PUBLIC HEARING: October 14, 2014 Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission (PLDRC)

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 26 GROWTH AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITY 123 W. Indiana Avenue, DeLand, FL (386) PUBLIC HEARING: October 14, 2014 Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission (PLDRC) CASE NO: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT/OWNERS: STAFF: V A variance to the minimum rear yard for an existing singlefamily dwelling and an addition to the existing single-family dwelling on Prime Agriculture (A-1) zoned property. 628 Cypress Isles Road, Osteen David and Barbara Franzmann Susan Jackson, AICP, Planner III I. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicants have applied for a variance minimum rear yard setback for their existing home and for an addition they wish to build onto their back screened porch. The property is zoned Prime Agriculture (A-1), which requires a minimum 50-foot rear yard. The existing home is located feet from the rear property line at its nearest point, requiring a variance of 9.11 feet. The screen room addition is proposed at 34 feet from the property line, requiring a variance of 16 feet. Variance 1: A variance to the minimum rear yard from the required 50 feet to feet for the existing single family house; and, Variance 2: A variance to the minimum rear yard from the required 50 feet to 34 feet for a proposed screen room addition on Prime Agriculture (A-1) zoned property. Staff Recommendation: Staff finds that variance 1 of the application meets all five criteria for granting a variance and therefore recommends approval. Staff finds that variance 2 does not meet all the required criteria for granting this particular request and therefore must recommend.

2 Page 2 of 26 II. SITE INFORMATION 1. Location: The property is located on the west side of Cypress Isles Road, approximately 800 feet south of the intersection of Bay Head Road and Cypress Isles Road, on the eastern side of Osteen. 2. Parcel No(s): Property Size: 5.03 acres 4. Council District: 5 5. Zoning: A-1 6. Future Land Use: Agricultural Resource 7. ECO Overlay: No 8. NRMA Overlay: Yes 9. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: DIRECTION ZONING FUTURE LAND USE CURRENT USE North: A-1 Agricultural Resource Single Family Rural Residential East: A-1 Agricultural Resource Single Family Rural Residential South: A-1 Agricultural Resource Single Family Rural Residential West: A-1 Agricultural Resource Single Family Rural Residential 10. Location Maps: Aerial Map Zoning Map

3 Page 3 of 26 III. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS The subject parcel and the parcel adjacent to the west were originally a single 10-acre parcel. The 10-acre parcel was legally subdivided in 1981 into two five-acre parcels through the McGough Unrecorded Subdivision. This was done at a time when the A-1 zoning classification allowed five-acre lots. In 1984 Volusia County revised its zoning ordinance to require A-1 to have a minimum lot size of 10 acres. One of the lots was sold through an Agreement of Deed dated December 1982, prior to the 1984 code change, but was not recorded until January This allows the lots to be considered legal nonconforming lots, even though it appears that they were still under common ownership until the date the deed was recorded. In 1999 a building permit for a single-family home was issued on the subject parcel. Because the above referenced deed was not yet recorded, the home was permitted subject to the 10-acre parent parcel. The permit survey shows the home was located in such a way that it met the setback requirements for the 10-acre combined parcel, but did not meet the requirements if only considering the five-acre subdivided parcel on which it was located. In 2009, the house was foreclosed upon. It was subsequently sold to a private owner, and then sold again to the Franzmanns in May As a result of these past actions, the Franzmanns have purchased a home that does not meet the minimum rear yard setback requirement for its zoning classification. The A-1 classification requires a 50-foot rear yard. The existing house is setback feet from the rear property line. Further, the Franzmanns now wish to expand their screened porch by an additional 6.89 feet in order to create enough room for a hot tub spa that is recommended for medical purposes. The proposed addition would be only 34 feet from the west rear property line. The applicant s written petition and supplemental information provides their reasons for the requested variance. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS Section (1)a.4 Variances of the zoning code contains five applicable criteria by which a variance application may be granted. The following staff evaluation is based on these criteria: i. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, sign, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, signs, or buildings in the same zoning classification. Variance 1: The existing house was permitted in 1999 subject to being located on a 10- acre parcel based on the property survey that the applicant at that time submitted for permitting. However; at the time of permitting the Agreement of Deed was not recorded so it was unknown to the county that the other half of the subdivision was under contract with another owner. The house was located roughly in the middle of the 10 acres, on the western end of subject property. It easily met the setback requirements for being on a 10-

4 Page 4 of 26 acre lot, but did not meet setbacks for the five-acre portion it was located on. Also, the existing house is positioned at a slight angle on the lot, with the closest point of the house located feet from the rear property line. This variance meets this criterion. Variance 2: Typically, a house built on a five-acre lot would be placed in such a way that it would have ample room to meet setbacks and modest additions to the house would not pose a problem. In this case, the house was permitted on a 10-acre parcel without regard to the property lines of the underlying subdivided lots. The applicants were unaware of this issue when they purchased the property. Now the applicants wish to install a hot tub for medical purposes. They have been advised to place it in such a manner that it is handicap accessible by wheel chair on all sides. The existing porch measures 12 feet long by 10 feet wide. In order to accomplish this they would like to expand their existing porch to 20 feet long by 15 feet wide. Although the proposed porch is only five feet wider, because it is longer and the footprint of the house is at a slight angle to the property line, it extends an additional 6.11 feet into the rear yard. Since the existing house already encroaches into the rear yard, there is no way to expand the porch without further encroachment. Due to the home layout, there is no other rear or side door that could access a porch built onto the side of the house where setbacks would not be an issue. This variance meets this criterion. ii. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Variance 1: The applicants purchased the property in May They were not responsible for permitting the location of the existing house or for the subdivision of the 10- acre parent parcel into the two five-acre lots. This variance meets this criterion. Variance 2: The proposed expansion of the existing porch is due to the applicant s desire to install a hot tub. The existing porch is not large enough to accommodate the hot tub purchased by the applicants. This variance does not meet this criterion.

5 Page 5 of 26 iii. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning classification, under the terms of the ordinance, and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Variance 1: Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would require renovation of the house to remove those portions within the required 50-foot rear yard. This would be an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. It could also mean that if the home were damaged in excess of 75% it could not be rebuilt in the same foot print. The variance requested will legitimize the existing rear yard dimension. This variance meets this criterion. Variance 2: Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would not necessarily deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning classification; however, a house built on a five-acre lot would typically be placed in such a way that it would have ample room to meet setbacks and modest additions to the house would not pose a problem. In this case, the house was permitted on a 10-acre parcel without regard to the property lines of the underlying subdivided lots. The placement of the house by the previous owners eliminated the ability to expand any portion of the house to the rear of the lot. This variance does not meet this criterion. iv. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, structure, or sign. Variance 1: The house is constructed 9.11 feet into the rear yard. This is the minimum variance that will make possible the use of the existing structure without renovating or moving it. This variance meets this criterion. Variance 2: The proposed addition to the existing porch is five feet wider and would encroach an additional 6.11 feet into the rear yard at its closest point. It is possible that there are other configurations of the porch that would encroach a few feet less and still meet the applicant s goal of installing the hot tub so that it is handicap accessible on all sides. Even with the reduced setback; however, the house is still over the 30 feet from the rear property line, which is the standard setback for most residential properties. Or the applicants can construct a separate accessory structure to accommodate a hot tub. This variance does not meet this criterion.

6 Page 6 of 26 v. The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this ordinance and the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No , as amended, and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved. Variance 1: The house has existed in this location since There have been no complaints or concerns registered regarding its location. This variance would be harmony with the general area. This variance meets this criterion. Variance 2: There are only two neighbors that are visible from the subject property. The rear of the house faces another five-acre lot that contains a mobile home. There is approximately 360 feet between the two dwellings. The applicant s rear yard, the neighbor s farm pond, pasture and various out buildings are located between them. This neighbor has provided a letter of support for the variances. The other neighbor is located on the 10-acre parcel abutting the north property line. Theirs home is over 350 feet away, on the opposite side than the proposed porch. This neighbor has also provided a letter of support. All other abutting properties are vacant and densely forested. This variance would be harmony with the general area. This variance meets this criterion. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Variance 1: Staff finds that the applicant meets all five criteria to grant this variance and therefore recommends approval of the variance to the minimum rear yard from the required 50 feet to feet for the existing single-family house on Prime Agriculture (A-1) zoned property. Variance 2: Staff finds the applicant does not meet all five criteria, therefore must recommend denial of the variance to the minimum rear yard from the required 50 feet to 34 feet for the proposed screen room addition to the existing single-family house on Prime Agriculture (A-1) zoned property. However, if the PLDRC finds that this requested variance does meet all five of the criteria for granting a variance, staff has provided the following conditions for consideration: 1. The property owner or authorized agents shall obtain and complete all required building permits and inspections for the proposed screen room addition. 2. The property owners shall not seek any further variances to the rear yard requirements for this property.

7 Page 7 of 26 VI. ATTACHMENTS Written Petition Applicant s Supplemental Information Survey/Variance Site Plan Letters of Support Site Photos Maps VII. AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURE The commission may, except as otherwise provided in Section of the zoning code, authorize, after due public notice upon application on a form prescribed by the zoning enforcement official, such variance or variances from the terms of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest when, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provision of this ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship. Said variance application shall be heard only if it is presented by the person owning 51 percent or more of the specific area of land involved or upon an administrative application by the county council. Any new information to be presented at the planning and land development regulation commission meeting for any application will be grounds to continue an application to the next planning and land development regulation commission meeting. Applicants shall inform and provide staff with the new information prior to the planning and land development regulation commission meeting.

8 Page 8 of 26

9 Page 9 of 26

10 Page 10 of 26

11 Page 11 of 26

12 Page 12 of 26

13 Page 13 of 26

14 Page 14 of 26

15 Page 15 of 26

16 Page 16 of 26

17 Page 17 of 26

18 Page 18 of 26

19 Page 19 of 26

20 Page 20 of 26 View of back of house from half-way to the rear property line. View of existing back porch. View of back of house and yard, facing north.

21 Page 21 of 26 View of back yard, facing west. Fence is at the property line. View from back porch facing south View from back porch, facing north

22 Page 22 of 26 View of front of house and north side of property. View of front of house and south side of property. View from front of house facing east toward Cypress Isles Road.

23 DEER POND RD Page 23 of 26 BAY HEAD RD CYPRESS ISLES RD IRON BEND TR ECO/NRMA REQUEST AREA ECO NRMA 1 inch = 500 feet I VARIANCE CASE NUMBER V

24 Page 24 of 26 CYPRESS ISLES RD AERIAL IMAGE YEAR: inch = 200 feet REQUEST AREA FOR SETBACK VARIANCES I VARIANCE CASE NUMBER V

25 Page 25 of 26

26 DEER POND RD Page 26 of 26 BAY HEAD RD CYPRESS ISLES RD IRON BEND TR FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AGRICULTURE RESOURCE (1) CONSERVATION (3) 1 inch = 500 feet ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS CORRIDOR (3) WATER (1) REQUEST AREA VARIANCE CASE NUMBER I V