orlando city council january 10, 2011

Orlando City CouncilJanuary 10, 2011

Presented by:Dean Grandin, Jr. AICP

City Planning Division Manager

Consideration of Recommended OrderQuasi-Judicial Hearing 2010-003

Variance Case # VAR2010-00048300 Thornton Lane

Project Location• 300 Thornton Lane– north of South Street and

east of Summerlin Avenue. • Property Zoned R-2A/T/HP• District 4 (Commissioner Sheehan)

SOUTH ST

Lake Lawsona

History• Applicant purchased home with an

existing concrete patio in the rear.• Applicant replaced the concrete

patio with pavers without obtaining proper building permits.

• After a neighbor filed a complaint the owner was cited by Code Enforcement for lack of proper permits.

History• Applicant applied for proper

building permits, but was denied due to ISR overage

• Applicant stated pavers were pervious but had not submitted proper documentation of perocity to City Engineering staff.

• Applicant applied for a variance on June 22, 2010

• Case was heard by the BZA on July 27, 2010

Variance Requested• A variance to allow for an additional

15% of impervious surface, resulting in an Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) of 70% thereby allowing the patio area in the rear yard to remain.

Existing Survey

subject property and patio space with pavers.  

Patio

Single family home

Garage

Existing home at 300 Thornton Lane 

Photograph of Property

Rear yard from side yard entrance 

Garage

Single Family Home

Photograph of Property

Staff Recommendation to

BZA• Staff had recommended denial of the requested variance and approval of a lesser variance to exceed the maximum ISR by 7% because:• Applicant met some, but not all, of the

6 standards for approval• A lesser variance would allow the

applicant functional patio space• Mitigation to accommodate excess

runoff was also recommended

BZA Hearing• BZA considered this case at July 27, 2010

hearing• Item was on regular agenda and staff made

a presentation• Applicant was not present• Board concurred with staff’s

recommendation• Property Owner appealed the Board’s

decision • Neighbor to the south, Anita Gonzalez, filed

a Motion to Intervene, noting her opposition was due to run-off that her property has been receiving

• Quasi-judicial hearing was held on October 20, 2010

Quasi-Judicial Hearing Notes

• At the hearing, the Respondent, Anita Gonzalez, admitted that her property received run-off since the home’s construction in 2000 (prior to the current property owner purchasing it) and that most of the run-off was from downspouts and not the patio pavers.

• Property owner stated that he replaced the impervious concrete patio with permeable pavers, shortly after purchasing the property, thereby improving the conditions of the site.

• The Hearing Officer determined that using permeable pavers to replace impermeable concrete will not increase runoff from the subject property

Recommended OrderThe Hearing Officer recommended approval of the originally request variance of 15% subject to the conditions of the staff report. These condition include:1. A shallow depression, at least 4 inches in

depth, shall be constructed and maintained between the proposed pavers and the south property line;

2. A native canopy tree, at least 8 feet in height, shall be planted on the south side of the property; and

3. Because the site is approximately 125 feet from Lake Olivia, a shallow pollution swale shall be constructed and maintained along the rear property line.

(Note: The above conditions are identical to those recommended by staff for the lesser variance)

Staff Recommendation

• Staff recommends adoption of the Recommended Order from the Hearing Officer to include the original staff recommendations, including the conditions, as originally recommended by staff.

• The applicant shall apply for all necessary after-the-fact permits for the subject patio with paver.

Action Required by Council

• Adopt the recommended order, adopt the recommended order with changes, or direct staff to prepare a revised order.

• Council shall not change any findings of fact reached by the Hearing Officer without stating its reasons for such change.

• If Council directs staff to prepare a revised order, the revised order shall be transmitted to the parties and presented to City Council within forty-five (45) calendar days.