Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12-07-2009 1 i i City of Cape Canaveral Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes 1 December 7, 2009 A Meeting of the City of Cape Canaveral Board of Adjustment was held on December 7, 2009 at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Assistant City Attorney, Kate Latorre, called the meeting to Order at 7:00 P.M., Shortly thereafter, Chairperson Bond entered the meeting. The Secretary called the Roll. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Bond Chairperson Paula Collins Vice Chairperson Dennis Jenkins George Sweetman Douglas Raymond 1 Alternate a 1 MEMBERS ABSENT: i 1 Linda Brown OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Chapman Secretary Kate Latorre Assistant City Attorney 1 Robert Hoog Mayor Pro Tem Barry Brown Planning & Development Director All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Assistant City Attorney, Kate Latorre. NEW BUSINES 1. Motion Re: Approval of Meeting Minutes — August 31, 2009. Motion by Dennis Jenkins, seconded by John Bond, that the meeting minutes of August 31, 2009, be approved as written. The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote. 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. 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. 1 I Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes December 7, 2010 Page 2 j 4 I John Bond, Chairperson, read the agenda item for the record. I Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, gave his staff report. He advised that this was a request for variances as read by Chairperson Bond. The surrounding zoning to the north, east, and south were R -2 residential, and to the west C -1 commercial; surrounding uses to the j north, east, and south were residential and to the west LaVilla Apartments. Mr. Brown advised that the Joneses purchased the townhome 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 their 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 4 screen enclosure constructed over the pool. Earlier this year, they retained Coastal Craftsman to construct the screen enclosure. Unfortunately, the contractor failed to obtain the required permit, resulting in the screen enclosure being constructed illegally. The screen enclosure was also not properly engineered, and did not meet the city code for side and rear setbacks. The 1 Joneses did not realize that the enclosure was not properly permitted and that it did not meet the city code. When it was brought to their attention, they wanted to file for the proper permits and follow the provisions of the city code. In evaluating their application for the screen enclosure, staff discovered that there were several nonconformities with the recently constructed screen enclosure, as well as an existing privacy fence, shed, and pool pump. The Board members viewed current photos and site plan of the property. Mr. Brown depicted areas where the variances were being sought. Mr. Brown explained that the current city code called for a 15 ft. side yard setback for the 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 one would not be able to walk around the perimeter of the pool. In order to allow reasonable use of the pool, the applicants were requesting a side setback of 10 ft. for the screen enclosure, rather than 15 ft.; the applicants were also requesting a rear setback of 4 ft. rather than 5 ft. in order to keep the screen enclosure as currently installed along the rear of the pool deck; the applicants were requesting a fence setback of 9 ft. rather than 25 ft. to allow for the 6 ft. high wood stockade privacy fence. In addition, the applicants were requesting a variance for the pool equipment (accessories), a setback of 4 ft. 8 in. rather than 15 ft.; and finally, they were requesting a rear setback variance for the shed of 4 ft. rather than 5 ft. Discussion was held regarding a six foot high wooden privacy fence that ran along the rear property line of the building that had been installed by the original developer. Mr. Brown advised that he would research the code and get back to the Board on whether or not the fence complied with city code. i 1 1 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes December 7, 2009 Page 3 1 Mr. Brown gave staffs analysis and variance evaluation criteria, as per city code Section 110 -37. He advised that special conditions and circumstances existed which were peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved which were not applicable to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. He advised that the pool was 15 ft. from the property line, and without a variance it was not possible to construct an enclosure that would allow a person to I walk around the pool. There was nothing peculiar about the pool and deck that would preclude the applicants from meeting the rear setback. A side yard setback of 25 ft. for a 6 ft. high fence was onerous. He explained that a corner lot could not have a privacy fence that any other lot could have without giving up 25 ft. of the side yard. He advised that a permit was pulled for a shed in 1986, but staff was unable to determine if the permit was pulled for the existing shed. Regardless, the shed was not placed in the location shown on the permit or in the location that the current city code allowed. He advised that there were no conditions peculiar to the property that would support the need for a rear setback variance, given the size and shape of the yard and the location of the pool; and there was no other place to locate the pool accessories to meet city code requirements. Mr. Brown gave his interpretation of Section 110 -37. He advised that the applicant would be deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district, under the terms of the applicable chapter and would be an undue hardship on the applicants. He advised that the property owners would be deprived of having a screen enclosure over a pool that allowed reasonable use of the pool; they would be deprived of having a privacy fence that others in the same zoning district enjoy; there was no other location for accessories to meet the city code; however, the owners would not be deprived of the right to have an accessory structure (shed) that others would have. Mr. Brown advised that the variances requested would not confer, on the applicants, any special privilege(s) that were denied by the city code to other lands, building or structures in the same zoning district. He advised that it was not a special privilege to have a screen enclosure, privacy fence, and pool accessories in the R -2 residential zoning district, but it was a special privilege to have an accessory structure (shed) that did not meet the city code. He verified that the requested variances were the minimum variances necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the pool, enclosure, fence, shed, and accessories. He advised that the approval of the variances would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the city code, and would not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 1 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes December 7, 2009 1 Page 4 3 i V i Mr. Brown advised that the variances requested would not confer, on the applicants, any special privilege(s) that were denied by the city code to other lands, building or structures in the same zoning district. He advised that it was not a special privilege to have a screen enclosure, privacy fence, and pool accessories in the R -2 residential zoning district, but it was a special privilege to have an accessory structure (shed) that did not meet the city code. He I verified that the requested variances were the minimum variances necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the pool, enclosure, fence, shed, and accessories. He advised that the approval of the variances would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the city code, and would not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Mr. Brown gave city staff's recommendation. He advised that staff did not support variances ■ necessary to allow for the screen enclosure as constructed, but it was clear that without a screen enclosure adequate mosquito control was not possible and maintenance of the pool would be burdensome. Staff supported necessary variances to reasonably accommodate a screen enclosure, privacy fence, and pool accessories. He clarified that staff supported a side yard of 10 ft. for the screen enclosure and 9 ft. for the fence, as it would allow for reasonable use of the pool while minimizing the encroachment and variances requested. He advised that staff also supported a pool accessory variance, as the applicant inherited the pool pump where it was, and it was not causing a problem, and there was no other place to locate the pump to meet the city code. However, staff did not support variances from the rear setback for the pool enclosure or shed. He explained that the pool enclosure could easily be relocated to meet the city code, and the shed was in a state of disrepair and deteriorating and not suitable as a host structure for support of the pool enclosure and shed. Mr. Brown explained that the pool enclosure could easily be relocated to meet the city code, and the shed was in a state of disrepair and deteriorating, and not suitable as a host structure for support of the pool enclosure. Staff also recommended that the shed be demolished and replaced with a new shed that would meet the city code. Mr. Brown advised that the Planning & Zoning Board recommended approval of the side setback variance for the pool 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, which was the same recommendation given by city staff. Discussion followed. I Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes December 7, 2009 Page 5 Dr. Heather Parker - Jones, Petitioner, testified that when they purchased the townhouse the pool was already there, so they decided to make the pool area safe for her children and husband who are all severely allergic to mosquitoes, and installed the screen enclosure. The hired contractor made it clear that it would take them a certain amount of time to construct the enclosure, because they had to apply for a permit, which they never did. She advised that they did not find out about the permit until they were in the process of building the enclosure. She further testified that the screen enclosure was only partially finished; the maintenance around the pool area was even worse now, because the panels were falling into the pool, bringing along debris from the trees. She advised that if the variance for the enclosure was approved, they would speak to Coastal Craftsmen and have them work with the city to draw up the plans that met the code and obtain the required permit. Discussion followed. Dennis Jenkins asked if there would be any administrative action taken by the building department against the contractor. Dr. Jones answered that the contractor was given a citation and fined $500 for starting the work without a permit. Chairperson Bond suggested that another condition be added, if the variance is approved for the pool pump, that it be screened from view. Discussion continued. Motion by Dennis Jenkins, seconded by John Bond, to grant the Variance Request No. 09 -02, per staff recommendations, with the addition that the rear setback be modified to accommodate the screen enclosure; and whatever slight modifications need to be made to address the rear fence setback consistent with City code. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Consensus Re: Selection of a New Meeting Night. Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, advised that the Board needed to choose a different night to meet, because after the first of the year, there would be no more meetings held on Monday evenings. He advised that the Board packets contained a sample monthly calendar. He explained that all city meetings would be held in the public library, sometime after the first of the year, and the current meeting room would be used by the Sheriff's department. Following discussion, by unanimous consensus, the Board chose to meet on a Thursday evening. DISCUSSION: Barry Brown, Planning Director, advised that the visioning workshops concluded, and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council completed a draft of the Final Visioning Report. He explained that the City Council wanted each of the advisory boards to have an opportunity to review the report, and then convey any thoughts they might have regarding the report back to them. Discussion followed. i 1 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes December 7, 2009 Page 6 1 Dennis Jenkins commented that staff and everyone involved had done an excellent job thus far. He advised that he had a few minor criticisms, but they did not have anything to do with the I final report, and he would meet with Mr. Brown privately. He commented that the city's east I limit on the beach appeared to run along the dune line, except in three places where it seemed to go out past the low tide line. He questioned why and noted that all three properties were constructed by Benko Construction for Towne Realty. Barry Brown responded that he did not know the answer, but would check on that and get back to him. John Bond commented that he hoped the Ridgewood Avenue improvements would be a catalyst to jumpstart the action plan. Dennis Jenkins asked if there were any plans to recruit water front restaurants. Barry Brown explained that the city currently did not have zoning that allowed water front restaurants, and some rezoning may have to take place to accommodate those types of establishments. Dennis Jenkins asked if the city could be proactive, before an investor wants to come in and build one Barry Brown answered "yes ", and explained the process on how the city will accomplish that through an action plan that will be created by city staff to implement the action items identified in the final visioning report. The action plan would be presented to the City Council at a workshop after the 1 of next year, and then the process would begin. He pointed out that one of the first things to accomplish would be to establish mixed -use zoning, and gave examples of same. He noted that other uses would be established that the city does not currently allow, such as farmers markets. Barry Brown advised that the city website would be updated informing of the continuous progress, as well as e-mails to everyone on the list, which included all the Board members, because the city wants citizens to stay engaged in the process. He asked that the members call or e-mail him with suggestions or thoughts. Discussion was held regarding creating a downtown. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. sT z Approved on this day of ./ //- - 2010. i ''''.:9..Z___,' John Bond, Chairperson ._ Susan L. Chapman, Se retary I i 1 i tt 1 i