PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION

Transcription

1 PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TYPE I B - STAFF PUBLIC MEETING STAFF REPORT 8/20/2009 AGENDA ITEM CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE AVB B.15.F.1.a.4 10 ft Tokayer Variance Side-Interior Setback Side-Interior Setback SITUS ADDRESS: Arcadia Ct Boca Raton AGENT NAME & ADDRESS: None OWNER NAME & Amiel & Edna Tokayer ADDRESS: Arcadia Ct Boca Raton FL PCN: ZONING AR DISTRICT: BCC DISTRICT: 04 PROJECT Aaron Taylor, Site Planner I MANAGER: LEGAL AD: 5 ft Side-Interior Setback 5 ft Side-Interior Setback Ameil and Edna Tokayer, owners, to allow a proposed addition to an existing single family dwelling to encroach into the required side interior setback. LOC: Arcadia Ct. approx.10 mile south of South Montoya Circle on Arcadia Court within the Thornhill Mews Subdivision in the Boca Del Mar PUD in the AR zoning district. (Control # ) LAND USE: HR-8 S/T/R: PETITION #: LOT AREA: LOT DIMENSIONS: CONFORMITY OF LOT: CONFORMITY OF ELEMENT: TYPE OF ELEMENT: ELEMENT SIZE: BUILDING PERMIT #: NOTICE OF VIOLATION: CONSTRUCTION STATUS: APPLICANT REQUEST: 0.37 acre Approx ft x 70 ft Non-conforming Non-conforming Addition Approx ft x 40 ft None None Proposed To allow a proposed addition to encroach into the required side-interior setback. ZAR PAGE 1

2 STAFF SUMMARY Arcadia Court 70 ft canal Aerial Aerial North View Aerial East View Location of proposed addition Location of proposed addition Over 70 ft to nearest residence The subject property is located at Arcadia Court, approximately.10 miles South of South Montoya Circle on Arcadia Court; within the Thornhill Mews Pod of the Boca West PUD, in the AR Zoning District. The property owners are requesting a variance to allow a proposed addition to an existing single-family dwelling to encroach into the required 10 ft side-interior setback. Originally, the proposed addition encroached into a 7 ft utility easement located between the existing residence and the south property line. In accordance with Unified Land Development Code Art.5.F.2-2, no portion of any building or structure designed for human occupancy shall be permitted in any easement. The property owners worked with staff to abandon a 7 ft X 65 ft portion of the easement and redesign the proposed addition in a manner that would eliminate the easement encroachment (see Exhibit I). The intent of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) setback requirements is to promote consistency and open space between structures. The subject property is a non-conforming lot, located at the most southern portion of Arcadia Court where the right-of-way terminates (see Aerial Photo). The size and configuration of the lot eliminates the owners' ability to relocate or redesign the proposed addition in a manner that would not require a variance. The owners property abuts the rear of a residential lot to east and west; and abuts a 70 ft canal to the south (see Plat book 36 pg. 126). There is existing landscaping to the rear (east) of the owners lot that will eliminate the visual impact on the residence to the east. There is more than 70 ft of separation between the proposed addition and the nearest residence to the south. Visually there will be no greater impact to the surrounding area that has existed since the original single-family dwelling was constructed. The Palm Beach County 300 Administrative Variance notices were mailed after the variance petition was submitted; and there have been no letters of opposition from the public. Therefore staff supports that owners variance request. Effected Area Looking West ZAR PAGE 2

3 Findings of Fact 1. Originally, the proposed addition encroached into a 7 ft utility easement located between the existing residence and the south property line. In accordance with Unified Land Development Code Art.5.F.2-2, no portion of any building or structure designed for human occupancy shall be permitted in any easement. The property owners worked with staff to abandon a 7 ft X 65 ft portion of the easement and redesign the proposed addition in a manner that would eliminate the easement encroachment. 2. The subject property is a non-conforming lot, located at the most southern portion of Arcadia Court where the right-of-way terminates (see Aerial Photo). The size and configuration of the lot eliminates the owners' ability to relocate or redesign the proposed addition in a manner that would not require a variance. 3. The owners property abuts the rear of a residential lot to east and west; and abuts a 70 ft canal to the south (see Plat book 36 pg. 126). There is existing landscaping to the rear (east) of the owners lot that will eliminate the visual impact on the residence to the east. There is more than 70 ft of separation between the proposed addition and the nearest residence to the south. 4. Visually there will be no greater impact to the surrounding area that has existed since the original single-family dwelling was constructed. The Zoning AVB 300 notices were mailed, and there has been no letters of opposition from the public. Staff has concluded that all seven criteria have been met and therefore supports the owners variance request. ZAR PAGE 3

4 Survey Exhibit I ZAR PAGE 4

5 Easement Abandonment Sketch 7 X 65 portion of the U.E. abandoned Exhibit: II ZAR PAGE 5

6 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Approved with Conditions, based upon the following application of the standards enumerated in Article 2, Section 2.D.3 of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), which a petitioner must meet before the Administrative Variance Public Meeting Staff may authorize a variance. ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.D.3.G.2 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: Yes, The subject property is a non-conforming lot, located at the most southern portion of Arcadia Court where the right-of-way terminates (see Aerial Photo). The owners' property abuts the rear of a residential lot to east and west; and abuts a 70 ft canal to the south (see Plat book 36 pg. 126) Arcadia Ct. 70 ft canal Aerial 2. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT: Yes, The subject property is a non-conforming lot, located at the most southern portion of Arcadia Court where the right-of-way terminates (see Aerial Photo). The owners' property abuts the rear of a residential lot to east and west; and abuts a 70 ft canal to the south (see Plat book 36 pg. 126). The size and configuration of the lot eliminates the owners' ability to relocate or redesign the proposed addition in a manner that would not require a variance. 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: Yes, Additions to a single-family dwelling are permitted in residential zoning districts. Due to the nonconforming size, configuration and location of the owners' lot; granting the variance would not confer upon the owners any special privileges denied to others in the same Zoning District. 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: ZAR PAGE 6

7 Yes, 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. Originally, the proposed addition encroached into a 7 ft utility easement located between the existing residence and the south property line (see Survey). In accordance with Unified Land Development Code Art.5.F.2-2, no portion of any building or structure designed for human occupancy shall be permitted in any easement. The property owners worked with staff to abandon a 7 ft X 65 ft portion of the easement and redesign the proposed addition in a manner that would eliminate the easement encroachment (see Resolution ; O.R.B pg. 1920; and Exhibit II). The intent of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) setback requirements is to promote consistency and open space between structures. The owners' property abuts the rear of a residential lot to east and west; and abuts a 70 ft canal to the south (see Plat book 36 pg. 126). 5. GRANT OF VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE: Yes, Grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel of land. The size and configuration of the lot eliminates the owners' ability to relocate or redesign the proposed addition in a manner that would not require a variance. The owners' property abuts the rear of a residential lot to east and west; and abuts a 70 ft canal to the south (see Plat book 36 pg. 126). There is existing landscape to the rear (east) of the owners' lot that will eliminate the visual impact on the residence to the east. Existing Landscaping Addition location Over 70 ft to nearest residence Aerial East 6. GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE: Yes, The intent of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) setback requirements is to promote consistency and open space between structures. The subject property is a non-conforming lot, located at the most southern portion of Arcadia Court were the right-of-way terminates. There is more than 70 ft of separation between the proposed addition and the nearest residence to the south. Visually there will be no greater impact to the surrounding area that has existed since the original single-family dwelling was constructed. Therefore, granting the variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives of the ULDC. ZAR PAGE 7

8 7. THE GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE: Yes, There is existing landscape to the rear (east) of the owners' lot that will eliminate the visual impact on the residence to the east. There is more than 70 ft of separation between the proposed addition and the nearest residence to the south. Visually there will be no greater impact to the surrounding area that has existed since the original single-family dwelling was constructed. The Palm Beach County 300' Administrative Variance notices were mailed after the variance petition was submitted; and there have been no letters of opposition from the public. Therefore staff supports that owners' variance request. Therefore, grant of the variance will not be injurious to the surrounding area. Existing landscape screening Over 70 ft of separation to the nearest residence to the South. Location of proposed addition Looking West ZAR PAGE 8

9 AGENCY COMMENTS 1. The project reviewer is Glenn Mark from Survey, who can be contacted at to discuss the following comments. (RESOLVED) 2. This office is unable to clearly read the digital Boundary Survey provided for review. The line work and text are blurred and it's not acceptable for approval by this office. (RESOLVED) 3 Provide a digital file of the legal description for this project in a 'Word' or 'Text' format. (RESOLVED) 4. Identify the acreage and square footage of the site on the map sheet of the Survey. (RESOLVED) 5. Label the Plat Name, Plat Book and Page within the lot on the map sheet of the Survey. (RESOLVED) 6. Identify, leader and label the existing right-of-way record information for the adjacent roadway and canal on the map sheet of the Survey. (RESOLVED) 7 Easements to be vacated must follow the Palm Beach County Abandonment Ordinance procedures to be valid. (RESOLVED) 8. It appears the proposed building still encroaches into the utility easement by approximately 3 feet on the east side. (RESOLVED) 9. Provide a comparison between the recorded directions and distances with field measured directions and distances to the nearest street intersection, right-of-way intersection, PRM or other identifiable reference point from the plat on the map sheet of the Survey. (RESOLVED) 10. Need evidence that utility easement has been abandoned. (RESOLVED) 11. All previous certification issues were addressed. However, re-submittal of documents may generate new comments and/or certification issues. (RESOLVED) ZONING COMMENTS Include Abandonment Resolution number & O.R. book and page on survey. (RESOLVED) DEVELOPMENT ORDER The development order for this particular variance shall lapse on August 20, 2010, one year from the approval date. (DATE: MONITORING: Zoning) ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TYPE I B STAFF PUBLIC MEETING CONDITIONS 1. The property owner shall provide the Building Division with a copy of the Administrative Variance Staff Public Meeting Result Letter and a copy of the site plan and/or survey presented to staff, simultaneously with the building permit application. (DATE: MONITORING - BUILDING) 2. Prior to the Development Order expiration (August 20, 2010), the project shall have received and passed the first building inspection. (EVENT: MONITORING - BUILDING) ZAR PAGE 9