PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION

Transcription

1 PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION Application No.: SV/ZV Control No.: Applicant: Jewish Community Facilities Corp Owners: Jewish Community Facilities Corp Agent: Land Design South, Inc. - Jennifer Morton Telephone No.: (561) Project Manager: Autumn Sorrow, Senior Site Planner Donna Adelsperger, Site Planner I Location: Approximately one half mile south of Glades Road on the east side of 95th Avenue (Rainberry PUD Pods A & B) TITLE: a Subdivision Variance REQUEST: to allow variance from the requirement set forth in the Unified Land Development Code, Article 11.E.A.2 that access to each subdivision lot shall be by a street of suitable classification and construction as established by the subdivision regulations; and to allow variance from the requirement set forth in the Unified Land Development Code, Article 11.E.9.D.2 that no direct access to a major street be allowed for subdivision lots. TITLE: a Type II Zoning Variance REQUEST: to allow reduction of the Private Civic Pod lot frontage and elimination of frontage on a collector or arterial street. APPLICATION SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting two Subdivision and two Zoning Variances for Pod B, a private civic pod within the Rainberry PUD site. The first Subdivision Variance is from Article 11.E.A.2 that access to each subdivision lot shall be by a street of suitable classification and construction as established by the subdivision regulations; and the other from Article 11.E.9.D.2 that no direct access to a major street be allowed for subdivision lots. Access to Pod B will remain from 95th Avenue and access to the subdivided parcel will be via a forty (40) foot ingress/egress adjacent to Pod A. The first Zoning Variance is for the reduction of the lot frontage for a private civic pod and the elimination of frontage on a collector or arterial street. Access will remain from the forty (40) foot ingress/egress easement adjacent to Pod A. ZC July 1, 2010 Page 113

2 APPLICATION NO. CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE SV/ZV SV1 Article 11.E.2.A.2 Street of Suitable Classification Access onto ingress-egress easement for subdivision lot Access onto ingress-egress easement for subdivision lot SV2 Artcile 11.E.9.D.2 No access directly to a major street for subdivision lot Access via a major street for subdivison lot Access via a major street for subdivison lot V4 Table 3.E.2.D, PUD Property Development Regulations Private Civic parcels shall have 100 feet of frontage 0 feet of frontage Eliminate frontage requirements FUTURE LAND Low Residential 3 (LR-3) S/T/R: USE (FLU): CONTROL #: LOT AREA: 2.72 acres +/- LOT DIMENSIONS: feet in width feet in length CONFORMITY OF Non-conforming. Existing lot CONFORMITY N/A LOT: has zero (0) frontage OF ELEMENT: BUILDING PERMIT #: T Adult Daycare NOTICE OF VIOLATION: N/A CONSTRUCTION The Adult Daycare has been constructed and is in operation today. STATUS: APPLICANT REQUEST: To allow access via a major street for subidivison lot; to allow access onto ingress-egress easement for subdivision lot; and to allow the elimination of frontage requirements for a Private Civic Site in a Planned Unit Development. STAFF SUMMARY This application precedes application DOA/R to modify and delete Conditions of Approval (Engineering, Landscaping, Lighting, Building & Site Design and Use Limitations), add square footage and reconfigure the master plan and site plan and a Requested Use to allow a Congregate Living Facility Type III, Assembly Non-Profit Institutional use, and a Nursing or Convalescent Facility for Rainberry PUD s Pod A and Pod B. TYPE II ZONING VARIANCE REQUEST Proposed are 3 Type II Variances from the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) for Rainberry PUD s Pod A and Pod B. Two variances are to allow variance relief from the requirement set forth in the Unified Land Development Code, Article 11.E.A.2 to allow access points onto a 40 ingressegress easement for a subdivision lot; and, and to allow previously approved accesses onto a major street be maintained as access to a subdivision lot. The other 2 variances are requested to eliminate frontage requirements and legal access on an Arterial or Collector Street for a Private Civic Pod in a PUD. The applicant has also requested a variance from Art.3.E.2.4.b to eliminate the frontage requirement for a Private Civic Pod to have frontage along an arterial or collector street; this variance is not ZC July 1, 2010 Page 114

3 needed as Pod B does have frontage on an arterial or collector street and has therefore not been analyzed by staff. It is important to mention an issue regarding another possible variance request as it relates to civic pods remaining as one singular parcel that has been resolved by staff. According to ULDC Art.3.E.2.E.4.c. 2) Private Civic of Art.3, Supplement 8, which states: Private civic parcels shall be labeled as Private on the master plan and may be underscored for a particular use as defined in this section or as outlined in Zoning Code Use matrix. Such pods may be located anywhere within the PUD but should remain as one singular parcel. Zoning Staff (Community Development Section) along with staff from Facility Development and Operation further researched the intent of this language and concluded that the language is to discourage aggregation of land area (not usable/developable e.g. a series of slivers of land area accumulated to meet the min 2% requirements). Therefore, Zoning and FDO staff agreed that the existing code language 1) could be edited further with better explanation of the original intent, and 2) that the current subdivision request do not create a code requirement issue with Art.3.E.2.E.4.c. 2), and do not need a variance to deviate from this requirement as Pod B is not a singular parcel. Pod B with its subdivision still satisfy civic requirements for the Rainberry PUD. GENERAL LOCATION, PREVIOUS APPROVALS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Glades Road and State Road 7. The site has access to Glades Road through 95th Avenue, and to State Road 7 through Central Park Boulevard. The current adopted zoning designation is Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Pod B, which is the subject of this request, has been designated as a civic pod. The Future Land Use designation is LR-3 (Low Residential 3 units per acre). The site is located within the Urban/Suburban Tier Previous Approvals for POD B of the Rainberry PUD The subject site was part of an approval for the Rainberry PUD, Pods A & B, under Resolution The approximate acreage for Pods A and B is +/ acres. The subject of this request only pertains to Pod B, which is approximately acres in size. The previously approved uses under Resolution for Pod B included an adult daycare (built), elementary, middle and high schools, along with shared facilities (unbuilt). As mention above, there is subsequent application (DOA/R ) in the system to amend the site plan to delete the above referenced school uses and, in lieu of, seek approval for a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC), which would include a Type 3 Congregate Living Facility, Nursing or Convalescent Facility and a Assembly, Non- Profit Institutional uses. An adult daycare facility was also approved and constructed as part of Pod B under the current Resolution and will remain. There is no request to change this use. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES SOUTH WEST: FLU Designation: Medium Residential (MR-5) Zoning District: Residential Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Supporting: School/Vacant ( Control No ) NORTH WEST: FLU Designation: Medium Residential (MR-5) Zoning District: Residential Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Supporting: Multi-Family ( Control No ) NORTH EAST: FLU Designation: High Residential (HR-12) Zoning District: Multi-Family Residential (Medium Density) District (RM) Supporting: Multi-Family residential SOUTH: FLU Designation: High Residential (HR-8) Zoning District: Residential Planned Unit Development District (PUD) ZC July 1, 2010 Page 115

4 Supporting: Multi-Family residential ( Control No ) EAST: FLU Designation: Low Residential (LR-3) Zoning District: Residential Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Supporting: Single Family Residential ( Control No ) NORTH WEST: FLU Designation: Low Residential (LR-3) Zoning District: Residential Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Supporting: School/Vacant ( Control No ) This site is surrounded on all sides by residential development. To the northwest, across an 80-foot LWDD L-46 canal right-of-way, is a multifamily residential development known as Boca Ridge PUD (Control No ) with a Zoning Designation of Residential Planned Unit Development and MR-5 Future Land Use Designation and to the northeast is a multifamily residential development known as Boca Ridge Park Condominium with a Zoning Designation of Multi-family Residential (RM) and High Residential (HR-12) Future Land Use Designation. To the south is the multi-family residential development known as Boca Lago PUD (Control No ) with a Zoning Designation of Residential Planned Unit Development and HR-12 Future Land Use Designation. To the east is the single-family residential development known as the Timbers of Boca PUD (Control No ) with a Zoning Designation of Residential Planned Unit Development and LR-3 Future Land Use Designation. To the west are the remaining pods of Rainberry PUD (Control No ) and Ponte Verde PUD, a single-family development with a Zoning Designation of Multi-family Residential (RM) and Medium Residential (MR-5) Future Land Use Designation. Subject to the recommended conditions of approval, Staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts to the surrounding properties from the requests. Existing adult daycare within Pod B. ZC July 1, 2010 Page 116

5 Existing Adult Daycare, existing Congregate Living Facility Type III and JARC housing within POD A. Existing Adult Daycare within POD B and existing Congregate Living Facality within POD A. ZC July 1, 2010 Page 117

6 ULDC REQUIREMENTS SV1, and SV2, Per ULDC Article 11.E.A.2 access to each subdivision lot shall be by a street of suitable classification and construction as established by the subdivision regulations. Per ULDC Article 11.E.9.D.2 direct access to a major street must be provided for subdivided lots. The requested variances to allow the subdivision of lots not to be located on a street of suitable classification and construction nor have access to a major street are inextricably tied together; therefore, V1 and V2 are analyzed together for each of the 7-variance standards. ZV3 The intent of property development regulations, including the lot frontage requirement is to ensure that development within the County occurs in such a way as to minimize any potention adverse impacts. The proposed reduction of lot frontage would not create any adverse impact since no other properties access this easement. ULDC Table 3.E.2.D requires a minimum width and frontage requirement of 100 for Private Civic Pods. Once the subdivision occurs it is impossible for each individual lot that is created to have frontage on and access to a right-ofway. ZC July 1, 2010 Page 118

7 Figure 1 aerial ZC July 1, 2010 Page 119

8 Figure 2 Preliminary Master Plan dated May 17, 2010 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 120

9 Figure 3 Preliminary Site Plan dated May 18, 2010 with variances highlighted ZC July 1, 2010 Page 121

10 Figure 2 Survey page 2 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 122

11 Figure 3 Survey page 3 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 123

12 FINDINGS: Staff recommends approval of SV1, SV2, ZV3, subject to conditions based upon the following application of the standards enumerated in Article 2.B.3.E Type II Variance Standards of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), which an applicant must meet prior to making a motion for approval of a subdivision and zoning variance. ANALYSIS OF ULDC ARTICLE 2.B.3.E TYPE II VARIANCE STANDARDS 1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND, STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT: SV 1 YES. There are special conditions that exist that are peculiar to the parcel of land. The previous site plan approved for Pod B included a 40 ingress-egress easement to allow for multiple driveway connections to serve both Pods A and B. This easement currently serves as the sole access to the portion of Pod B that has been developed in accordance with the approved site plan. The construction of the 40 ingress-egress easement generally conforms with standards for roadway construction within right of way. Specifically, sight triangles at driveway connections are protected, clear zone requirements are met and the asphalt, base and sub-grade thickness comply with County requirements for a local commercial street. Further, with the exception that the site is a Civic Pod within PUD, the site meets the intent of the Subdivision Exemption of Article 11.A.6.B which provides that subdivisions in commercial Planned Developments do not need to meet the Article 11 access requirements. SV 2 YES. There are special conditions that exist that are peculiar to the parcel of land. The previous site plan approved for Pod B included three access points to 95th Avenue (a major street); one access is shared with Pod A and the other two are driveways to Pod B. The property owner is not requesting a change in the locations of the access points that are currently approved. Further, the Zoning Code requires that all Type III CLF uses front on and access from a major street which is in conflict with the Subdivision Ordinance when there are subdivision lots proposed. This is a unique situation where a variance is required to resolve a conflict in the Code. ZV 3 YES. The variance requests are unique in character to this particular property. This property has been designed as a campus that has multiple uses, including private schools, office space, elderly affordable housing, housing for the disabled, as well as an adult daycare facility. The special circumstance is that the existing access is provided via a 40 ingress-egress easement for both Pods A and B and this easement serves as the sole access to the site. Since the only legal means of access to the site is through a 40 ingress-egress easement, the 100 linear frontage requirement along a street cannot be established. 2. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT: SV 1 YES. The specific conditions are not a direct result of actions of the property owner as the site plan has already been approved and the ingress-egress easement currently serves as access to the portion of Pod B that has been developed. The code would allow this type of driveway easement to serve as access to a Planned Development under the Subdivision Ordinance. SV 2 YES. The specific conditions are not a direct result of actions of the property owner. There are no changes proposed to the location of the access points along 95 th Avenue and the variance is required to resolve a conflict between the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Ordinance. ZC July 1, 2010 Page 124

13 ZV 3 YES. The special circumstances and conditions that apply to this project are not a result of the actions of the Applicant. This property has been designed as a campus that has multiple uses, including private schools, office space, elderly affordable housing, housing for the disabled, as well as an adult daycare facility. The specific conditions are not a direct result of actions of the property owner as the site plan has already been approved and the ingress-egress easement currently serves as access to the portion of Pod B that has been developed. 3. GRANTING THE VARIANCE SHALL NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DENIED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT: SV 1 YES. Grant of this variance would not confer special privilege denied to other parcels of land with similar uses. The 40 ingress-egress easement would be considered adequate access for a commercial Planned Development. This site meets the intent of the Subdivision Exemption in the Subdivision Ordinance. SV 2 YES. Grant of this variance would not confer special privilege denied to other parcels of land with similar uses. There has been precedent set of approval for variances to grant access to a subdivision lot from a major street where a previously approved Master Plan showed similar access to the overall development. ZV 3 YES. The granting of these variances will not confer upon the Applicant any special privileges denied by the Plan and the ULDC to other parcels of land in the same district. Granting the variance will allow the applicant the right to continue the use of the existing 40 ingress-egress easement as access. In addition, the Zoning Commission approved a similar variance request for Volvo Rents (ZV ) on April 3, 2008 which allowed 0 of frontage for an industrial zoned parcel. 4. LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND WOULD WORK AN UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP: SV 1 YES. Literal interpretation of the code does deprive the owner of rights enjoyed by other parcels of land since the access easement would be acceptable as access to a parcel within a commercial Planned Development. SV 2 YES. Literal interpretation of the code does deprive the owner of rights enjoyed by other parcels of land. No changes to the approved access locations along the major street are proposed. ZV 3 YES. Literal interpretation of the language outlined in Article 3 would cause an undue hardship on the Applicant in this scenario. The intent of the frontage and access requirements is to ensure that individual parcels do not get landlocked and that adequate circulation is provided onsite. The project has been designed as an overall campus, and, due to the multiple uses, will require varying forms of ownership that will require subdivision of individual lots. In the event that Pod B is subdivided, portions of the Pod may not be able to meet the frontage requirements. For example, a portion of Pod B, the adult daycare center, is currently constructed and is a functioning facility. If the portion of Pod B that houses the adult daycare facility was subdivided in the future, the literal interpretation of the Code would prevent this facility from continuing to function at its current capacity, given that this portion of Pod B would not meet the frontage requirements. This, in turn creates an undue hardship on the Applicant. It is for these reasons that the Applicant is requesting variances from the frontage requirements for Pod B, as required in Art.3.E.2.E.4.b and Table 3.E.2.D of the Unified Land Development Code. ZC July 1, 2010 Page 125

14 5. GRANT OF VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE: SV 1 YES. Granting this variance is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the parcel of land. If the variance is not granted, additional variances will be necessary to convert the existing 40 ingress-egress easement into a local street. SV 2 YES. Granting this variance is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the parcel of land. The access locations along 95 th Avenue were previously approved on the Master Plan for Pods A & B. ZV 3 YES. This request represents the minimum variances necessary to continue the utilization of the existing 40 ingress-egress easement as access. 6. GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE: SV 1 YES. Grant of this variance will be consistent with the objectives of the Plan and the Code. The Code provides a Subdivision Exemption for commercial Planned Developments and this meets the intent of that exemption. Grant of the variance allows the property owner to maintain what was previously approved and existing as access to the site. SV 2 YES. Grant of this variance will be consistent with the objectives of the Plan and the code. Palm Beach County has approved a Master Plan for this site indicating the access connections to 95 th Avenue in the same locations and confirming that these locations are consistent with the Plan and the Code. ZV 3 YES. The granting of this variance is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, Purposes and Polices of the Comprehensive Plan and ULDC. 7. THE GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE: SV 1 YES. Grant of this variance will not be injurious to the area involved as the existing drive within the 40 ingress-egress easement is currently utilized as access to the developed portion of Pod B and generally conforms to Palm Beach County s standards for a local commercial street. SV 2 YES. Grant of this variance will not be injurious to the area involved as these access locations along 95th Avenue were previously approved on the Pods A & B Master Plan. ZV 3 YES. The granting of these variances will not have adverse impacts on the public welfare. To the contrary, it will foster public interest by allowing the development of the proposed CCRC and will allow the adult daycare located on Pod B to continue functioning in the event that the Pod is subdivided. Thus, approval of this variance will not negatively impact the public welfare of the surrounding community. ZC July 1, 2010 Page 126

15 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT C Type II Variance - Concurrent VARIANCE 1. The Develpment Order for this variance shall be tied to the Time Limitations of the Development Order for DOA/R (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) 2. This variance was approved based on Site Plan layout dated May 18, Only minor modifications by BCC or DRO shall be permitted provided the changes are consistent with this site plan. (ONGOING: CODE ENF - Zoning) 3. Prior to the submittal for final approval by the Development Review Officer (DRO), the approved variance(s) and any associated conditions of approval shall be reflected on the site plan. (DRO: ZONING-Zoning) COMPLIANCE 4. In granting this approval, the Zoning Commission relied upon the oral and written representations of the property owner/applicant both on the record and as part of the application process. Deviations from or violation of these representations shall cause the approval to be presented to the Zoning Commission for review under the compliance condition of this approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) 5. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of approval for the subject property at any time may result in: a. The issuance of a stop work order; the issuance of a cease and desist order; the denial or revocation of a building permit; the denial or revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO); the denial of any other permit, license or approval to any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the revocation of any other permit, license or approval from any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; revocation of any concurrency; and/or b. The revocation of the Official Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or any other zoning approval; and/or c. A requirement of the development to conform with the standards of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) at the time of the finding of non-compliance, or the addition or modification of conditions reasonably related to the failure to comply with existing conditions; and/or d. Referral to code enforcement; and/or e. Imposition of entitlement density or intensity. Staff may be directed by the Executive Director of PZ&B or the Code Enforcement Special Master to schedule a Status Report before the body which approved the Official Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or other zoning approval, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.E of the ULDC, in response to any flagrant violation and/or continued violation of any condition of approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) ZC July 1, 2010 Page 127

16 Exhibit D Disclosure Forms Disclosure Applicant page 1 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 128

17 Disclosure Applicant page 2 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 129

18 Disclosure Applicant page 3 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 130

19 Disclosure Applicant page 4 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 131

20 Exhibit E Applicant s Subdivision Justification Statement ZC July 1, 2010 Page 132

21 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 133

22 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 134

23 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 135

24 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 136

25 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 137

26 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 138

27 Exhibit F Applicants Zoning Variance Justification Statement ZC July 1, 2010 Page 139

28 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 140

29 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 141

30 ZC July 1, 2010 Page 142