Exhibit "A" or the full-sized set of plans attached to this report includes the survey, floor plans, architectural elevations and building sections.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Exhibit "A" or the full-sized set of plans attached to this report includes the survey, floor plans, architectural elevations and building sections."

Deirdre McDonald
5 years ago
Views:

2 Ordinances, following a public hearing. A height variance cannot be granted that exceeds five (5) percent of the maximum allowable height, which, as applied to the maximum height of 35 feet allowed in this zoning district, would allow the City Council to grant a variance of up to feet (which equals the variance sought by the Petitioner). The criteria that the City Council must employ when considering the variance request is the same as that used by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in its review of variances. Each criterion is addressed in this report. The Proposed Home The Petitioner is building a two-story, 9,593 square foot home on 0.39 acres situated on the west side of Spanish River Road with frontage on the intracoastal waterway. The first floor will consist of two (2) 2-car garages, a guest bedroom and shared living area (living, kitchen, dining and family room areas), and the second floor houses a master bedroom suite, three bedrooms with baths and a shared lounge area. Site amenities are planned to include a pool and spa with deck, dock, boat lift and outdoor kitchen. The home will be situated 30 feet from the front property line along Spanish River Road in compliance with the required 30 foot front yard setback. The Petitioner is proposing a height of ten (1 0) feet from the surface of the finished floor to the bottom of the ceilings for the main living areas on the first floor. The width of the floor dividing the first and second floors in these areas will be two (2) feet. For the second floor, the Petitioner is also proposing a ten (1 0) foot floor to ceiling height. Above the second floor, the roof deck will range in width from 2.0 to 2.5 feet to provide the necessary slope for drainage. These dimensions total a height of 24.5 feet from the finished floor elevation to the top of the roof deck. 2 Above the roof deck, the Petitioner proposes a very low parapet wall ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 feet in height (the code permits up to five (5) feet for a parapet wall). Exhibit "A" or the full-sized set of plans attached to this report includes the survey, floor plans, architectural elevations and building sections. Variance Review Criteria (Section 28-62) The Petitioner submitted responses to the standards for the granting of a variance. The responses were analyzed and are addressed below. (a) Special and unique conditions exist which are peculiar to the Petitioner's case and which are not generally applicable to the property located in the zoning district. Special and unique conditions exist upon the property as a result of the existing grade and the finished floor elevation required by floodplain damage prevention regulations. As shown on the last sheet of Exhibit "A", the established grade (or average crown of the road) on the lot (from which the 25 feet is measured) is 5.2 feet and the existing grade where the home will be constructed is also around 5.2 feet. However, the finished floor elevation required to comply with flood prevention regulations is not measured from either the crown of the road of Spanish River Road or the existing grade upon which the home will be constructed. Rather, because this property is situated in an A3 flood zone, the finished floor elevation must 2 These figures are estimated based upon a manual scaling of the architectural plans. The actual overall height will be limited to feet to comply with the maximum height of feet requested by the applicant. The difference between and 24.5 feet is 6/10 of an inch.

3 be a minimum of 7.5 feee, which is 2.3 feet higher than the average crown of the road. This means that nine (9) percent or the first 2.3 feet of the allowable 25 feet must be allocated to non-occupied space used for the purpose of building up the finished floor elevation. In practical effect, application of the regulations limit the Petitioner to a building height of 22.7 feet in which to construct a two-story home. As discussed earlier, the proposed home is planned to have an overall height of 24.5 feet to accommodate ten (10) foot floor to ceiling heights on both the first and second floors. Petitioner could redesign the home to provide for eight (8) foot high ceilings on the second floor; however, Petitioner does not find this to be desirable for new construction. Newer, luxury homes typically have higher ceiling heights. Petitioner's proposed 10 foot ceiling height for the second floor is neither inappropriate nor unreasonable, but consistent with the expectations of today's home buyer. Staff agrees with Petitioner's assessment. Large homes require a taller ceiling height so that the relationship of room dimensions to ceiling height is correct in terms of scale and feel. These special and unique conditions typically do not impose such a limitation upon new construction because the vast majority of homes are constructed with hip and/or gable roof structures. Sloping roof structures typically allow for additional building height because they accommodate volume that can house higher ceilings. Because modern, contemporary architecture does not typically provide for conventional sloped roofs which provide for this additional volume of space, the code treats homes with sloped roofs differently from those having flat roofs. Flat roof, modern architecture is limited when conventional homes on either side are permitted to reach a height of 35 feet. (b) The special and unique conditions are not directly attributable to the actions of the Petitioner. The special and unique conditions related to the average crown of the road, the required minimum floor elevation and the applicable city and federal codes regulating building height and construction in a floodplain are not the result of actions of the Petitioner. (c) The literal interpretation of this chapter, as applied to the Petitioner, would deprive the Petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by the owners of other property in the zoning district. Because height is measured from the average crown of the abutting roadway, the allowable height of every home is different based upon the circumstances. And when there is a FEMA-established minimum finished floor elevation, some property owners who front upon roads having a higher crown elevation are granted additional building height, while others fronting upon lower road elevations are penalized. Exhibit "B" shows how three different hypothetical homes in the same flood zone and situated on the same street can have different heights for the habitable part of the home. In addition to being disadvantaged because of the character of the abutting roadway, the Petitioner is also penalized for designing a home with a flat roof. From a code perspective, flat roof structures do not enjoy the height advantages permitted for sloped roofs. The Petitioner is unable to enjoy the same volume created by the increased height for sloping roofs which his neighbors have been permitted to enjoy (see Exhibit "C"). (d) The variance granted is the minimum variance necessary for the Petitioner to make reasonable use of the property. 3 This elevation is derived by adding the base flood elevation of 7.0 feet established by FEMA and 0.5 feet required by the City's floodplain damage prevention regulations in Chapter 21 of the City Code.

4 The requested variance is equal to an additional 21 inches in height. However, whether the Petitioner was seeking a variance for 21 inches or up to 55 inches, no abutting property owner or person looking at the home would be able to see this additional height because it would be situated behind a parapet wall that is permitted to exceed the maximum height by five (5) feet (this is depicted graphically on Exhibit "D"). Based upon Petitioner's desire to provide ten (1 0) foot floor to ceiling heights, Staff does not find Petitioner's request to be excessive or unreasonable. The request represents the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable, appropriate and compatible use of a high-priced waterfront residential lot on the barrier island. (e) Granting the variance is not detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the zoning district or neighborhood involved. The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the zoning district or neighborhood involved. The overall height of the proposed home (exterior walls including the parapet wall above the roof deck) will not exceed the maximum height that would be allowed without the granting of the requested variance. The code allows a parapet wall to rise five (5) feet above the roof deck which is limited to 25 feet, thereby allowing the Petitioner to have exterior walls with a height of up to 30 feet above the average crown of the road. In this case, the Petitioner is proposing parapet walls of no more than 1.5 feet above the roof deck (proposed at a height of feet) for a total maximum overall exterior wall height of feet (which is less than the maximum wall height of 30 feet permitted by code) (See Exhibit "D"). As a result, for all practical purposes, the height of the home will appear as fully compliant to any other homeowner in the neighborhood or observer. (f) Granting the variance is not contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Granting the requested variance would not be contrary to any identifiable objectives of the City's Comprehensive plan. Fiscal Impact Approval of the requested variance will have no fiscal impact upon the City. Document Originated by: John R. Hixenbaugh, J.D., AICP Development Services Director

15 REQt.JES"FED VARIANGE{S) Yard Requiring Variance Reqllired Proposed (i.e. front, side, rear, etc.) Setback Setback Variance FRONT SIDE REAR Permitted Proposed Height Height Variance 25/35 26'9" 1'9" (SEE SEPARATE SHEET ATTACHED).. Who or wmt isres,ooosidie the sp~(:icll alld.ulliquec' ol.rtditi.oi!'is!ii(len.ti1fiectai~o~'e d (SEE SEPARATE SHEET ATTACHED)

20 R1A R1A NORMAN SPANISH RIVER RESIDENCE 1175 SPANISH RIVER ROAD BA ZONING MAP North (NTS)

CITY OF NAPLES STAFF REPORT

Meeting of 6/17/15 Variance Petition 15-V4 CITY OF NAPLES STAFF REPORT To: Planning Advisory Board From: Planning Department Subject: Variance Petition 15-V4 Petitioner: Ted Karwoski Agent: Edward Westwood