City of Panama City Board of Adjustment January 22, 2018 Staff findings of consistency with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan follow: Request One Owner/ Applicant: Michael & Sharon Doredant Case Number: BA 17-07 Address/Location: 900 Buena Vista Boulevard (Parcel #19126-000-000) Request: Reduce rear setback, pursuant to Section 104-27(b)(3) of the Land Development Regulations. Land Use Designation / Zoning District: Residential / Residential-1(R-1) Tract Size: ±.344 acres Background: The applicant requests a reduction in the rear setback from 30 feet to 18.5 feet (reduction of 11.5 feet) to expand an existing carport. According to 104-27, a rear setback of 30 feet is required in the Residential-1 zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan: Objective 1.4: The City has adopted Land Development Regulations which contain specific provisions for implementation of this Plan. Such regulations will contain innovative land use management provisions such as for mixed use areas and planned unit developments. Policy 1.4.1: The City will administer land development regulations for implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. At minimum, these regulations will: (b) Regulate the use of land and water consistent with this Element and ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses through provision of or reference to specific and detailed requirements which will include, but not be limited to, maintenance of an official land use map, maintenance of land use districts and allowable uses including accessory land uses, maintenance of environmental protection and development standards, creation of measures to reduce the potential for nuisances caused by incompatible land uses, provisions for the elimination of non-conforming uses, and other such relevant requirements. Case #BA 17-07, January 22, 2018, Page 1
The LDR Code: Section 104-27(b)(3) states: Minimum setbacks shall be: 20 feet from the front parcel line 30 feet from the rear parcel line 7 feet from the side parcel lines Section 102-79 (b)(3) states: A nonconforming building or structure shall not be expanded or enlarged. The Seven Point Test (Section 102-81(d)): 1. Strict compliance with the provisions of this Code would deprive the property owner rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area or same zoning district, or would render the enforcement of this Code impractical. According to the applicants, denial of the request for a variance to the rear setback, to reduce the rear setback from 30 feet to 18.5 feet to construct an addition to the existing carport, would require parking their motor vehicles along the street. Rather than park in the right of way outside of their property, the applicants prefer to expand the existing carport within their property. The applicants propose expanding the existing carport by 14 feet in the rear of their property, which would accommodate a double driveway of 28 feet. The expanded carport would prevent parking within the right of way. Additionally, the expanded carport will allow continued direct access to the home. 2. Conditions for which the variance is being applied are unique or unusual to the site or structure in question. The applicants propose an addition to the existing single-car carport to construct a double driveway. The carport is located on the south side of the property adjacent to West 9 th Street. However, there is not adequate square footage to accommodate an extension in this area or toward the front of the property along Buena Vista Boulevard. Rather than build a separate garage in the rear of the property, near the existing single-drive carport, the applicants propose to construct an addition and expand the existing single-car driveway. The applicants propose a carport that would be identical to the existing carport and that would be consistent with the character of their historic home and that would complement the other homes in the neighborhood. The applicants would like to retain direct access to the home from the carport. Building a separate accessory building for a garage would not allow the property owners direct access or provide shelter from the elements. Additionally, the applicants state that all other homes on the street include double driveways. Case #BA 17-07, January 22, 2018, Page 2
3. The variance request is not based solely upon the desire to reduce the cost of developing the site. According to the applicants, the request will not reduce the cost of developing the site. Instead, the applicants indicate that expanding the existing carport will require an additional financial investment. However, the cost of the improvements is not the main concern of the applicants. The applicants state that expanding the existing carport will maintain the character of the home and the neighborhood and will increase the property values of their property and neighboring properties. 4. The variance shall not confer on the petitioner the grant of a special privilege, or be based on a self-imposed hardship. The applicants state that the variance request will not grant special privilege and is not based on a self-imposed hardship. The applicants main purpose in proposing to expand the existing carport is because Mrs. Doredant is visually challenged and cannot park in a single-drive carport. In addition to health and welfare concerns, there are safety considerations. The applicants state that additional parking provided on the property will prevent motor vehicles from being parked on the street, which will increase visibility and may prevent future accidents. 5. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the area surrounding the site. The improved carport attached to the home will be compatible with the neighborhood and will maintain the historic residential character of the neighborhood. The carport addition with access to West 9 th Street will enhance the property values of the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the applicants state that other homes in the neighborhood include attached carports with double driveways. 6. The proposed variance will not degrade level of service standards as established in the Comprehensive Plan. The carport expansion will include an enclosed garage area. However, no additional living area is proposed in the residential addition project, and so the proposed variance needed to expand the parking areas within the property will not degrade any level of service standards as established in the City s Comprehensive Plan. 7. The effect of the proposed variance is in harmony with the general intent of this Code and the specific intent of the relevant provisions thereof. The applicants state that the addition to the carport will complement the existing structure and so will be in harmony with the general intent of the City s Land Development Regulations. The expansion of the carport will be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. However, the City s Land Development Regulations require 30-foot rear setbacks within Residential-1 zoning Case #BA 17-07, January 22, 2018, Page 3
districts, pursuant to Section 104-27, and the applicant is requesting a reduction of 11.5 feet in the rear of the property. This point is not met. Findings: The applicant s request to reduce the front setback meets Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Seven Point test. The request does not meet Point 7. Dawn McDonald Planner II Planning and Economic Development Department January 2, 2018 Date Case #BA 17-07, January 22, 2018, Page 4
Request 1-- Aerial Map
Request 1-- Location Map
Request 1-- Street View
Request 1 -- Survey