AGENDA DOCUMENTS
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NO. PZ 99-086
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION
INTRODUCTION
Meeting Date:
File Number:
Location:
April 6, 1999
ZNCV 99-003
1340 Neptune Drive (see Exhibit "A"-Iocation map)
Applicant:
William F. Koch, Jr.
900 East Atlantic Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 32483
Zoning:
Project Name:
M-1 (Industrial)
Pelican Estates
Adjacent zoning districts and land uses:
North - Industrial use, zoned M-1.
South - APEC, zoned M-1.
East - Industrial use, zoned M-1.
West - Industrial, zoned M-1.
Variance
Requests:
Request for a variance from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations,
Chapter 2, Section 11 H.16 to allow for a reduction in the required ratios of one (1) parking
space per 800 square feet (warehouse use) to 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet,
and 1 parking space per 500 square feet (manufacturing use) to one parking space per
600 square feet, which represents a reduction of s.ix required spaces.
BACKGROUND
Pelican Estates, Inc., (aka American Aluminum Enterprises, Inc.), is currently preparing this site for a
new tenant. It is proposed that the 18,000 square foot building be used 50% for storage and 50% for
manufacturing use. This breakdown of building use, combined with the 3,069 square foot office,
generates a total parking requirement of 41 spaces, or six (6) more spaces than existing on the site.
Since 1996, the property has been used as a warehouse, which requires one less parking space than
currently (and originally) provided on site. However, prior to 1996, license records indicate that the
property was used for manufacturing, which is consistent with original building records which identify the
greater building for "production". It appears that when the project was built in 1974, the approved use
was for both manufacturing (which would have also allowed for storage use). Staff was unable to locate
parking regulations that were applied to the project in 1974. Up until 1996 when the use changed from
manufacturing to storage, the use was considered "grandfathered". Under city rules, the use must now
conform to current regulations before conversion back to the original (more intense) use.
Realizing that it would be difficult to modify the existing site to conform to current parking regulations
(e.g. adding the additional 6 parking spaces), they have submitted an application for zoning relief to
reduce the parking requirement from 41 spaces to 35 (See Exhibit "B" - Site Plan).
ANAL YSIS
This request for a variance from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2,
Section 11. H .16 which states as follows:
"There shall be provided at the time of the erection of any structure or establishment of any use, a
number of off-street parking spaces in accordance with the minimum requirements, and subject to
Page 2
Memorandum No. PZ 99-086
Pelican Estates -staff report
paragraphs one through 15 of this subsection. Where a structure or use is enlarged or increased in
capacity in any means, including a change in building occupancy which requires the provision of
additional parking spaces, or a change in use which requires additional parking spaces, the minimum
number of parking spaces shall be computed by applying these requirements to the entire structure
or use. "
The code states that zoning code variances cannot be approved unless the board finds the following:
a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building
involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning
district.
The building and paved area occupy the entire site except for the area required for landscaping.
There is no available space to create the additional six spaces now required in the Land
Development Regulations. The city has often accepted as justification for a variance, historic
conditions, or circumstances resulting from projects constructed prior to current land development
regulations.
b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
Until approximately 1996, the use has remained consistent since its original approval in 1974. The
tenant's use will not generate additional needs for parking, instead, It is the change in parking
requirements that have necessitated the need for a variance.
c. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district.
The continuation of this use as originally intended is consistent with adjacent properties in this zoning
district, some of which have also been developed under prior land development regulations.
d. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance
and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
Due to previously existing conditions and site constraints, meeting the parking requirements now
required by the City's Land Development Regulations would cause a hardship and reduce the
reasonable use of the property relative to other uses in this vicinity.
e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will be make possible the reasonable use
of the land, building, or structure.
This variance would basically allow the property to be used as originally designed and used for
approximately 20 years.
f. That granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter
(ordinance) and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental
to the public welfare.
Page 3
Memorandum No. PZ 99-086
Pelican Estates -staff report
As indicated above, the city has often acknowledged non-conforming characteristics that resulted
from the application of earlier development regulations. Relief has been when the use generally
conformed to zoning regulations and was consistent with surrounding properties, and when the site
could continue to function while providing a safe, harmonious environment.
As per the above requirement, the applicant has provided as Exhibit "C" justification for the variance for relief
from the City's parking ratios - Justification Documents as a statement of special conditions, hardships or
other reasons justifying the requested variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the request for a variance to reduce the minimum parking ratios be approved, as
justified herein. There are currently no conditions of approval recommended. If conditions of approval
are added by the Planning and Development Board and/or City Commission, said conditions will be
listed in Exhibit "0".
xc: Central File
J:\SHRDATA\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Pelican Estates - staff rep.doc
:>
-- - EXHIBIT "AI
Lc,~ATION MA.)
.__PELICAN ESTATES PROPERTY
t-'U~ '.
,-:// 'r<'; ( 'r" R
I '
'0 1/8 MILES
TI "I 'I .
"0 ,400. "800 FEET
No
- ---~~ -----..--...- ....---..-.-
\ "
"
" / 11
~~~
~ ~t
\t f\ ::
~
E'
, ~:C/lr(/lf/cOl<lvr EXHIBIT "B"
~" ,//?~j/./#~
,
~
6#EL.L.~~ ~A""
.'AY6-P
16/-gt1 ,
@ -. ~ 0 0 I
~- ;p A Y -c- a ~
~ ~
\I
~
~4?'"
?!!i&? "
/ dTI1?RY
NETA~
9p/~O/#& ..
0\
75oiD' ~
~
~
S
~
~~'
#.vr.
,
.. ~
~ "
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
.. \~
~
..
~
~
*
f(CC{S~ (~-fu~~,-
J-.~~ 'tf'-c(f 6 G ,ce-.
-\"-' 3G'7,e>=
r~<":': ((' tr u<=- GO- "- C>r"1Yc-
/20 ~7~/
~'\J~
\\:~~
.~ 1..
:r
~ ! CJ d (;..c.S f<r<'cC ~ ,-( "N:7
n c ccC:. ~~) / c:. J-,..{l G.-;C c---a--r ?f-:t2
1. . ,
~ of ,4, P (Oc~ sS,(h er{ 160
p("'C>~ c C<"-<.~k /LL{ ~n?{.
p !:::5~ c& ~'-ff~~I<:-r d= ~~ ~- p ~
~~~ ., a
r \ - ,- ,..---/~/ L:' ~ /-~
" ~"Jt/t:-"e/' ~/. =:;7Cf*" /AI/#o'
~~
,z.'
,
~
~
~ ~~~
1\~~
,
~
"
\
~
~
~
\,
~
~
~
" ~
\I\,
~ \;
~J
--
~
~
.-
4..t~ -~ .
, '1~-
\rl ..
EXHIBIT "e"
March 31, 1999
Mr. Dan DeCarlo
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
PO Box 310
Boynton Beach, FI. 33425-0310
Dear Mr. DeCarlo:
In response to your fax of this date, I am supplying the information that you requested to go with
the application that was submitted on the property located at 1340 Neptune Drive, Boynton Beach.
Attached is a survey showing the property and existing building and parking spaces. Below are the
specific questions that I will try to clarify:
A. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or
building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the
same zoning district
As you can see by the survey, the building and paving occupy all the available footage of the
property, except for the areas required for landscaping at the time this building was e.o. back
in 1974. At that time the zoning requirements in Boynton, which included required parking
etc., were mel
B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant
The applicant is not changing the use of the building from that which was granted in 1974.
C. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that
is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district
Granting this variance is not inconsistent with the ongoing uses of similar properties of the
same age and use of our building in the same industrial zoned districts.
D. That literal interpretation of the provisions ofthis chapter would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the
Ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant
MAR-31-99 WED 11:45
p, 02
To require us to comply with the present ordinance would place upon the owners a financial
hardship and deny them a reasonable use of their property.
E. That the variance granted is the minimum vc.'iance that will make possible the reasonable use
ofthe land. buRding or structure;
After several meetings with the Boynton officials, where we presented the surveys showing
the existing parking and other aspects of the property, it was determined that it would be
impOSSible to find the additional 6 spaces that the ordinance requires unless there is a
possibility for ordinance change to allow some compact car parking.
F. That the granting ofthe vcr-iance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
ohapter and that such a variance will not be injurious to the area involved or othelWise
detrimental to the public welfare,
This request for a variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter
and it gives justifiable relief to those who otherwise would be harmed in instances such as
ours and this variance does not in any way become a deterrent to the public welfare.
Sorry that this was not attached to the application form, and sorry for any inconvenience.
SIn,y,
digf(;J ~
Pelican Es1ates,lnc.
EXHIBIT "D"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Pelican Estates
File number: ZNCV 99-003
Reference: Application dated March L 1999.
DEP AR TMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: None
UTILITIES
Comments: None
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALlST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
1.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
2. To be determined.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
3. To be determined.
/bme
s:\projects\cond of appr\
DEVELOPMEr--~ ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISS'--~ OF THE
cn f OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME:
Pelican Estates, Inc.
APPLICANT'S AGENT: William Koch
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 1340 Neptune Drive
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: April 20, 1999
TYPE OF RELI EF SOUGHT: Zoning Code Variance
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 1340 Neptune Drive
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
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 Planning and Development Board, which Board found 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:
1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
2. The Applicant
HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
3. 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 "C" with notation "Included".
4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
_ 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
and conditions of this order.
7. Other
DATED:
City Clerk
J:ISHRDATAIPlanningISHARED\WPIPROJECTSIHamptons at Boynton BeachlNWSPIDEVElOPMENT ORDER - NWSP,doc
To require us to comply with the present ordinance would place upon the owners a financial
hardship and deny them a reasonable use of their property.
E. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the land, building or structure;
After several meetings with the Boynton officials, where we presented the surveys showing
the existing parking and other aspects of the property, it was determined that it would be
impossible to find the additional 6 spaces that the ordinance requires unless there is a
possibility for ordinance change to allow some compact car parking.
F. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
chapter and that such a variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
This request for a variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter
and it gives justifiable relief to those who otherwise would be harmed in instances such as
ours and this variance does not in any way become a deterrent to the public welfare.
Sorry that this was not attached to the application form, and sorry for any inconvenience.
JJSinc,er~eIY' ~
I
" . l-d{
. iam . Ko ,Jr. resident l-1
Pelican Estates, Inc.
MAR-31-99 WED 11:45
P. 01
March 31, 1999
Mr. Dan DeCarlo
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
PO Box 310
Boynton Beach, FI, 3342&.0310
Dear Mr.DeCarlo:
In response to your fax of this date, i am supplying the information that you requested to go with
the application that was submitted on the property located at 1340 Neptune Drive. Boynton Beach.
Attached is a survey showing the property and existing building and parking spaces, Below are the
specific questions that [ will try to clarify:
A That special conditions and circumstances exist whic h are pecunar to the land. structure or
building involved and which are not appficable to other lands, structures or buildings in the
same zoning district;
As you can see by the survey. the building and paving occupy all the available footage of the
property, except for the areas required for landscaping at the time this buDding was C.O. back
in 1974. At that time the zoning requirements in Boynton. which included required parking
etc., were met
B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant
The applicant is not changing the use of the building from that which was granted in 1974.
C. That granting the variance requested wilt not confer on the applicant any special privilege that
is denied by this Ordinance to other lands. buildings or structures in the same loning district.
Granting this variance is not inconsistent with the ongoing uses of Similar properties of the
same age and use of our buDding in the same industrial zoned districts.
D. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the
Ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant