PZ 06/10/2020 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Minutes June 10, 2020 Page 2 Fifth Item of Business: BA 20-01: 424 Citrus Lane. A variance request to Section 2.5.4, Table 2.5.4 of the ULDR to reduce the 20 ft. rear yard setback to 18.5 ft. to allow an addition to the existing structure. Mr. Jonathan Tardif, Planner I, reviewed the information provided in his memorandum dated June 10, 2020 to the City of Casselberry Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Tardif said staff recommends that case number BA 20-01 be denied and finds that based upon the staff report and the testimony and evidence presented, the request does not meet the applicable provisions of the Land Development Code as per the written findings contained in the staff report. Mr. Tardif said if the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to grant a variance to reduce the rear lot line setback for BA 20-01, for the property located at 424 Citrus Lane, the motion should be based upon the staff report and the testimony and evidence presented, dated June 10, 2020, the property survey attached as Attachment D, and the following conditions: 1. The screen room shall encroach no further than 1.5 ft. (18 inches) into the required rear yard setback, as determined by the principal structure on the lot. 2. The walls of the screened porch must consist of screen mesh material and cannot be replaced with solid walls. 3. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of the screen room, within one year of approval of the variance. 4. The building permit shall contain a drainage plan to minimize the impacts of runoff from the roof on adjacent properties. Mr. Henson asked the applicant to come forward. Ms. Kathryn Hyatt, 424 Citrus Lane, Maitland, Florida came forward. Ms. Hyatt showed the type of Styrofoam material that would be used for the screen room roof. She said she has no intention of enclosing the screen room or adding a ceiling fan. Ms. Hyatt explained that her rear yard has a 71/z -foot utility easement that restricts the use of her property. She stated that there are exposed cable wires in the easement and the cable company stated that she would be responsible for the cost associated with burying the wires. After a brief discussion regarding the exposed cable wires, Mr. Henson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. No one came forward. A discussion ensued regarding the withdrawal of two previous Branch Tree Subdivision variances due to the properties exceeding the impervious surface requirements and the difference between the setbacks for screened mesh roof enclosures and screened enclosures with a hard roof.