Loading...
BOA02-23-11Mins CITY OF LONGWOOD Board of Adjustment City Commission Chambers 175 W. Warren Avenue Minutes February 23, 2011 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE: BOARD: STAFF: Barry Revels, Chair Sheryl L. Bower, AICP, Director Arthur Heintz, Vice Chair Russell Scott, RLA, Planner Tom DeNegre, Member Giselle Gonzalez, Recording Secretary Autumn Doulong, Member ABSENT James Seamon, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Revels called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Revels led the Pledge of A] legiance. 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A: CHAIRPERSON 11: VICE CHAIRPERSON Member Heintz moved to nominate Barry Revels Chairperson. Seconded by Member Doulong and carried by a unanimous roll call and vote tivith Member Seamon absent. Member Doulong moved to nominate Arthur Heintz for Vice Chairperson. Seconded by Member DeNegre and carried by a unanimous roll call and vote tivith Member Seamon absent. 1 Board of Adjustment, 02/2.3/2011 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR: A. Regular Meeting: December 15, 2010 Vice Chair Heintz moved to approve the December 15 20.10 minutes. Seconded by Altember Doulong and carried by a unanimous roll call and vote with Member Seamon absent. 5. PRESENTATION OF COMMISSIONER BUNDY Commissioner Bundy indicated that on behalf of the City Commission he would like to present to the Board with an appreciation gift for the excellent volunteer work that they perform. Commissioner Bundy indicated that the gift is a tile depicting one of the historic structures from the Historic District. Commissioner Bundy thanked the Board for everything they do. 6. PUBLIC HEARING Disclosure of Ex -parte Communication. None A. VAR 01 -11 Variance A variance to Longwood Development Code Article V1, Section 5.3.3.1) to increase the height of a fence in a front yard. Address: 693 East Wildmere Ave. E Property ID #: 05 -21 -30 -503- 0100 -0000 Applicant: Robert Demetree Mr. Scott stated property owner is requesting a variance to Longwood Development Code Article VI, Section 5.3.3.1) to increase the height limitations of a fence in a front yard at a residential property. 1`✓Ir. Scott noted that Section 5.3.3.D limits the height of a :fence in a front yard to 42 inches in height. The front yard is established as the required front setback which is twenty -five feet (25') for the subject property. Mr. Scott pointed out that the applicant is proposing a 6 foot (6') aluminum fence with masonry columns along the front of the property with a setback of 20 feet (20') at the driveway to allow a vehicle to turn off the street while the gate is being opened. 2 Board of Adjustment, 02/23/2011 Mr. Scott indicated that the Board of Adjustment shall first determine whether the need for the proposed variance arises out of the physical surroundings, shape, topographical condition, or other physical or environmental conditions that are unique to the specific property involved. If so, the Board shall make the required findings based on the granting of the variance for that site alone. If, however, the condition is common to numerous sites so that requests for similar variances are likely to be received, the :Board shall make the required findings based on the cumulative effect of granting the variance to all who may apply. Mr. Scott explained that Staff feels that the need for the variance does not arise out of the physical surroundings, shape, topographical condition, or other physical or environmental conditions that are unique to the property and that the Board should make the required findings based on the cumulative effect of the decision. Mr. Scott noted that of the five required findings, there are three which Staff has some issues with: • First item is the practical or economic difficulty in carrying out the strict letter of the regulation. The applicant's response was that there are practical difficulties in carrying out the regulation which would not allow a fence high enough to give them the feeling of adequate security, especially for active children, on a busy street. Staff believes this situation is not urdque to this property and warrants justification for granting a variance based on security. All residential properties in the City are subject to the same height limitations for fences and walls in the front setback. • Second item which Staff has issues with is that the proposed variance will not substantially diminish property values in, nor alter the essential character of, the area surrounding the site. Staff is concerned that the precedent of higher fences in front yards could result in inconsistent application of fence heights which could diminish property values. It should be noted that the wall on the South side of Wildmere, which fronts the street, was constructed as the rear yard wall of the subdivision on the South side. Therefore, it is not a front yard fence. There is one property on the South side that does have a front yard fence which is at least six feet tall. Records indicate that the fence was built in the year 1985. Staff cannot determine what the height or setback requirements were for fences at that time. • Third item is if the effect of the proposed variance is in harmony with the general intent of the development code and the specific intent of the relevant subject areas of the development code. The general intent of setback requirements for fence height is to provide a consistently applied appearance at the front property line within a land use district. Staff is of the opinion that, if granted, the proposed variance and resultant six foot (6') fence, while not inconsistent with the .rear yard walls across the street, does not reflect the intent of the specific subject area of the 3 Board of Adjustment, 02/23/2011 code to prevent high walls and fences in font yards. Mr. Scott indicated that based on these findings Staff does not feel that all five required findings have been met to grant the cumulative variance as specified by the Code. Chair Revels requested applicants, Mr. Robert Demetree and Mrs. Jenny :Demetree to proceed to the podium. Mr. Robert Demetree and Mrs. Jenny Demetree stated that they live at 693 Wildmere Avenue East. Mrs. Demetree indicated that they would like to ask the Board to respectfully consider allowing them to increase the height of their front fence to 6 feet (6'). Applicant explained that as a mother she is worried for the safety of her small children. They live on a busy street which has increased in traffic and activity of people walking to the front C oor panhandling. Mr. Demetree informed the Board that their house was built in the late 1960's and is very close to Wildmere. Applicant explained that the area has become a thoroughfare to get to Hwy 17 -92 and back out to SR 434. Mr. Demetree stated they have multiple concerns with people being able to access with ease their front door. As parents they worry about their small children which have the ages of fourteen months, four and six years old. Mr. Demetree indicated that they asked Mrs. Demetree's brother to attend the BOA meeting because he was recently involved in an incident where police had to be called to his home. The incident happened three weeks ago, his wife was in the house and heard someone banging the glass of their front door. When she looked there was a man trying to break in. The police were called immediately and the man ran from the scene. The police officers did everything they could to locate the potential robber but were unable to find him. After the police left, the man came back to the house and tried to break in again. The man was intoxicated, high on drugs and very drunk. The police were called out a second time but the man left before the police arrived. At the end, the man actually broke into the neighbor's house. However, the police were able to catch the robber. Mr. Demetree explained that on several occasions he has found in his front yard homeless people high on drugs engaging in activities that he would never like his children to see. Applicant stated that he has even found a shopping cart left in the front yard with exposed needles that could have been contaminated. It would have been an awful situation if one of the children tried to grab a needle and got punctured by it. Mr. Demetree pointed out that they decided to have a camera system installed at their house after an incident in which a lady was at the front door looking through the glass and asking for money. The lady was saying that she was pregnant and hurt. For that reason, they decided to call the police and the lady left immediately. Chair Revels stated it seems like the applicant is having big safety issues. 4 Board of Adjustment, 02/23/2011 Mrs. Demetree agreed and pointed out that 42 inches is the height of their four year old son. Chair Revels stated that the traffic on W ildrnere is very bad and therefore he understands applicants' concerns. Mrs. Demetree informed the Board that her children have never been able to play in the front yard because of safety concerns. Mr. Demetree explained to the Board that the house is so close to the street that he has even seen people using the front yard as a restroom. Mr. Demetree indicated that his biggest concern is the safety of his family especially the times when he is not at home and his wife is alone with the children. Mr. Demetree informed the Board that on one occasion they were able to record on a camera that there was a man standing on the side of house trying to look in. Mr. Demetree stated that he immediately called a friend who is a. Seminole County Deputy. Unfortunately, there was nothing he could do because nothing actually happened. Mr. Demetree stated he does not know if anything was going to happen but it really concerns him that his family could be in danger while they are alone at the house. Mr. Demetree stated he understands the problem Staff has with the variance and the concerns of setting a precedent. However the house is not in a subdivision and most of the houses on that street already have a fence. Mrs. Demetree explained to the Board that they will make sure the fence will be very decorative. They have invested a lot of funds in upgrading their property because they want to stay in the house forever. In addition, their entire family lives on the same street so they do not want to move anywhere else. ` dice Chair Heintz pointed out to the sketch that was provided to the Board and noted that it shows there is an existing fence along the back of the house. Vice Chair Heintz asked applicants how high that fence was. Mrs. Demetree responded that the fence was six feet (6'). Chair Revels stated that at the Wildmere Subdivision, there is a six foot (6') brick wall that goes down Wildmere Street. Therefore, it is not out of the ordinary to have a six foot (6') fence. Member Doulong asked applicants if they had any architectural drawings so the Board could see what the fence would look like. Mrs. Demetree explained that at the entry they would like to have cultured stone columns 5 Board of Adjustment, 02/23/2011 attached to a black slatted aluminum fence. Mrs. Demetree stated they chose aluminum because it is more durable and does not rust. Member Doulong asked applicants if the fence was something that can be seen through. She wanted to make sure it was not going to be a solid wall. Mrs. Demetree responded that the fence would not be a solid wall. She stated that they will make sure the fence looked decorative and very nice. They would never put chain link fence. Chair Revels stated that there are several chain link fences on Wildmere. Chair Revels closed the public hearing for discussion amongst the Board Members. Chair Revels pointed out that while driving down Wildmere, he saw that several residential properties currently have six foot (6') fences. He stated that applicants had a beautiful home and therefore he was sure that any fence they would put up will look as nice as their house. Chair pointed out that there are several houses on Wildmere that have Chain link fences or fences that are falling apart. He believes those cases are more of a concern than someone trying to install a nice fence. Member Doulong indicated that as long as it was not a solid wall she did not see a problem with allowing the applicant to install a six foot (6') fence. Member DeNegre stated he understands applicants are concerned for the safety of their children.. Chair Revels pointed out that applicants Live on a very busy road. (:hair Revels reopened the public hearing. Vice Chair Heintz moved to approve the variance. Seconded by Member DeNegi e. Mr. Scott pointed out to page 4 of the Staff Report and explained that if the Board of Adjustment chooses to approve the variance, Staff recommends two conditions of approval: l) Require a minimum twenty foot (20') recess of any fence or gate combination at the driveway to allow a vehicle to exit the right -a -way of Wildmere Avenue East while the gate is being opened. 2) The City Engineer has some concerns about the existing hedge at the corner of Oxford and Wildmere. The City Engineer is concerned that it is located within 6 Board of Adjustment, 02/23/2011 i the safe sight corner triangle at the intersection angle of mentioned streets. Chair Revels asked the applicant if they are familiar with the two conditions Staff is recommending. Mr. Demetree explained to the Board that the hedge that is on their property provides a lack of penetration from a visible stand point. It keeps the children safe in the backyard which is where they play. In addition, there is a pool in the backyard so the hedge prevents the children from being seen in bathing suits. Applicant explained that before they had the hedge people would come in their back yard and fish in the lake. Mr. Demetree also indicated that on Sundays after arriving home from church they would find people in their back yard having picnics their back yard looked like a park. Applicant stated they really wish they did not have to take down the hedge because it is what keeps their children safe. Mr. Demetree indicated that they will be happy to trim the hedge if it affects in any way the visibility on the road. Chair Revels stated he believes the hedge is another issue and it does not have anything to do with the fence. Ms. Bower explained that the City Engineer requested Staff to include this item so the Board could address it. Mr. Scott stated that Staff could withdraw the recommendation of the City Engineer. Chair Revels stated that the Board will continue with the motion already made by Vice Chair Heintz. Member Heintz asked what Staff's recommendation was. Ms. Bower stated that the only recommendation Staff is suggesting at this point is the twenty foot (20') recess of any fence or gate combination at the driveway to allow a vehicle to exit the right -a -way while the gate is being opened. Chair Revels stated that the recommendation of Staff is included in the site plan presented to the Board and therefore it should be required in order to pass inspection. Ms. Bower stated that it is not required and for that reason Staff is recommending this condition in order to approve the variance. Mr. Demetree asked if the 20 foot (20') recess could go down to an 18 foot (18') recess. Mr. Scott pointed out that 20 feet (20') is the minimum size of length of a parking space in the Longwood Code. 7 Board of Adjustment, 02/23/2011 ' r 5 Chair Revels stated 20 feet (20') is what applicant had on the site plan. Ms. Bower indicated that she might be able to approve up to a ten percent (10 %) administrative variance on the size of that parking space. Chair Revels indicated that the Board will continue with the motion seated by Vice Chair Heintz and Seconded by Member DeNegre. Motion passed by a umanimous roll call and vote with Member Seamon absent. 7. OLD BUSINESS. None 8. NEW BUSINESS. None 9. DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Scheduled Meeting: March. 23, 2011 10. PUBLIC COMMENT. None 11. ADJOURNMENT. Vice Chair Heintz moved to adjourn. Seconded by Member Doulong and carried by a unanimous voice call and vote with Member Seamon absent. Chair Revels adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Barry Revels, Chair ATTEST: Giselle Gonzalez, Recording Secretary 8 Board of Adjustment, 02/23/2011