Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-02 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING HELD THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Resnik called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall. He led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Member Colburn led the invocation. Chairman Resnik called the roll and declared a quorum to be present. PRESENT: Chairman Resnik, Vice - Chairman Savino, Members Colburn, Cox and Kimbrell. Also present were Community Development Director Wagner, Building Official Washington, Senior Planner Grimms, and Deputy City Clerk Green. ABSENT: Members Tice and Wilsen who were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Colburn, seconded by Vice Chairman Savino, moved to approve the July 18, 2002, Board of Adjustment Minutes as presented. Motion carried 5 -0. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES CASE No. 03VR -2002: MARK AND JOAN PETERS Senior Planner Grimms presented the staff report for the variances requested by Mark and Joan Peters for their home at 1912 Tumblewater Boulevard in Brookstone Unit 1 Subdivision. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 128 in Brookestone Unit 1 Subdivision. They have requested a variance to the minimum rear setback requirement of 5 feet permitted in Article V, Section 5 -6 B, to a proposed 2.5 feet, and a variance to the maximum impervious surface area of 50% permitted in Article V, Section 5 -14 (Table 5 -2) of the City Code. BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION Variance #1 - Variance to Minimum Rear Yard Setback Mr. Grimms explained the Applicant is seeking the variance to the rear yard setback of 5 feet for purposes of: (1) cost reduction and (2) the desire for a larger swimming pool than would be allowed if the 2.5 feet encroachment were permitted into the 5 -foot rear setback. Mr. Grimms said this variance request does not involve a question of hardship, since a fully functional pool, deck and screen enclosure could be built by the Applicant within Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, November 21, 2002 Mr. Grimms said this variance request does not involve a question of hardship, since a fully functional pool, deck and screen enclosure could be built by the Applicant within the requirements of the City's regulations. He noted that two of the Applicant's neighbors have built pools maintaining the 7.5 foot rear setback requirement, which was in effect at that time and has since been reduced by the City Commission to 5 feet. Variance #2 - Variance to Maximum Impervious Surface Area of 50% of the Lot The Applicant is seeking the variance to the 258 square foot maximum allowed for impervious surface for the purpose of: (1) creating a walkway around the pool between the pool side and the screen enclosure; and (2) aesthetic reasons. The pool would look nicer with a walk area completely surrounding the pool. This variance request does not involve a question of hardship, since the Applicant could build a fully functional pool, deck and screen enclosure within the requirements of the City's regulations, just as the neighbors have done. The adjacent neighbor has built his pool with a deck that has not gone beyond the maximum impervious surface allowed. Mr. Grimms concluded with the recommendation that Board of Adjustment recommend denial of the two (2) variance requests, since granting a variance would not involve *oar hardship, or be in response to unique special conditions and circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the land or structures. The public hearing was opened. Mark Peters, 1912 Tumblewater Boulevard, thanked the board for the opportunity to present their request for variance. He said information they had been given when they had first looked at their home had led them to believe they could build the larger pool and enclosure they wanted. Joan Peters said they have a letter from Centex Homes stating the setback and easement restrictions were not properly disclosed when they were purchasing their home and Centex has compensated them $100.00 for their hardship. Mr. Peters said Centex is no longer building this model and he believes it is because it is too large for the lot size, thereby limiting the size of the pool. Mrs. Peters said the design of their floor plan is unique in that the driveway is set back such that it takes up a very large amount of the impervious space, which has limited the deck to 258 sf. Mrs. Peters distributed copies of a letter approving their request relating to the pool with screen enclosure from the Architectural Review Board of the Brookestone Property Owners Association, Inc. and also a copy of a drawing of the pool area of their neighbor 2 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, November 21, 2002 Norpr at 1902 Tumblewater Boulevard. Mr. Peters said none of their neighbors seemed to have any issues with their pool size and their attempt to obtain a variance because of the limited amount of deck size they would have. Mrs. Peters said a small pool would be uncomplimentary to the size and design of the home. Member Kimbrell asked if the front elevation of their house is in line with those of their neighbors, or if it is set back farther because of the driveway. Mr. Peters said the fronts of the homes are the same, but the front door is set back at a 45 degree angle and then the garage is set back while the neighbor's garage is at the front of their home. Chairman Resnik asked for clarification, and Mr. Grimms confirmed the variance request is, in effect, 2.5 feet. Mrs. Peters said their main concern is the impervious surface area. She felt without a variance they would not have enough deck to get around even a smaller size pool. Community Development Director Wagner said the reason staff has given this a recommendation for denial is simply because staff runs into this problem every day. He said virtually every pool that comes in has to be modified in some manner for these two reasons. Usually the setback issue is not as much of an issue as the impervious area. * This is one of the first ones they have had in recent memory where they actually wanted to encroach into this rear yard. And as Mr. Grimms mentioned, the old rule of 7.5', the Commission already granted a 2.5' difference from that recently when they changed the ordinance and now we are down to 5'. It actually extends into a drainage and utility easement, which we are also very concerned about setting any precedence of extending structures into those areas. Secondly, the impervious area also is a constant problem for all of our pools. And a lot of people have had to reduce the size of their pools and their decks to meet that requirement. And while we certainly sympathize with these folks and their house, we get all sorts of different varieties of rear yards. He said they run into all these kinds of oddities everyday, so he would caution the board that the variances obviously are supposed to be given for hardship cases where there is truly something unique about the property. So, in their deliberation, board members should focus on if there is truly a hardship here, truly something unique about this property compared to all the other properties that they run into every day. Mrs. Peters said they feel that the design of their home on the property is unique in their subdivision. She said Centex had stopped building the home in the subdivision, so there must have been a problem with it, and they kind of got stuck with it, being ignorant of these easements and things. Chairman Resnik asked what Centex meant by the statement that setback and easement restrictions were not properly disclosed. Mrs. Peters said when they went to buy this iskipr 3 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, November 21, 2002 home they knew they wanted a nice size pool. She had asked the Centex representatives to show them where their screen enclosure could be placed on this property before they make a purchase. Two of the employees from Centex said they could extend up to the property line. They had pursued the purchase of the property based on that information. She said they had invested several thousand dollars in upgrades and then learned that they had been misled. So it is a hardship for them, because they cannot now turn around and sell the home without losing money. Vice Chairman Savino asked why they accepted only $100 for the hardship. Mrs. Peters responded that was before the variance cost changed. The form they had been given indicated a fee of $100. She said when she returned she learned that she had not been given the proper information that the fee had changed. So they could not go back to Centex after they had accepted the $100 and say now we need $500. Responding to questions by Vice Chairman Savino, Mrs. Peters said the real estate agent and construction manager had pointed out the property line. She said when she had pointed to a neighbor's pool and asked if their screen had to end there, explaining that she wanted to know because if so she did not want this home, the agent had said no, absolutely not. Mr. Peters said at that point and after putting earnest money down, it was very difficult to get out of the contract on hearsay. He said they had trusted that _ verbal word was accurate information and had nothing in writing. Member Cox asked if they have invested money in getting the pool started yet, and Mrs. Peters said no. Chairman Resnik said he thought it was unfortunate that Centex Homes told the Peters what they did, and that they probably said that just to sell the home. But, on the other hand, he personally felt that the buyer should check these things out for himself, as he had done in the past. Vice Chairman Savino asked if they have any plans drawn up with a pool that would actually be within the Code and Mrs. Peters said they do not. Chairman Resnik asked if the pool company was aware of the issue with the setback and if they have not tried to come up with a little different design. Mrs. Peters said they had worked on a plan with one other pool company, and did not like the plan at all. She said it is not the size of the pool but the deck that they need to get around the pool that is their main concern. Member Colburn asked why they have the planters if they were trying to get as much deck as possible. Mrs. Peters said the planters were to provide privacy in the corner for the hot tub, and they were not counted as impervious. 'fir 4 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Itior Thursday, November 21, 2002 Member Colburn said he was concerned about setting precedent. Chairman Resnik pointed out that the role of this board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission, and the City Commission that will ultimately make the final decision. Members then suggested possible options in pool and deck design that would comply with the Code and meet the Peters' needs. Vice Chairman Savino said they have the option to go back to Centex as there was nothing on the Centex letter that the Peters have signed saying they have accepted the excuse given by Centex. He said another option would be to simply take a foot out here and a foot out there, to place plants outside the pool, and move on and probably have the pool installed and in use by four months from now. He said it was not so much what the Peters are willing to accept, but what options are available and then pursue those options. The public hearing was closed. Member Savino, seconded by Member Colburn, moved that the Board of Adjustment low recommend denial of the two (2) variance requests, since granting a variance would not involve a hardship or be in response to unique special conditions and circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the land or structures. Motion carried 5 -0. Member Colburn asked that it be included in the minutes that the Board of Adjustment would like the City Commissioners to take a long look at the impervious portion. He also suggested that the Peters come up with another diagram to help their case on the impervious part. Mr. Wagner said the City Commission would be consider the Case in a public hearing on December 17. Clerk's Note: The Peters' withdrew the Variance Application prior to the City Commission meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Community Development Director Wagner explained the City recently reorganized some of the departments. The City created a new Department of Community Development which is a combination of the Planning Department and the Building Department. He said he and Mr. Grimms are present for the meeting, because there is an opening now in the Building Department. He said Zoning Coordinator Julian Harper had %ow 5 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Thursday, November 21, 2002 left the City to work for Lake County Schools as a Planner. The individual who fills that position will be handling variance applications, but the Planning Department will be more involved in some Board of Adjustment cases in the future. CHANGE OF TIME FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETINGS After some discussion, Vice Chairman Savino, seconded by Chairman Resnik, moved to change the time of Board of Adjustment meetings from 7:30 p.m, to 7:00 p,m. Motion carried 5 -0. Chairman Resnik thanked the City for the board members' City shirts. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. n �a�.tic / 400 „tJ NINNY 4111114 Marian Green, Deputy City Clerk John es i , C irma 'fir 6