance for a side setback of 10 ft. for the screen
enclosure, rather than the required 15 ft. per the city code: He pointed out the
pertinent sections of the city code: He summarized the variance evaluation
criteria, per city code (Section 110-37); and staffs analysis of the request.
Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting Minutes
November 18, 2009
Page 3
Barry Brown gave staffs recommendation. He testified that staff supported
necessary variances to reasonably accommodate a pool screen enclosure,
privacy fence, and pool accessories, but did not support rear setback variances
for a pool enclosure and shied. Specifically, staff supported a side yard of 10 ft.
for the pool screen enclosure and 9 ft. for the fence, as this would allow for
reasonable use of the pool, while minimizing the encroachment and variance
requested. Staff also supported a variance for the pool accessory (pump), as the
applicant inherited the pool pump where it was. Additionally, the pool pump was
not causing a problem, and there was no place else to locate it to meet the city
code. He advised that staff did not support a variance from the rear setback for
the screen enclosure aiid Jlled. He explailIUU t hat the screen enclosure could be
easily relocated to meet the existing city code requirement; and the shed was in
disrepair, deteriorating, and not suitable as a host structure for support of the
enclosure. He advised that staff recommended that the shed be demolished and
replaced with a new shed which would be placed on the property to meet the
current city code. The Board members viewed photographs and a survey of the
subject property. He advised that the pool was constructed in 1979. Discussion
followed.
Dr. Parker -Jones, Petitioner, addressed the Board and answered various
questions from, the Board members. She affirmed that her family was highly
allergic to mosquito bites; and that Cabbage Palms and a Banyan tree drop
leaves, blooms, and berries into the pool. Todd Morley, Building Official,
addressed the Board regarding encroachment of pads for emergency generators.
Lamar Russell and John Fredrickson commented that they supported staff
recommendation. Miles Komura, 211 Taylor Avenue, citizen, commented that he
supported the request. Donald Dunn commented that the screen enclosure
should be closer to the pool to allow three feet around the pool. Discussion
followed regarding staff recommendation.
Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by John Fredrickson, to recommend
annroval of Variance RPnI►act Nn na-nq to tho Rr%nrrl of AA;i:Q+m^m+ r
--i - i_ - _ _ ___ __ _ . .vye,.�vs . =e... vv v:—, — L; i— vvu: u Vi f-ii.i, iiJ li I l�ii IC, QJ PC—,I
staffs recommendation. Vote on the motion carried unanimously.
lA MOhR
LL NTtp ntO
NNM
�
�
rINN
nNNN
e- o ry
M
O
h
M
NHNN
R
`C
\
� �
N �eM-INN
LLIN�NN
GD
(n
H Nrn,�-i cvm
t40�.`ni NN
�
(6
=
i
v
Q
V
rq
co
1
1
T
d
C
w
1
P+!
ri
� • � _
�
�
N
M
4
tzi
1
T
\
R
00
`
N
N
N
�7
m
72
N
co
c
cc
m
C)
C)
r,
N
+-i