TOWN OF JUPITER DATE: December 8, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of Town Council THRU: Andrew D. Lukasik, Town Manager FROM: John Sickler, Director of Planning and Zoning SUBJECT: ORDINANCE N0. 48-08 R-3 DUPLEX SETBACKS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW SMALLER DUPLEX LOT SIZES AND ENCROACHMENT INTO SIDE YARD INTERIOR SETBACKS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to amend the Town Code to decrease the required lot area per unit for duplex lot development in the Residential, Limited Multifamily (R-3) zoning district from 6,500 SF to 5,500 SF and to allow encroachment of porches and similar architectural features into the side yard setback of duplex units in the R-3 zoning district. The proposed amendment will allow the applicant to convert a six duplex/12 unit approved condominium development (White Wing) into a fee simple ownership development, which is a separate application. The proposed amendment change should allow for more timely completion of the partially completed White Wing project. RECOMMENDATION: At the November 12, 2008 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the subject text amendments recommended by Staff. Strategic Priority: Jupiter As A Livable Community Attachments: Staff Report and Attachments Ordinance No. 48-08
TOWN OF JUPITER TOWN MANAGER S OFFICE DATE: December 8, 2008, TO: THRU: Honorable Mayor and Members of Town Council Andrew D. Lukasik, Town Manager FROM: John Sickler, Director of Planning and Zoning SUBJECT: R-3 DUPLEX SETBACKS ZONING TEXT AMENDMEMENT TO SECTION 27-498 ENTITLED, AREA AND DIMENSION REGULATIONS TO ALLOW SMALLER DUPLEX LOT SIZES AND SECTION 27-1119(A) TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE YARD INTERIOR SETBACK. Ordinance # 48-08 PZ 08-226 (ZTA) DDB Meeting dates: PZ TC TC 11/12/08 12/16/08 1 st Reading 1/20/09 2 nd Reading Applicant: Agent: Request: Daniel Rappold, Manager Southeast Land Development LLC Cotleur & Hearing, Inc. To amend Section 27-498 entitled, Area and dimension regulations to allow smaller duplex lot sizes and Section 27-1119(a) to allow encroachment into the side yard interior setback. Applicant Issues The applicant has no issues. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation At the November 12, 2008 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the subject text amendment, as recommended by Staff. Staff Recommendation. The Department of Planning and Zoning recommends approval of the following as indicated are indicated in a strike through and underline format:
Duplex Infill Development R-3 ZTA Page 2 of 6 Sec. 27-498. Area and dimension regulations. In the R-3 limited multifamily residential district on each lot or parcel of land that is used hereafter, and on each lot or parcel of land upon which a building or structure hereafter is erected or enlarged and maintained, the following regulations shall be observed. The following lot area requirements are the minimum net (i.e., total site less roads and service facilities) area requirements per dwelling unit: (1) Single-family... 8,000 square feet a. Duplex or zero lot line... 6,500 5,500 square feet/unit b. Townhouse... 2,000 square feet/unit c. Garden apartment... 3,000 square feet/unit (2) Lot width (minimum): a. Single-family... 65 feet b. Duplex or zero lot line unit... 40 feet/dwelling c. Townhouse... 20 feet d. Garden apartment... 100 feet/building (3) Lot depth (minimum): a. All uses but townhouses... 100 feet b. Townhouse... 80 feet (4) Front setback (minimum): a. Single-family... 25 feet b. Duplex or zero lot line... 25 feet c. Townhouse... 25 feet d. Garden apartment... 35 feet Note: On double frontage lots the above apply on both frontages. (5) Rear yard (minimum): a. Single-family... 15 feet b. Duplex or zero lot line... 15 feet c. Townhouse... 15 feet d. Garden apartment... 30 feet (6) Side yard (minimum) (interior): a. Single-family... 10 feet b. Duplex or zero lot line... 10 feet c. Townhouse ea. building... 15 feet d. Garden apartment... 15 feet (30 feet between buildings) (7) Side yard (minimum) (corner): a. Single-family... 25 feet b. Duplex or zero lot line... 25 feet c. Townhouse... 25 feet d. Garden apartment... 35 feet (8) Building height (maximum)... 35 feet Not exceeding three stories. (9) Lot coverage (maximum)... 35 percent (10) Dwelling unit floor area (minimum): a. 1-bedroom unit... 600 square feet b. 2-bedroom unit... 800 square feet c. 3-bedroom unit... 1,000 square feet d. 4-bedroom unit... 1,200 square feet (11) Density; the maximum gross site density in the R-3 district shall be six dwelling units per acre.
Duplex Infill Development R-3 ZTA Page 3 of 6 (12) Refer to division 5 of article X, exceptions to development regulations. (13) Green space (minimum)... 40 percent (see chapter 23, Landscaping, for more information on green space requirements) Sec. 27-1119. Setbacks. (a) Attached structures. (1) The following structures may encroach into the required setbacks a maximum of 36 inches. a. Bay windows (In no case shall the window be less than three foot one inch from a property line). b. Chimneys. c. Staircases. d. Roof overhangs and awnings. (2) The following attached structures may encroach into the required front yard a maximum of 35 percent, and side corner setbacks a maximum of 30 percent. a. Terraces, steps and stoops. b. Porches, balconies, pergolas, porte cocheres and colonnades, provided they are not screened in or otherwise enclosed space. If any of the above structures are screened or enclosed, they shall not be permitted the use of the reduced setbacks. (3) For duplex units in the Residential, Limited Multifamily (R-3) zoning district porches, balconies, pergolas, porte cocheres and colonnades, provided they are not screened in or otherwise enclosed space, may encroach into the required side interior yard a maximum of 20 percent. Analysis. The applicant proposes to amend the Town Code to decrease the required lot area per unit for duplex lot development in Residential, Limited Multifamily (R-3) zoning district from 6,500 SF to 5,500 SF. The previous standard was 5,000 SF in the 1969 Zoning Code. The applicant is also requesting the ability for porches and similar architectural features to encroach into the side yard setback of duplex units in the R-3 zoning district. See the applicant s justification statement (Attachment A Justification Statement). The text amendment will provide more incentive for infill development and encourage the infill incentives adopted in June of 2008 as part of the EAR amendments. Lot Size. The applicant notes the R-3 zoning district is the most intense residential zoning district and is intended predominantly for multifamily development with densities up to six units to the acre. The applicant has provided the following information to indicate what duplex lot sizes are within demographically and geographically similar municipalities in Florida:
Duplex Infill Development R-3 ZTA Page 4 of 6 TABLE 1 MUNICIPAL CODE COMPARISON MUNICIPALITY Jupiter Tequesta Melbourne Juno Beach Winter Park Palm Beach Gardens St. Augustine DUPLEX LOT SIZE PER UNIT 6,500 SF 5,000 SF 5,000 SF 5,000 SF 4,500 SF 3,750 SF 3, 625 SF The largest duplex unit lot size is 6,500 SF in Jupiter and the smallest duplex unit lot size is 3,750 SF in Palm Beach Gardens. Staff looked at older neighborhoods of the Town where duplex units exist. The typical lot sizes were less than the current standard of 6,500 SF as noted below: TABLE 2 EXISTING DUPLEX LOTS IN TOWN OF JUPITER NEIGHBORHOOD DUPLEX LOT SIZE PER UNIT DENSITY Eastview Manor 4,988 SF 6.2 units/acre North Palm Beach Heights 4,500 SF 6.7 units/acre Eastview Manor 3,938 SF 7.3 units/acre Riverside Drive 3,750 SF 7.5 units/acre A sampling of duplex unit lot sizes in the Town s older neighborhoods indicate a low of 3,750 SF per unit to a high of 4,788 SF both of which are below the existing code standard of 6,500 SF. To determine the density, Staff assumed half the street right-ofway of 50 feet and a frontage of 80 feet, 2,000 SF (25 feet X 80 feet) would be added to the duplex unit lot size. This is a common practice used to determine gross density as part of a site plan application prior to streets being dedicated. The densities for the selected neighborhoods range from 6.2 dwelling units per acre for Eastview Manor to 7.5 dwelling units per acre for Riverside Drive. The maximum gross site density in the R-3 zoning district is six dwelling units per acre including street right-of-way. Using the existing standard of 6,500 SF, the density per acre would be 5.1 units per acre. The proposed standard of 5,500 SF would yield a density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre, which is below the R-3 district density of six dwelling units per acre. In light of this information, the R-3 duplex unit lot size could be reduced from 6,500 SF to 5,500 SF without affecting the maximum density requirement. While the duplex unit lot sizes for
Duplex Infill Development R-3 ZTA Page 5 of 6 the Town s older neighborhoods would continue to be nonconforming lots, a reduced standard could be established for infill development. The primary reason for the applicant submitting the zoning text amendment is to provide for fee simple ownership of individual duplex units within the White Wing development which is partially built. Four units have been built to date. The applicant has provided information on how a reduced standard would impact an existing development. The White Wing Lane project was approved in July 2005 as a six duplex/12 unit condominium development (See Attachment B White Wing Site Plan). Lot lines have been added to the site plan to indicate how the plan would meet a reduced standard for duplex unit lot sizes. The existing density of the approved plan is 5.9 units per acre. The proposed lot sizes range in size from 5772 SF to 6938 SF. The applicant would not be able plat the property into 12 lots and sell a duplex unit under the current R-3 duplex unit lot size standard of 6,500 SF. The project has been developed as a condominium form of ownership. The proposed text amendment would provide for individual lots and thus permit the units to be sold on a fee simple versus condominium form of ownership. The text amendment will not change any of the physical attributes of the approved plan. The only change will be in the form of ownership. The applicant notes that due to the turmoil in the residential market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have stricter guidelines that prohibit most buyers from qualifying for condominium mortgage financing on small projects. The applicant notes these same buyers would qualify for fee simple ownership where individual lots are assigned to units. The applicant indicates the White Wing project has had many interested buyers who could not obtain financing for condominium ownership, but could have qualified for fee simple ownership. The applicant has further indicated that without the ability to provide for fee simple ownership rather than condominium ownership, the project will likely take years to complete. The situation is explained in the attached letter from Access Lending Inc. (See Attachment C Access Lending, Inc. Letter 11/3/08) Staff did an analysis of various R-3 zoned and subdivided areas of town and determined the proposed amendment could be applied to redevelopment of lots in such areas as Saw Fish Bay, Suni Sands Mobile Home Park, Whitehaven Mobile Home Court, White Wing, Pine Gardens North and South, along Center Street, Wood Duck and Stephenson Manor. In some of these areas a developer may be able to acquire as few as three single family lots, replat them into two lots for four dwelling units and construct two duplexes or redevelop the entire parcel with the proposed regulations. Other R-3 zoned developments that have approved site plans and are built out may have difficulty in modifying the existing development due to the current ownership, layout and design of the site, location of existing structures and density. These areas include Jupiter Plantation, Timberwalk, Bella Vista, Sea Palms, Jupiter Harbour, Laurel Oaks at Jupiter, Jupiter Key, Sea Colony, North Riverside, Xanadu by the Sea, Jupiter Bay, Seabrook Place, Olympus, Floresta, Botanica, Sea Plum, Jupiter Ocean Racquet Club, and Via Del Mar. Setbacks. Currently, the code provides for the encroachment of open air architectural features such as porches, balconies, pergolas, porte cocheres, and colonnades, into the front yards and side corner setbacks. The proposed amendment would extend such encroachments into interior side yards a maximum of 20 percent for duplex units in the R-3 zoning district. The minimum interior side setback in the R-3 zoning district is 10 feet. Therefore, the architectural features could extend two feet into the required
Duplex Infill Development R-3 ZTA Page 6 of 6 setback with an 8 setback. Such encroachment does not interfere with the building and fire codes which require a 3 foot 1 inch separation from the property line. While the applicant has requested a 25 percent encroachment, a review of the White Wing site plan shows a 20 percent encroachment would be adequate. Staff believes the 20 percent encroachment into the interior side yard setback is appropriate for duplex units. Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) Consistency. The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the following objectives and policies for Infill Development and Upgrading of Existing Properties of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Comprehensive Plan: Objective 1.13 To provide incentives that bring value to the community for infill development, desired redevelopment efforts, and upgrading of existing properties through implementation of the following policies: Policy 1.13.2 By May 2009, the Town shall evaluate potential areas to provide incentives through its land development regulations for attracting private investments into desired infill and redevelopment areas to allow: a) Residential apartments as an accessory use to existing businesses in nonresidential (commercial and industrial land use) areas; b) Increased density if workforce housing is provided; c) Greater flexibility through land development regulations including but not limited to parking, landscaping, greenspace and setbacks so long as existing nonconformities are reduced. Policy 1.13.3 At a minimum, infill, redevelopment plans and activities, and upgrading of existing properties shall: a) Be consistent with other policies of the Comprehensive Plan. b) Be coordinated with the availability of public facilities and services at the levels of service adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. c) Address the impact of redevelopment activities on natural systems and any historic resources. d) Provide for visual continuity of the target study area through the application of sound principles of architectural design and landscaping. e) Be consistent with future character as outlined in neighborhood plans and master plan studies for specific areas; or the surrounding established character of a neighborhood or area, including but not limited setbacks, lot coverage, building scale, and/or massing. f) Ensure development addresses or reduces existing non-conformities or demonstrates that the proposal will not create adverse impacts by allowing alternative solutions. Conclusion Staff recommends approval of the subject zoning text amendment based on the above justification. Attachments. Attachment A Justification Statement Attachment B White Wing Site Plan Attachment C Access Lending Inc. Letter 11/3/08
Cotleur& Hearing Attachment A Landscape Architecture ILand Planners I Environmental Consultants 1934 Commerce Lane Suite 1. Jupiter, FL 33458 Ph 561.747.6336' Fax 561.747.1377' www.cotleurhearin9.com Lic # LC-C000239 R 3 ZONING DISTRICT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT [R1~~~~%7~[D) NOV 114 2008 PLANNING & ZONING INTRODUCTION On behalf of Southeast Land Development LLC, the applicant, we are requesting a zoning text amendment to modify the zoning code of the Town of Jupiter. The specific section of the code to be amended is Section 27-498 Area and Dimension Regulations for the R-3 Zoning District. The purpose of the amendment is to decrease the minimum required lot size for duplex units. The amendment will also permit a minor encroachment to the side setback for architectural elements. This text amendment will provide more incentive for infill development and will encourage the infill initiatives adopted in June of 2008 as part of the EAR amendments. PROJECT CONTACT Cotleur &Hearing, Inc. Donaldson Hearing / Alessandria Kalfin 1934 Commerce Lane, Suite 1 Jupiter. FL 33458 Phone: (561) 747-6336 x 128 Fax: (561) 747-1377 E-mail: akalfin@cotleur-hearing.com REQUEST The applicant is proposing to decrease the size of duplex unit lots within the R-3 zoning district. The applicant has provided two different code revision options for staff to review that would meet the intent of the amendment. The applicant requests that staff apply the revision that is best suited for the town. The first option would modify the Area and Dimension table for the R-3 zoning district. The minimum lot size for a duplex unit is proposed to be revised from 6,500 square feet to 5,500 square feet. The second option is to add a provision to the R-3 Zoning District that would permit infill development parcels less then 2.5 acres in size to be subdivided into duplex unit lots that are 15% less in size then the code required minimum. We believe either option is appropriate and will foster infill development consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan.
R-3 Zoning District Zoning Text Amendment Justitication Statement August 11, 2008 Revised November 4, 2008 Please note that all other zoning code requirements shall remain in effect for duplex uses. This code modification would simply permit a smaller lot size. Option One: Sec. 27498 - Area andd' Imenslon reauiarions. fri re (C re n~7 ~ [J) NOV 042008 PLANNING & ZONING (1 ) Single-family... 8,000 square feet Option Two: a. I Duplex or zero lot line... ~ 5,500 square feet/unit Sec. 27498 - Area and d' Imenslon reauiarions. - Infill Parcels less then 2.5 acres 1.l9.L ~ Duplex... 15% reduction from minimum duplex requirement. The purpose of this amendment is to provide more opportunity for duplex style units to be located on infill parcels within the town. The zoning code outlines four residential zoning districts. The districts include RR, Rural Residential; R-l, Residential Single Family; R-2, Residential Single Family Duplex; and R-3, Residential MUltifamily. The R-3 district is meant to be the most intense residential zoning and is intended predominantly for multifamily development with densities from six units to the acre. Currently the duplex lot size for R-3 is identical to that of R-2. The intent of the R-3 district is to be "composed of certain higher density residential areas plus additional open area where it is likely and desirable to extend such type of development." Yet the required lot size for a duplex unit is 6,500 square feet both in R-3 and R-2 zoning districts. There should be a difference between the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. It is reasonable for there to be a reduction in the minimum lot size for the R-3 district given its density higher character. The 2008 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based Comprehensive Plan Amendments, transmitted to DCA in January and approved by Town Council, recognized the Town's infill development issue (Issue #4). The transmittal stated that there is a "... need to effectively address infill development and Page 2 of 5
R-3 Zoning District Zoning Text Amendment Justitication Statement August 11, 2008 Revised November 4, 2008 [Fa ~({;!EnWIE!Q) NOV 042008 PLANNING & ZONING redevelopment initiatives through innovative land use planning." The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with Issue #4 goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. All R-3 zoned properties within the town boundary are located east of Central Boulevard. Most of these properties were originally developed in the 1970's and 1980's. They will require redevelopment in the future. Flexible land use planning regulations should be incorporated today to provide incentive for infill initiatives in the future. On behalf of the applicant, Cotleur & Hearing, Inc. conducted research on duplex lot size within demographically and geographically similar municipalities in Florida. We found that the largest lot size required for a duplex unit is a minimum of 5,000 square feet in Tequesta, Melbourne, and Juno Beach. In contrast, the City of Saint Augustine requires a minimum of 3,625 square feet for one duplex unit. Tequesta 5,000 SF 10,000 SF Melbourne 5,000 SF 10,000 SF Juno Beach 5,000 SF 10,000 SF Winter Park 4,500 SF 9,000 SF Palm Beach 3,750 SF 7,500 SF Gardens St. Augustine 3,625 SF 7,250 SF Additionally, the applicant is proposing a 25% encroachment to the R-3 side setback for three-sided, open-air architectural elements. The purpose of this amendment is to create architectural diversity for duplex projects within the R-3 zoning district. Duplex style projects have the habit of being designed homogeneously with out architectural elements that differentiate one unit from the other. This addition to the code will permit developers to deviate from the monotonous side elevations typically presented. (6) Side yard (minimum) (interior): a. Single-family... 10 feet b. Duplex or zero lot 10 feet line... 25% encroachment for 3-sided, open air Page 3 ot 5
R-3 Zoning District Zoning Text Amendment Justification Statemenf August 11, 2008 Revised November 4, 2008 c. Townhouse ea. building""".". d. Garden apartment.."".". 1Fare reo~~[q) NOV 042008 PLANNING & ZONING architectural elements 15 feet 15 feet (30 feet between buildings) Cotleur & Hearing, Inc, conducted further research on duplex side yard setbacks within demographically and geographically similar municipalities in Florida. We found that many similar municipalities had an eight (8) of seven and half (7,5) required side yard setback. CONCLUSION Melbourne Winter Park Palm Gardens Beach 7.5 feet 8 feet 7.5 feet The applicant would like to rnodify section 27-498 of the Jupiter Zoning Code. The text arnendrnent will proposes to decrease the rninimum required lot size for duplex units located within R-3 infill development projects. The amendment will also permit an open air porch or structure to be within the 7.5-feet of the side yard lot line. The request is consistent with the most recently subrnitted EAR amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as well as the long term goals and objectives of the Town. The applicant looks forward to working with staff on this text arnendment to ensure the zoning code is consistent with the goals and intent of the town. Page 4 of 5
R-3 Zoning District Zoning Text Amendment Justification Statement August 11, 2008 Revised November 4, 2008 \Pd [ECC[En~[E ltd) NOV O~ 21m PLANNING &ZONING Page 5 of 5
Attachment B TARAGRAY TIM,,, l,, f; ~II.'1 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i ~ il: I =~'i?:~ 1 I ~ ~I L-- J II I tl - - ----:: = =---=--=- ---:: =---=.=-----::= =--,""Miiii; -~Tiif-i'T,.;=-;:::.=-O;;;;-,,;;;;-O;;:C-~;,,::;;;.;;:- ~;,:;- ~;..;:-:;,,:;-~J i I I I I I I I I : PATIO f KI ~ I.,
Attachment C Access Lending Inc. 1001 North US Hwy I Suite 402 Jupiter, Florida 33477 Tel. 561-746-1484 Fax 561-746-7383 e-mail: info@accesslendinginc.com Mr. Daniel Bird Principal Planner Planning & Zoning Department Town ofjupiter Re: White Wing.Mr. Daniel Bird: fp3~~~u~~!q) NOV 042008 PLANNING & ZONING 11103/08 As you may be aware, due to the economic downturn, and recent financial crisis it has become increasingly difficult to acquire real estate fmancing, making Mr. Daniel Rappold's project in Jupiter, nearly impossible to conclude as a condominium. Residential real estate financing is offered to qualified buyers through several sources. Those sources are local portfolio lenders and the secondary market. Local portfolio lenders require a minimum of20%down payment, very strict guidelines and offer mostly short term financing which is not beneficial to the common homebuyer. The secondary market traditional mortgage financing offers other lending opportunities such as 15 and 30 year fixed loans at favorable rates and with less then 20% down payment. Within the secondary market there are strict underwriting guidelines that lenders adhere to, in order to originate and service marketable loans. Those guidelines are set by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD and the VA: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac share similar guides and are referred to as conventional or agency loans. HUD and VA are referred to as government insured or guaranteed loans and also share some ofthe same strict underwriting requirements especially when considering new condominiums and attached housing. Conventional loans require mortgage insurance ifpurchased orfinanced at 80% loan to value or higher. Mortgage Insurance Companies are not insuring any attached housing in Florida or other declining markets. But even ifin the future insurance companies begin to insure these loans, this project is not warrantable or marketable because ofseveral condominium related issues such as percentage ofcompletion, percentage under contract, percentage sold and occupied, investor concentration and most important ofall the HOA must be turned over to the homeowners. Government insured loans are more flexible when insuring attached housing but not condominiums. HUD will insure loans for townhouses with lower down payments to qualified buyers and in attached housing projects where the infrastructure is 100% completed, making Mr. Rappold's project sellable to a wide range ofprospects. Ifgranted the opportunity to convert his project to units that have individual lot and block legal addresses, I am confident that the units will sell at market value within a reasonable period oftime, making White Wing desirable to new homeowners, immediate neighbors and the town ofjupiter.
Should you have any questions or require further infolmation regarding this matter feel free to contact me at your convenience. Access Lending Inc is a HUD approved FHA Lender. License # MBB 0708167 FHA ID# 25287-000-7 FE! # 571194300 since 11112/2003. Sincerely: ~ c= c:: --- Carlos Eliseo Access Lending Inc. 561-746-1484 xt. 102 Mobile 561-252-1552 --
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ORDINANCE NO. 48-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA, AMENDING ARTICLE VI, DIVISION 6, SECTION 27-498 OF THE TOWN CODE, ENTITLED AREA AND DIMENSION REGULATIONS TO PERMIT SMALLER DUPLEX LOT SIZES FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT SITES; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE X, DIVISION 5, SECTION 27-1119(a), OF THE TOWN CODE ENTITLED, ATTACHED STRUCTURES, TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS INTO THE SIDE INTERIOR SETBACK: PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Town of Jupiter ( Town ) has adopted a Comprehensive Plan which has been determined to be in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3202(2), Florida Statutes, municipalities are required to provide specific and detailed provisions as part of the implementation of their adopted Comprehensive Plans; and WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Jupiter, Florida, has previously enacted Land Development Regulations which have been codified in the Town Code at Chapter 27, Section 27-498 (R-3 Area and dimension regulations) and Section 27-1119(a) (Setbacks); and WHEREAS, the Town Council hereby determines that the amendment to the Town Code, in Chapter 27, Section 27-498 (R-3 Area and dimension regulations) and
Ordinance 48-08 Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Section 27-1119(a) (Setbacks) are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the public s health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will allow smaller duplex lot sizes and encroachment of architectural features into side yards in the R-3 Zoning District consistent with the intent of the R-3 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, Town staff and the Jupiter Planning and Zoning Commission have reviewed the proposed Town Code amendments, and have made their respective recommendations to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Jupiter Town Council, after due notice and public hearings has determined that the adoption of the proposed amendments would further the public s health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The whereas clauses are incorporated herein as true and correct and as the findings of fact of the Town Council. Section 2. Chapter 27, Article VI, Division 6, Section 27-498 of the Town Code is hereby amended to read: Sec. 27-498. Area and dimension regulations. In the R-3 limited multifamily residential district on each lot or parcel of land that is used hereafter, and on each lot or parcel of land upon which a building or structure hereafter is erected or enlarged and maintained, the following regulations shall be observed. The following lot area requirements are the minimum net (i.e., total site less roads and service facilities) area requirements per dwelling unit: (1) Single-family... 8,000 square feet a. Duplex or zero lot line... 6,500 5,500 square feet/unit
Ordinance 48-08 Page 3 of 5 b. Townhouse... 2,000 square feet/unit c. Garden apartment... 3,000 square feet/unit (2) Lot width (minimum): a. Single-family... 65 feet b. Duplex or zero lot line unit... 40 feet/dwelling c. Townhouse... 20 feet d. Garden apartment... 100 feet/building (3) Lot depth (minimum): a. All uses but townhouses... 100 feet b. Townhouse... 80 feet (4) Front setback (minimum): a. Single-family... 25 feet b. Duplex or zero lot line... 25 feet c. Townhouse... 25 feet d. Garden apartment... 35 feet Note: On double frontage lots the above apply on both frontages. (5) Rear yard (minimum): a. Single-family... 15 feet b. Duplex or zero lot line... 15 feet c. Townhouse... 15 feet d. Garden apartment... 30 feet (6) Side yard (minimum) (interior): a. Single-family... 10 feet b. Duplex or zero lot line... 10 feet c. Townhouse ea. building... 15 feet d. Garden apartment... (7) Side yard (minimum) (corner): a. Single-family... 25 feet b. Duplex or zero lot line... 25 feet c. Townhouse... 25 feet 15 feet (30 feet between buildings)
Ordinance 48-08 Page 4 of 5 d. Garden apartment... 35 feet (8) Building height (maximum)... 35 feet Not exceeding three stories. (9) Lot coverage (maximum)... 35 percent (10) Dwelling unit floor area (minimum): a. 1-bedroom unit... 600 square feet b. 2-bedroom unit... 800 square feet c. 3-bedroom unit... 1,000 square feet d. 4-bedroom unit... 1,200 square feet (11) Density; the maximum gross site density in the R-3 district shall be six dwelling units per acre. (12) Refer to division 5 of article X, exceptions to development regulations. (13) Green space (minimum)... 40 percent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (see chapter 23, Landscaping, for more information on green space requirements) Section 3. Town Code Chapter 27, Article X, Division 5, Section 1119(a) of the Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 27-1119. Setbacks. (a) Attached structures. (1) The following structures may encroach into the required setbacks a maximum of 36 inches. a. Bay windows (In no case shall the window be less than three foot one inch from a property line). b. Chimneys. c. Staircases. d. Roof overhangs and awnings. (2) The following attached structures may encroach into the required front yard a maximum of 35 percent, and side corner setbacks a maximum of 30 percent. a. Terraces, steps and stoops. b. Porches, balconies, pergolas, porte cocheres and colonnades, provided they are not screened in or otherwise enclosed space. If any of the above structures are screened or enclosed, they shall not be permitted the use of the reduced setbacks. (3) For duplex units in the Residential, Limited Multifamily (R-3) zoning district porches, balconies, pergolas, porte cocheres and colonnades, provided they are not screened in or otherwise enclosed space, may encroach into the required side interior yard a maximum of 30 percent.
Ordinance 48-08 Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5. Repeal of laws in conflict. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 6. Codification. The Sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish such, and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "Section", "Article", or any other appropriate word. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. 14 15 16 K:\Staff\WP51\Amendtowncode\Duplex Development R-3\TC Ord 48-08 R-3 Duplex Setbacks (PZ 08-226 ZTA).doc