CITY OF NAPLES STAFF REPORT

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CITY OF NAPLES STAFF REPORT"

Virginia Dixon
5 years ago
Views:

1 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 GardenBleu Date: June 2, 2015 REQUEST: Consideration of a Resolution determining Variance Petition 15-V4 requesting a variance from Section 56-54(a) to allow retaining walls, planters and hardscape to encroach into the required front and side yards exceeding the allowable height for the property located at 350 Spring Line Drive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for a double retaining wall and denial of the request for a terraced courtyard. LOCATION: 350 Spring Line Drive SIZE OF PARCEL:.44 acre EXISITING LAND USE: Single Family CURRENT ZONING: R1-15 PREVIOUS ACTION: A permit for the construction of a new single family home was issued in June PENDING AND/OR SUBSEQUENT ACTION: The Planning Advisory Board will hold a public hearing on this petition at its meeting held on Wednesday June 17, At the close of the public hearing, the PAB will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is scheduled to consider PAB s recommendation at their meeting held on Wednesday August 19, 2015, with final action taken by resolution.

ZONING MAP: Subject Property R1-15 R1-10 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: North South East West Zoning R1-15 N/A R1-15 R1-15 Land Use Single Family N/A Single Family Single Family COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The

2 ZONING MAP: Subject Property R1-15 R1-10 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: North South East West Zoning R1-15 N/A R1-15 R1-15 Land Use Single Family N/A Single Family Single Family COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The subject property is designated Residential Low Density on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan. Residential Low Density areas on the FLUM are intended to accommodate single-family or other similar and compatible residential land uses up to a maximum of six (6) dwelling units per net acre. The residential housing types in this category may include traditional single-family detached homes as well as cluster-style homes. This future land use is the most sensitive to disruption from the encroachment of incompatible uses; and protective strategies, such as transition zones of higher density residential areas, increased or substantial landscape buffers, natural barriers and other screening devices may be utilized to protect this land use. The proposed variance request is consistent with the following objectives and policies found within the Comprehensive Plan: Objective 1: Manage new development, redevelopment and reuse to ensure that it is orderly, balanced and compatible with the City s desire to maintain and protect its

existing residential character, to maintain viability of its commercial areas, provide open/green space. Encourage pedestrian/bicycle linkages, and protect environmentally sensitive lands.

3 existing residential character, to maintain viability of its commercial areas, provide open/green space. Encourage pedestrian/bicycle linkages, and protect environmentally sensitive lands. A proposed front yard patio as part of a new single family residence is generally consistent and compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. Policy 1-2: Unless otherwise permitted in the Comprehensive Plan, new development, redevelopment, and reuse shall be consistent with the permitted uses and density/intensity of each designation. A proposed front yard patio as part of a new single family residence is generally consistent with permitted uses and density of the Residential Low Density future land use designation. Policy 2-2: Permit new development only in areas where adequate public facilities (as defined by level of service standards) and access exists or will be provided prior to occupancy. Adequate public facilities are in place to serve the subject property. Policy 5-1: Land uses shall be consistent with permitted activities as detailed in Objective 1 and the designation description section of this element. A two story single family residence is a permitted use in the R1-15 zoning district and is consistent with the density limitation provided within the Residential Low Density future land use designation. FUTURE LAND USE MAP: Subject Property Residential Low Density

AERIAL OF SUBJECT PROEPRTY: Subject Property PROPOSED USE: A permit has been issued to construct a new single family house for the property located at 350 Spring Line Drive.

4 AERIAL OF SUBJECT PROEPRTY: Subject Property PROPOSED USE: A permit has been issued to construct a new single family house for the property located at 350 Spring Line Drive. Included as part of the scope of work on that permit, is a terraced courtyard off the front of the house that encroaches into both the front yard and side yard setback. On the east side of the property a double retaining wall is proposed that encroaches into the required side yard setback. The property is located in the R1-15 residence district where Section defines minimum yards as: Minimum yards in the R1-15 district are as follows: (1) Front yard: 40 feet. (2) Side yard: Ten feet. This side yard applies to the first 15 feet of vertical height measured from the greater of: a. The FEMA first habitable floor height requirement; b. 18 inches above the state department of environmental protection requirement for the first habitable floor structural support; c. 18 inches above the elevation of the average crown of the adjacent roads; or d. The average natural grade.

5 Additional height must remain within a 12:12 slope beyond the initial setback. (3) Rear yard: 30 feet. a. Rear yards abutting a public alley may be reduced to 15 feet for garages and carports that have direct vehicular access from the alley or utility sheds not exceeding 100 square feet in area. b. Unroofed pools or pools enclosed only with open mesh screening may be located in rear yard setback areas but may not be closer than 15 feet to any rear lot line, provided that no pool or pool enclosure shall be placed within a utility or drainage easement. (4) On lots which front on more than 1 street, 1 of the front yards may be reduced to 35 feet. The property owner may choose which setback to reduce, subject to the approval of the city manager. Encroachments into required yards is discussed in Section 56-54(a) which states: Structures less than 30 inches in height, other than swimming pools, are not considered encroachments upon minimum required yards. Every part of every required yard shall be open and unobstructed from 30 inches above the ground, as measured from the average elevation of the crown of road along the property frontage, except as provided in this section or section 56-45, Pools. Bermed earth, plant materials and driveways that follow the contours of the grade are not considered encroachments. Section 56-54(a)(7) further states: (7) The height of a retaining wall is measured from the average elevation of the crown of road along the property frontage to the top of the finished grade. Retaining walls exceeding 30 inches in height are not permitted in required yards unless otherwise allowed as part of a pool deck. The total height of walls extending above finished grade shall be governed by Section 56-37, Fences and walls. The crown of road for the portion of Spring Line Drive adjacent to the subject property is 4.17 NAVD. The Federal Emergency Management Agency determines the flood elevations for all new construction. The flood elevation for the subject property is set at 10 NAVD and the finished floor is at NAVD. This reflects a grade change of 6.5. The maximum height of the retaining walls supporting the terraced courtyard is at 8.25 NAVD and the elevation of the terrace outside the building envelope that is encroaching into the front and side yards is 8.39 NAVD. This clearly exceeds the maximum encroachment height as 30 above the crown would be 6.67 NAVD. Due to the grade change and a desire to elevate the garage floor to reduce steps in to the house the petitioner is proposing retaining walls on the east side of the house. The

6 first, running along the property line has a maximum height of 6.60 NAVD which is an allowable encroachment as it is below the 30 above the crown (6.67 ). However, the second retaining wall proposed, interior to the first and encroaching into the required side yard ranges in height from 7.0 to a maximum of 9.5 NAVD. These retaining walls are being utilized to support the grade change for the driveway to the garage. The elevation of the garage is at NAVD. ANALYSIS: The petitioner s agent has filed a petition for a variance. Section 46-37(c) of the Naples Land Development Code allows for the approval of a variance in instances where the established criteria for approval are satisfied. A review of the petition in light of the required criteria is provided for your consideration. The agent s response to each of the criteria is provided with their petition submittal. (c) Variance criteria. (1) General. a. If, upon consideration of the variance criteria set out in this subsection and (c)(2) below, it is determined that the case for approving a variance clearly outweighs the case for denial, the variance may be approved, providing that: 1. The variance does not permit the establishment or enlargement of any use or structure devoted to a use which is not permitted in the district in which the variance is requested; A two-story single family residence is a permitted use in the R1-15 zoning district. 2. The variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance requested is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (2) Specific. a. Prior to approving, approving with conditions or denying a variance, city council shall consider and determine, based upon substantial competent evidence, the following criteria: 1. Whether the plight of the applicant is due to unique circumstances not created by the applicant, an agent of the applicant or a predecessor in title of the applicant; The subject property is a platted lot within the Moorings Unit Two and subject to the R1-15 zoning district regulations. As a proposed new development, any new buildings are required to meet the established setbacks, lot dimensions, and all other standards set forth in the R1-15 district. The land development regulations in the R1-15 district were last revised in 1994 and Section which deals with encroachments into required yards was last revised in FEMA sets the base flood elevation for all new construction based upon flood maps last revised in 2012.

7 The plight of the applicant is a 6.5 grade change from the crown of the road of Spring Line Drive (4.17 NAVD) and the finished floor elevation of NAVD for the house and NAVD for the garage. On the north and west side of the subject property a proposed terraced courtyard with access off the front of the house that not only encroaches into the required front and side yards but exceeds the maximum height. On the east side of the property a double retaining wall system supports the driveway which provides access to the three car garage. These design elements solve a grade change problem that was created by the design of the new single family home and the choice to set the garage elevation at NAVD. In regards to the terraced courtyard, there was every opportunity for the house design to leave ample space in front of the office to accommodate a terrace that did not need to extend into the required front and side yards. Similarly the three car garage could have been set at a lower elevation, as non-habitable space a garage is not required to meet base flood elevation, and thereby reducing the need for extensive retaining walls in the side yard. 2. Whether special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or structure involved, and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same neighborhood or district; There are no unusual conditions or circumstances that exist, unique to the subject property. It is fairly common for flood elevations to be set at a height significantly above the elevation of the adjacent street. Furthermore, as neighborhoods in the City begin to undergo redevelopment, replacing original housing with new, there will often be a change in elevation from one property to the next. The neighboring property to the west of the subject property is undergoing redevelopment and has a new single family home under construction with a base flood elevation set at 10 NAVD. The neighboring property to the east has a single family home constructed in 1968 at a much lower elevation. While Section Yards may not have been written with consideration of higher base flood elevations and finished floor elevations in mind, it does apply to ALL properties citywide and is not uniquely applied to this property. Similarly, Section Minimum Yards applies to all properties in the R1-15 zoning district and is also not uniquely applied to the subject property. Furthermore, as new construction, there was ample opportunity to design for the elevation change and all outdoor elements to fit within the required setbacks and height limitations.

8 3. Whether the failure to grant the variance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship to the property; Failure to grant the variance requests would not result in the petitioner being unable to build a single family home on the subject property. However, the walls are up and construction has progressed to a significant point. Failure to grant the variance for the terrace courtyard would require demolition of the retaining walls supporting the courtyard. Failure to grant the variance for the side yard retaining wall system would require, at minimum, a redesign and re-grading of the driveway, which could potentially create a stormwater issued with the neighboring property to the east. 4. Whether the failure to grant the variance would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of the property; Failure to grant the variance will not deprive the owner of the reasonable use of the property. 5. Whether the variance will promote, or will not be inimical to, the health, safety and welfare of the community; The proposed variance request will not be inimical to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and community. 6. Whether the variance will be otherwise consistent with and in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code; The general intent and purpose of the land development code is to preserve and protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community, to protect the character and property values of the city, to protect the assets of the city and their economic value as it relates to the city as a tourist-oriented community, and to maintain and enhance the attractive nature of the city. The intent of the front setback in the R1-15 zoning district is to maintain a consistent street frontage within the neighborhood fostering a cohesive streetscape and neighborhood character. A terrace courtyard that encroaches into the front and side yard setbacks and exceeds the maximum allowable height is not consistent with the intent of this code. A double retaining wall that encroaches into a side yard setback is not consistent with the intent of this code. However, the double retaining wall does serve a functional purpose, although it was created by the design of the house, by supporting the driveway and providing stormwater conveyance. 7. Whether the variance is the most practical or logical solution to the need for relaxation of the literal requirements of this Land Development Code; The requested variance is not the most practical and logical solution to accommodate a courtyard terrace and driveway. As this is new

9 construction, both elements could have been incorporated into a design that met all required setbacks and heights. There is no need to relax the literal requirements of the Land Development Code. 8. Whether the variance will be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or adjacent properties. The proposed double retaining wall and terraced courtyard, screened with landscaping as indicated in the submitted planting plan, will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or adjacent properties. 9. Whether the construction resulting from the variance will be compatible in character and scale with the surrounding neighborhood, preserve natural resources, and preserve historic structures by maintaining the architectural character of the original building in keeping with the period in which it was built. The development of a terraced courtyard off the front of the new single family home is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood developed around Spring Line Drive is a mix of newly developed single family homes and established original structures. While it s clear upon review of the planting plan and elevations provided by the landscape architect that the intent is to soften the abrupt courtyard walls with hedges, trees and other plant materials it is still a feature and encroachment not seen anywhere else on the street. The proposed double retaining wall on the east side of the property, designed to support the driveway is also not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. However, the grade difference between the subject property and the neighboring property to the east does present challenges to engineer a driveway and stormwater system. The proposed variances will have no negative impact on natural resources or historical structures. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed variance petition has been reviewed by all applicable City departments; with the Streets and Stormwater Department the only one providing comments. Their memo, which is attached to this report, indicates that due to the elevation change from the crown of road and the garage, the double retaining walls serve a structural purpose in supporting the driveway and providing form stormwater conveyance. FINDINGS: Staff has reviewed the petitioner s application against the applicable criteria and recommends denial of the request for a terraced courtyard that encroaches into the front and side yards and exceeds the maximum allowable height, finding that the case for denial outweighs the case for approval. Staff finds that the request fails to meet Variance criteria 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9. Staff recommends approval of the request for a double retaining wall on the east side of the property.

10 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: On May 26, 2015 a total of 45 letters were mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. As of the date of this report, Staff has received a couple of s requesting additional information, and one in opposition of this request. Respectfully submitted, Leslee Dulmer Planner II

11 Site Photographs Front yard terrace courtyard under construction Grade change between subject property (right) and neighboring property to the east (left)

CITY OF NAPLES STAFF REPORT

Meeting of 11/9/16 Subdivision/Replat Petition 16-SD3 CITY OF NAPLES STAFF REPORT To: Planning Advisory Board From: Planning Department Subject: Subdivison/Replat Petition 16-SD3 Petitioner: Matthew Grabinski,