PANAMA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY HALL PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA MEETING MINUTES January 26, 2015 The City of Panama City Appeals Board met in regular session on the above date with the following members present: Ms. Joanne Cox Ms. Phoebe Masker Mr. Johnny Sims Mr. Mathew Shack, Chairman Absent: Mr. Andrew Colvin (Mr. Colvin Arrived at 4:10 p.m.) Also present: Mr. Mike Lane, Planning Manager Ms. Anna Papke, Planner II Ms. Maureen Rainville, Administrative Assistant The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m., and the roll was taken. Mr. Shack asked for a motion on the minutes from the previous meeting. Ms. Masker made a motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Cox seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Shack asked if there were any changes to the agenda. There were none. A vote was taken to accept the agenda. Mr. Johnny Sims made a motion to approve. Ms. Phoebe Masker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Rainville swore in all audience members who planned to address the Board. Item One: Request for a variance from Section 104-119(a)(6) of Panama City s Land Development Regulations to allow construction of an accessory structure in the front yard of a residential property, 413 S. MacArthur Avenue, Caroline and Victor Whitehead, owner and applicant. Ms. Papke presented the staff report. The request is for 413 S. MacArthur Avenue and the request is to allow an accessory structure in the front yard of a residential property. The property is zoned Residential-1 and is approximately 0.24 acres in size. There is a home on the site and the applicant is asking to add a detached carport to the front of the house. The Board was presented the elements of the Comprehensive Plan related to the regulation of development within the city and the standards to the Land Development Regulations pertaining to accessory structures stating that they are to be allowed in side - 1 -
or rear yards only, unless otherwise specified. The Board was also presented the seven point test which pertains to all requests for variances from the LDR s. 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. All property owners are required to locate accessory structures in rear or side yards. However, a number of homes in the surrounding area do have detached carports in front yards. This point is met. 2. Conditions for which the variance is being applied are unique or unusual to the site or structure in question. The lot is already developed with a home. The applicant is working with existing conditions on the property, and has limited options for placement of a carport. This point is met. 3. The variance request is not based solely upon the desire to reduce the cost of developing the site. Cost of development does not pertain to this request. This point is met. 4. The variance shall not confer on the petitioner the grant of a special privilege, or be based on a self-imposed hardship. The request is not based on a self-imposed hardship. This Board has previously granted variances to allow accessory structures in front yards when it felt the circumstances so warranted. This point is met. 5. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the area surrounding the site. A number of nearby properties have carports in the front yard, either attached to or detached from the house. For instance, the property immediately to the south and the property across the street both have detached carports in the front yard. The applicant s proposed development is therefore not expected to significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. This point is met. 6. The proposed variance will not degrade level of service standards as established in the Comprehensive Plan. The requested variance will not affect the ability of the applicant to meet concurrency standards. This point is met. - 2 -
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 intent of the Land Development Regulations is to ensure accessory structures in residential neighborhoods are confined to side and rear yards. The requested variance is not compatible with this intent. This point is not met. In summary staff finds that points 1-6 are met, point 7 is not met. Mr. Shack asked if any neighbors had any objection to the request. Ms. Papke noted that the property owner at 409 S. Palo Alto Avenue called asking for clarification and did not object to the request. Mr. Carroll, who is a neighbor called and stated that he did not have any objections to the request. Mr. Whitehead presented a letter from George Gainer to the Board members. Mr. Gainer was in support of the request. Mr. Victor Whitehead addressed the Board. Mr. Whitehead stated that they would like the carport to protect the two new vehicles that they just purchased. Mr. Whitehead noted that they have put $75,000.00 into renovating the home and they feel the carport would add to the continued improvement. Mr. Shack asked how long they have owned the home. Ms. Caroline Whitehead stated they have been in the home for 15 years. Mr. Shack asked how old the home was. Mr. Whitehead stated the home was built in 1950. Mr. Shack asked for a motion. Ms. Phoebe Masker made a motion to accept the request. Ms. Joanne Cox seconded the motion. (Mr. Andrew Colvin arrived). The motion passed unanimously. No further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Mr. Mathew Shack, Chairman Ms. Maureen Rainville, Secretary - 3 -
City of Panama City Board of Adjustment March 23, 2015 Staff findings of consistency with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan follow: Owner/ Applicant: Rex Pippin Case Number: BA 15-02 Address/Location: 1910 Beck Avenue Request One Request: Reduce side setback for a single-family residence from seven (7) feet to zero (0) feet (south side of property) and from seven (7) feet to five (5) feet (north side of property), pursuant to Section 104-27(b)(3) of the Land Development Regulations. Land Use Designation / Zoning District: Residential / R-1 Tract Size: 0.26+/- acres Background: Applicant is requesting the variance in order to add a garage to the south side of an existing single-family home. The existing home does not meet side setback requirements on the north side of the property, where the home has a five-foot setback as opposed to the requirement for a seven-foot setback. The south side of the property, where the applicant proposes to add the garage, abuts a platted utility easement with a width of 15 feet. The property owner proposes to extend the garage to the property line adjacent to this utility easement. See site plan. 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, Page 1
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. 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 side parcel lines Section 102-79(b)(3) states: Expansion or extensions. 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. All property owners in the R-1 zoning district are required to meet the seven-foot side setback requirement. Based on a site visit, it appears the majority of homes in the neighborhood meet this standard. This point is not met. 2. Conditions for which the variance is being applied are unique or unusual to the site or structure in question. The subject property is part of a platted subdivision. The conditions on and size of this property are substantially similar to those of properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This point is not met. 3. The variance request is not based solely upon the desire to reduce the cost of developing the site. Cost of development does not pertain to this request. This point is met. 4. The variance shall not confer on the petitioner the grant of a special privilege, or be based on a self-imposed hardship. Page 2
This Board has previously granted variances to reduce side setbacks when it felt the situation so warranted. Therefore, the proposed variance would not result in a special privilege. This point is met. 5. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the area surrounding the site. Most structures in the neighborhood appear to be meeting the side setback requirements. However, since the utility easement will act as a buffer between the applicant s proposed garage and the neighboring property, a reduced setback on the south side of the property will not alter the character of the neighborhood. This point is met. 6. The proposed variance will not degrade level of service standards as established in the Comprehensive Plan. The requested variance will not affect the ability of the applicant to meet concurrency standards. This point is met. 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 intent of the Land Development Regulations is to ensure residential structures meet required setbacks. The requested variance is not compatible with this intent. This point is not met. Findings: The applicant s request to allow construction of an accessory structure in the front yard meets Points 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Seven Point test. The request does not meet Points 1, 2 and 7. Anna Papke, AICP Planner II, Planning Services February 11, 2015 Date Page 3
1910 Beck Avenue
City of Panama City Board of Adjustment March 23, 2015 Staff findings of consistency with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan follow: Request Two Owner/ Applicant: James Robert Hughes and Judy Elms Hughes Case Number: BA 15-03 Address/Location: 1015 Degama Avenue Request: Request for a variance from Section 104-27(b)(3) of Panama City s Land Development Regulations to reduce rear setback for a single-family home from thirty (30) feet to seven and six tenths (7.6) feet. Land Use Designation / Zoning District: Residential / R-1 Tract Size: 0.43+/- acres Background: This property is developed with a single-family home, which has a garage/carport attached to the house with a covered walkway. The applicant would like extend build an addition onto the garage, extending it 10 feet to the side property line (north property line). The existing home does not meet rear setback requirements (west property line) for the R-1 zoning district, so the applicant is seeking a setback variance in order to be able to expand the structure. Note: the main portion of the home has a 16.6 rear setback. The garage/carport, attached via a covered walkway, has a 7.6 rear setback. The applicant is seeking to expand the garage only. The footprint of the main portion of the home is not changing. 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: Page 1
(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. The LDR Code: Section 102-79(b)(3) states: Expansion or extensions. A nonconforming building or structure shall not be expanded or enlarged. 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. 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. All property owners in the R-1 zoning district are required to meet the rear setback requirements. Based on aerial photos, most structures in the neighborhood appear to meet this requirement. This point is not met. 2. Conditions for which the variance is being applied are unique or unusual to the site or structure in question. The lot is already developed with a home that does not meet rear setback requirements. The applicant is seeking to work with existing conditions on the property, and add onto the existing garage. The Planning Department notes that the garage/carport is approximately 30 feet away from the main home, connected via a 4 -wide covered walkway. Visually, the garage and covered carport area resemble a detached accessory structure rather than a part of the principal structure. The garage/carport meets the required setbacks for accessory structures (three feet from side and rear property lines). An expansion of this portion of the home will not have the same visual impact as an expansion of the main portion of the home. This point is met. Page 2
3. The variance request is not based solely upon the desire to reduce the cost of developing the site. Not applicable. This point is met. 4. The variance shall not confer on the petitioner the grant of a special privilege, or be based on a self-imposed hardship. The request is not based on a self-imposed hardship. This Board has previously granted variances to reduce setbacks when it felt the circumstances so warranted. This point is met. 5. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the area surrounding the site. The applicant is not seeking to reduce the rear setback beyond current depths. Applicant plans to add an addition onto the side of the garage with the same rear setback as that of the existing garage. Doing so would not result in a significant change in neighborhood character. Also see discussion under Point 2. This point is met. 6. The proposed variance will not degrade level of service standards as established in the Comprehensive Plan. The variance will not affect the ability of the applicant to meet concurrency standards. This point is met. 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 intent of the Land Development Regulations is to ensure residential structures meet required setbacks, and to prevent the enlargement of nonconforming development. The requested variance is not compatible with this intent. This point is not met. Findings: The applicant s request to reduce a side setback and allow construction of an addition on the side of an existing garage/carport meets Points 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Seven Point test. The request does not meet Points 1 and 7. Anna Papke, AICP Planner II, Planning Services March 12, 2015 Date Page 3
1015 Degama Avenue
City of Panama City Board of Adjustment March 23, 2015 Staff findings of consistency with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan follow: Owner/ Applicant: John Nichols Case Number: BA 15-04 Address/Location: 5003 W. 19 th Court Request Three Request: Allow construction of an accessory structure in front yard of residential property, pursuant to Section 104-119(a)(6) of the Land Development Regulations. Land Use Designation / Zoning District: Mixed Use / MU-1 Tract Size: 0.37+/- acres Background: Applicant is requesting the variance in order to build a detached carport in front of an existing single-family home. 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. Page 1
The LDR Code: Section 104-119(a)(6) states: Accessory structures shall be allowed only on side or rear yards, unless otherwise specified herein. 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. All property owners are required to locate accessory structures in rear or side yards. However, a number of homes in the surrounding area do have carports in front yards. This point is met. 2. Conditions for which the variance is being applied are unique or unusual to the site or structure in question. The lot is already developed with a home. The applicant is working with existing conditions on the property, and has limited options for placement of a carport. This point is met. 3. The variance request is not based solely upon the desire to reduce the cost of developing the site. Cost of development does not pertain to this request. This point is met. 4. The variance shall not confer on the petitioner the grant of a special privilege, or be based on a self-imposed hardship. The request is not based on a self-imposed hardship. This Board has previously granted variances to allow accessory structures in front yards when it felt the circumstances so warranted. This point is met. 5. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the area surrounding the site. A number of nearby properties have carports in the front yard, either attached to or detached from the house. A number of homes on 19 th Court, east of the subject parcel, and on Alabama Avenue have carports extending into front setback areas. The applicant s proposed development is therefore not expected to significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. This point is met. Page 2
6. The proposed variance will not degrade level of service standards as established in the Comprehensive Plan. The requested variance will not affect the ability of the applicant to meet concurrency standards. This point is met. 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 intent of the Land Development Regulations is to ensure accessory structures in residential neighborhoods are confined to side and rear yards. The requested variance is not compatible with this intent. This point is not met. Findings: The applicant s request to allow construction of an accessory structure in the front yard meets Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Seven Point test. The request does not meet Point 7. Anna Papke, AICP Planner II, Planning Services March 11, 2015 Date Page 3
5003 W. 19 th Court
City of Panama City Board of Adjustment March 23, 2015 Staff findings of consistency with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan follow: Owner/ Applicant: Sylvia D. Dubke Case Number: BA 15-05 Address/Location: 2104 W. Norwood Drive Request Four Request: Allow construction of an accessory structure in front yard of residential property, pursuant to Section 104-119(a)(6) of the Land Development Regulations. Land Use Designation / Zoning District: Residential / R-1 Tract Size: 0.22+/- acres Background: Applicant is requesting the variance in order to build a detached carport in front of an existing single-family home. 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. Page 1
The LDR Code: Section 104-119(a)(6) states: Accessory structures shall be allowed only on side or rear yards, unless otherwise specified herein. 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. All property owners are required to locate accessory structures in rear or side yards. Most development in the immediate neighborhood meets this requirement. This point is not met. 2. Conditions for which the variance is being applied are unique or unusual to the site or structure in question. The lot is already developed with a home. The applicant is working with existing conditions on the property, and has limited options for placement of a carport. This point is met. 3. The variance request is not based solely upon the desire to reduce the cost of developing the site. Cost of development does not pertain to this request. This point is met. 4. The variance shall not confer on the petitioner the grant of a special privilege, or be based on a self-imposed hardship. The request is not based on a self-imposed hardship. This Board has previously granted variances to allow accessory structures in front yards when it felt the circumstances so warranted. This point is met. 5. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the area surrounding the site. Most nearby properties do not have accessory structures in the front yard. There are a few attached carports that appear to protrude into front setback areas. The majority of properties in the neighborhood, though, are developed with single-family residences that appear to meet front setbacks and that do not have accessory structures in the front yard. The carport proposed for the subject property would be a departure from this pattern of development. This point is not met. Page 2
6. The proposed variance will not degrade level of service standards as established in the Comprehensive Plan. The requested variance will not affect the ability of the applicant to meet concurrency standards. This point is met. 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 intent of the Land Development Regulations is to ensure accessory structures in residential neighborhoods are confined to side and rear yards. The requested variance is not compatible with this intent. This point is not met. Findings: The applicant s request to allow construction of an accessory structure in the front yard meets Points 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the Seven Point test. The request does not meet Points 1, 5 and 7. Anna Papke, AICP Planner II, Planning Services March 11, 2015 Date Page 3
2104 W. Norwood Drive