Loading...
Lots 15 & 16 Happy Home Heights DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Lots 15 (Portion) & 16, Block 1, Happy Home Heights APPLICANT'S AGENT: Robert Dwelle APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: PO BOX 337, Boynton Beach, FL 33425 DATE OF CITY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: April 17, 2001 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Lot area, lot frontage, rear yard setback. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: NE 12th Avenue DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "A and B" ATTACHED HERETO. X THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, which Board round as follows: OR THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. The Applicant X HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "E" with notation "Included". The Applicant's application for relief is hereby ..X GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms EXHIBIT "E" Conditions of Approval Project name: Lots 15 (Portion) & 16, Happy Home Heights File number: ZNCV 01-005 (Lot area, lot frontage, rear setback) Reference: Zoning Code Variance Application dated March 1.2001 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE R_EJECT PUBLIC WORKS Comments: NONE X UTILITIES Comments: NONE X FIRE Comments: NONE X POLICE Comments: NONE X ENGINEERING DI~-iSION Comments: NONE X BUILDING DIVISION Comments: NONE X PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: NONE X FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: NONE X PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: NONE X ADDITIONAL COMMLrN1TY REDEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: NONE X ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. MWR/pat S:\PI~N NIN G\S HARED\WP\P ROd ECTS~,LOTS 15 & 16, BLOCK 4, HAPPY HOME HEIGHTS, LOT FRONTAGE, LOT AREA, AND REAR SETBACK~CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CDC ZONING CODE VARIANCE.DOC LOCATION MAP CDC Properties EXHIBIT "A" _ 118 MILES~: k- .£S p]~ 3N W ~ o6 1 HEF DIRE APp,~ STAF. FLOF DAT[ ,OOD ZONE )M]vt'[,J-'Nt~m~ PANEL ). 120196-0004-C PROF UNLE SHO~ WITH AND I EXHIBIT "D" A. The Boyaton Beach Faith Based Co~i~mnity Development Corporation (CDC) is proposing the'construction of two single-family homes on a parcel of land located in the Martin Luther King Blvd North Neighborhood as defined in the City of Boynton Beach's Vision 20/20 planning document. The total parcel of land consists of 2 lots and a portion ora 3re lot. Two of the lots are 40 feet wide and the remaining piece is approximately 32 feet wide for a total width of 112 feet. The CDC is proposing the construction of two single-family homes on the three lots. Each new home will sit on a piece of land appro>dmately 56 feet wide by 95 feet deep (5296 sq rD- The neighborhood is zoned entirely R2. This zoning designation requires 60-foot lots and 6000 square feet of area; However, Eighty-five percent of the developed single-family homes in this community are built on lots of fifby (50) feet or less in width. This means that eighty five percent of the existing homes would not conform with the current zoning requirements. Therefore the R-2 Zoning regulations for this community are clearly not consistent with the vast majority, of the property in tblg comn~mity. This creates a situation that is exact opposite of the typical situation. The CDC is applying for a variance to build homes consistent with the rest of the comm~mity, not deviating from the rest of the co~anity. Tlxis zoning designation creates a tremendous barrier to the development of this co~mity. There are 15 scattered lots in this cornm~mity that are less than 50 feet in width. All of these lots would be not be developable under these regulations, and would sit vacant. This would only propetuate the slum and blight conditions in the neighborhood. The CDC wishes to work with the City on an on going basis to revise these burdensome regulations and begin the development of the comm~lllity. Each vacant lot in this comm~llity provides an opportunity for a homebuyer to fi]Ifil! their dream of homeownership and an oppommity to add value to the community. The CDC is commkted to working with the City to make that a reality. B. The platting, zoning and construction of the other homes in the comrmlllity occurred well before the CDC was even in existence. The actions of the CDC in no way created these circumstances. C. The CDC is not receiving any particular benefit over other individuals or developers; the CDC only requests that it be pe~tted to construct homes that are consistent with 85 percent of the homes in this conu~anlty, which are under the same zoning designation. D. The City of Boynton Beach funded the CDC in order to provide housing oppommities to low and moderate-income first time homebuyers and to develop and increase the value of this comrmmity. The CDC currently has two qualified homebuyers that have overcome many obsticules to qualify for a loan. These two families are ready and waiting to move into the proposed homes. By only p¢l'm~tting the construction of one home, a family would be denied a rare opportunity to occupy a brand new residence. Additionally, if the CDC were to only build one home, the cost of the home would increase due to the increased land cost. This increase would, in turn, eliminate both buyers. The CDC wishes to increase the tax base and property value of the coram~lnlty. Building two homes instead of one would double the tax output. Two homes would also reduce vacant land in the COmmll/~'y~ thereby increasing home values. Additionally, if the CDC built only one home on the 2 lots, that home would look vexy out of character. Since the CDC's homes are only 35 feet wide, there would be a yard space of 38 feet on each side of the house. This would give the appearance of a vacant lot on each side of the home. Maintaining this large lot would place a higher financial burden on the property owner. This could potentially result in a poorly maintained lav~a, always a com~,~mity eyesore. Small lawns are much easier for an owner to maintain, less costly, and consistent with the concept of building affordable housing. E. There are 110 single family homes in the cornm~lnity that sit on lots that are fffi-y (50) feet or less, including the home right next to the CDC's proposed site. In fact, immediately to the north of the CDC's proposed site on NE 13t~ Ave there are four homes that were constructed four years ago that look nearly identical to the homes the CDC is proposing. All four homes were built on fffiy (50) foot lots. The CDC is only requesting the minimal amount needed to construct two affordable homes that will be compatible with eight-five percent of the other homes in the cornmlmity. F. The intent of the ordinance is to prevent building on smaller lots located in communities where the majority of the homes are set on larger lots. Those squeezed in homes would certainly be out of character in the neighborhood. This is clearly not the case in this co.~.~unity. The CDC's proposed homes will appear quite compauT01e with the other homes in the comxmmity. The CDC's homes w;Jll eliminate vacant land in the co~,~:,unlty, make affordable housing opportunities available to low income first time home buyers, and make a positive impact on the value of the surrounding residences.