REVIEW COMMENTS
6.A.l
ROWE
VARIANCE
DE"E:LOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMI:;,NT
MEMORANDUM #PZ 01-036
Staff Report
Planning and Development Board and
City Commission
Meeting
Date
March 13, 2001
File No
ZNCV 01-003 Rear yard setback
Location
647 & 649 Lake Street, Boynton Beach
Owner.
David Rowe
Project:
Second floor deck addition with first floor structural support.
Request:
Request relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations,
Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5 G 2 b, to allow a 976 foot reduction from the
twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback required within the R-3 multi-family zoning
district for a duplex building or a 15.24 foot setback.
BACKGROUND
The subject vacant property and nearby neighborhood is currently zoned R-3, multi-family
residential The applicant desires to develop the property for a two-story, two-family residence,
one unit on the first floor and the second unit to occupy the 768 square-foot second-floor to be
placed to the rear of the structure The City building permit was issued in November, 2000 As
part of the project, the applicant is proposing to construct a second-story deck with its support
structure at first floor level located at 15 24 feet from the rear property line The deck is
designed in conjunction with the sole entrance for the second-story unit. Currently, the subject
neighborhood is mostly developed with the exception of the two adjacent lots (see Exhibit "A" -
Location Map)
Staff surveyed the area and it was observed that three (3) properties were developed with
structures to the rear that appear to be encroaching into the required setbacks The
encroaching structures, which have no permit nor variance records that could be located,
appear to pre-date current regulations, however, subsequent permits were issued in the early
80's for elements such as electrical and plumbing (see Exhibit "B" - vicinity map)
The following is a description of the zoning districts and land uses of surrounding properties
North A duplex zoned R-3, multi-family residential district;
South Lake Street right-of-way, and farther south a multi-family residential development, Via
Lago, zoned R-3 and the Benvenuto's Restaurant, zoned C-3,
East: Vacant property zoned R-3, and
West: Vacant property zoned R-3
Page 2
File No ZNCV 01-003
ANALYSIS
The code states that the zoning code variance can not 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.
b That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
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.
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.
e That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable
use of the land, building, or structure
f That the grant 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
No circumstances appear to be peculiar to the land on which this structure is to be built.
However, it is notable that the subject area appears to have been platted for single family
homes, and later up-zoned Unless lots are assembled, values and demand may lead the lots
to be built to the maximum extent allowed by, and even in excess of, current zoning regulations
According to the applicant's response to the above criteria, contained in Exhibit 'Cn, the
applicant feels that other property owners in the neighborhood have been allowed the privilege
of reduced rear setbacks The applicant therefore feels that he is also entitled to similar
privileges, and therefore, has provided a plan depicting a proposed 3,388 square foot duplex
with a second floor deck that encroaches into the rear setback (see Exhibit "0" - proposed
plan) It should be noted that the building encroachments on nearby properties represent an
earlier time period when the regulations and process may have been less formal and stringent.
It appears that modern improvements within the area were made according to current
regulations (setbacks) The request could therefore represent a grant of special privilege to the
applicant.
With respect to item "e" above, which relates to the magnitude and necessity of the variance,
the logical design of the structure includes placing the entry for the second-floor unit at the
deepest point of lot. This location of the deck is also at the northeast corner of the property
where there is the greatest chance of attaining a view to the Intracoastal Waterway The deck
is proposed to be 12 feet deep which allows for more space than necessary for the entrance to
the unit, which increases the magnitude of encroachment. Options for meeting the setback with
the least design impacts appear to be limited to reducing the size of the structure If the
Page 3
File No ZNCV 01-003
structure size is to remain as proposed, the magnitude of the variance could be reduced by
reducing the depth of the deck, but with the impact of reducing functionality
As for furthering the intent of the zoning regulations, and impacts on the area, staff considered
the development potential for the area, the impact on privacy of adjacent properties, and the
opinions of adjacent residents With respect to privacy, staff considered the impacts of the
deck facilitating views to other properties from a height of approximately 15 feet and at a
distance approximately 10 feet closer to the nearest property line (see Exhibit "E" - elevations")
With only one small window on the south side of the nearest adjacent unit, and the outdoor yard
area of the same unit being on the west-side of that unit, visual invasion of privacy by the
subject unit would be minimum Furthermore, when compared to the current development
potential of R-3 zoning, which would allow a 4-story structure on both the subject and adjacent
properties, the subject project and impacts are also minimal Lastly, the quality of the proposed
duplex, as represented by the permit drawings, would contribute to the aesthetics of the
neighborhood and be compatible with the architectural character established by the adjacent
Benvenuto 5 Restaurant.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the proposed project generally conforms to the intent of the subject zoning
regulations, and the subject variance would have no measurable impacts on the subject
neighborhood However, staff emphasizes that the need for the variance would be created by
actions of the property owner, and that there are no special circumstances that justify the
variance Therefore, staff recommends that this request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning,
Section 5 G 2 b , to allow a 9 76 foot reduction from the twenty-five (25) rear setback required
within the R-3 multi-family zoning district, be denied due do the lack of traditional hardship No
conditions of approval are recommended, however, any conditions of approval added by the
Planning and Development Board or the City Commission will be placed in the Exhibit "F" -
conditions of approval Should the City choose to approve this request based on its particular
merits rather than on traditional hardship, staff notes the following
1 The proposed variance would not create a noticeable deviation in the aesthetics of the area
given the existing rear setback encroachments by other structures,
2. The variance is not for the main structure but essentially for a rear deck which would
otherwise be allowed if placed on ground level,
3 The subject variance request is supported by 23 adjacent and nearby residents including
those residents immediately to the north of the subject property (it was not confirmed if the
signatures are from property owners), and
4 To prevent visual impacts not anticipated and analyzed herein, if the variance is granted,
the variance should only be for the deck and not future screening or enclosing of the deck.
The property owner should not be allowed to enclose the deck area or that area below the
deck without obtaining additional variance approval
MWR
S:IPlanningISHAREDIWPIPROJECTSIDavid & Mary Rowe VariancelST AFF REP-Rear yard setbackvar.doc
LOCATION MAP
DAVID ROWE RESIDENCE
EXHIBIT "A"
1/8
I.
I I
I
I
800 FEET
~ f!t../t ~N.//V 6_ pEP r
t::=:J : L' '
,.
I
~E
~
u
C
...
CD
~
~
z
>
o
CD
,
~
o
>
~
u
'"
~
S
:J
...
~
C
II:
o
a.
II:
o
U
MILES
I
\
\
\
I
03/01
'1~
----
VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT "B"
~ 'oJ
(]II AC
@I PAR
) NJ A
> ~~~
~ OW I
~ ii~
:J.-u
7\V1~
.:.; ~u
~
..
"'" ~
B
lA'
'2.17
2
~ '63A,c,
~~ rn~~ o,~~ ~1, ffi~l1= I
I ~ m ~ ., ~ I:!I iii ~
.::. . ~ liIJo.'
..iL~ffim..k. ..l< 2-
2. EiJ~ .2 ElLa li.
, 0
TI/TF 22410
237
'1S' I.~~ .
~.
.... SO '1
oil..I.<iO {' I
~
~
.'
, ! 'l.
,
\1
"
II .' ~pl.- ,. - - - "
_ _ t~. _. _ - ..... "'
- ~ = -.,- ::... f "
" -. - - - ". -...-
.- > - """''''e 02: --~
:;)
,
.8.~..
'"'
~
~
\\:1-
Y
, -
RDefiR)"JE.S
REAR -SETS
""'
,.1)
.3 '" "
t 2 36 A C)
OR69/0
P/608
/
TIIF
24361
OR 1435
P97
:-
1\1::140.5
f ~a
'"
0.
'"
_ C
N
*'2J 7 /
~ J:O~AC .
UR~90B
F'1/29
"
. .
J,t; S ^'-
~s 6 .'0.:
;' 71.0 ".J1
<.:3.5 7 ACl
If'
OR2658
PIIJ9
'"
,
~
.
(183 A()
(/~.
OR4/46
POOB9
~
Sl~)'
82i.l2
\-
_,
9/600
TO E RI-'
lIS IIwy" I
,- -
....
~-
rC
'"
EXHIBIT "C"
January 24, 2001
Rowe Duplex
Lots 39-41, W S Shepards SubdIvIsIon
Statement of Reasons to Justifv the Reouested Variance
1 ThIS buildIng IS a duplex resIdence and the deck In questIon IS located to gtve pnvacy
to both resIdents.
2. The granting of the vanance requested does not confer any specIal pnvilege In that 3
garages and 2 sheds are located less that ten feet from the rear lot lIne In questIon.
(See attached photos - ExhibIt A)
3 To locate the proposed deck at any other SIde of the duplex would result In the loss of
pnvacy for both resIdents.
4 The grantIng of the variance will be In harmony WIth the general Intent of the 25 foot
set back In that the structural hVIng space IS 25ft set back from the rear lot lIne and
only the second floor wood deck IS In the space In questIon and IS not detnmental to
the pubhc welfare, (See attached photos - ExhibIt B)
------,
__--- i
____--- i :
r--------I.um. \, I
i \ -: ~
I \ \ :
I \t oL-- w i
I \ -;.- I
! J.-.::--- ~
I !
,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
;11I pC:I\"'..e\~I-StI',sIlr G"'l """ 110. l~ 11 26 '~iGOC [ijIo,;l
I,
I:
",::
'0
I:
,~ DI
t:i ;
I~ i"
;~ i
~
i
I :
h
I! '
! :
i
I
!
i
I
I
I
L
~ ~ !! .a! f ii:: ~9. !! ~--
!~Pi~~~~ H~ H~h~~H~H~~~I:u~-~n~i =!~~~l~~X~U~~;~~~!~~~~i.ii ~
.i 'el".., Oe' i ilt" 'ij"'l' Iii "'~Jj;l" l"l'l'l'l'~ll'll' ,~. '1", ~
H~~:~1~5~:U!l~-i ~- :~t~~h"~l~"'" _iiO~~ J:~~~i1~ c.~~ "H.J;i~~;o~~ ~
,,~~~~~ ~i~g~i~~~; ~\l:li7~~~':~Jf~~ 1ja ~iJ~J~i!~~~~ li~~H~f~~j~ i!
~~~1~~h..q~5 ~!~ i i i~~~!~i~~i4.5~it:tl~ ~~hi~~~::~~~ '.::i-"J!i~~. [;
~hJ~H~i~~~~ ~~~ l ~hJ~~~p~~jh~~'..J lE H~!~:~~i ii~~!f~:i~:~ -
i~i~~~jl'=}~~~1<ij i "!!;liH~1gii~i ~:'! ~; r~i~i~~;~ ~Ii~~~r~i~
iW~"1 !jlj'l; ! ~jidl!';:I'I.:I !" ~i !'p'w 'llu!~l!.i
~i~hj .. I..ii r-! ~ ,f; '1:;:: ,P ,ir-lIi" !=~ II >~.. ~!~r ~tJ "~iI~~
>,." I >, · I' ''''1,'1,\,,1 ",! ", 't' , \>' 'I'> U ,
Ii,!;l , . 1'1 j' ! ,j,' I"! >.' '1-' 'j" 1.,1 ""! ' " \1,"\"
~;~'! ~ - - :q Ii ~ 5" 1"'- ~~~ lilt: "I ;;::1 ~~. ~;tJ~ 4"~'" ~-
'!1~1-~ j ~ ~~ h ;: l;i ~~I~H~.t' Ii,'j! d j -, ~l i~~~ ii~::!i~
~. ~n ~ .. ~! ,It ~ ~ ,Ii ~-:~"~iL~ ~_ ~ ~ :~: ..:~..~ ; ~Il :;.~Uid
,l I'i ' . 'i l~ I' 1 il ~!l!hll~l i1j , ,~; !'Ili 1',. !':!c.
1 'i, 'I' ! .:!1 i e i'l!>> Ili.H , II! i!' : .ill ' !,l'
~ hi ::: ~ "! ~~ ~ ~ l~ ~ !' i.i<;jj:~" ,.n ~ .:! l::!'~ ,- !~~~ ~ ~~~
/.,...;;: . 1 ~~ :~ ~ .. ::;':;;J .:l~!i~~ ri !,,1J .. r- JHl" "Ii.;
I! 1 , j, " I i l! . "'1'1" jll 'I' .,' ,,!> I ,."
_ ~&" ~ ! ~'" ~~ l ~J. ~ 1lI":t,l;~._;{1 ;(oJ : '5 -,(':11 - :"l~~ ~ i;~.
... ~~ ~ ~ ~;$ i ,1 ~i": ! :.....~ H" i i~) ~ Li' t ,~r.
: f i i s! ~~ ~ ~ i!! ~ i~J~~ _~3 ~ ~ i::i ! ~i;; i~~~
~ j~ ~ i 1 a ' ~ l;j ~ J~i ~ f ..~
i~
.
l~~I~E~~! j'." ~
:"~!"I'~ ' ll;; ;
~~U~~ ~Hi~
i~i'!~- sJi~1 .
I .,; I"..' ~
" " ,;.l.'.,..~. l'
i! l~j " ~
"~ ~!i !; f! ~
11 r2 j~ ~I ~
d :h ,! p ~
sl ~":" . e' !!l; ol ~
,. 5' "~ <~~ ~h'- .' oJ
i~ ~ !!!~t ~zS ":=i~ ~~ e
!l i ~ ~ ~} '~;i ! ~
. . .
5! f t
~i ~~~~~ ii~ ~ ~~~~~~~ i;! i~~J~
-I ml~~!~; l;~!!~!~ ill~i;~1
i.J~.li!iH;~il..'i"';iL'" "":o-'ilz,:,,
! I" ;".; ll-li~.!!. I -'!;~l
~~ ,~l'-,~~~ ;:t!~iI~"!i_ i t t!~'i~~;
~il~^iilq :tph j'l h~'i-'p
iH;I!;.~i;~~~~;!~,,~ ~pd~~
~~i.~~lt~~!I;~ i~li~ hiU !
'~ll;\l.l'~l! l~-I~~ ~~Hi I
,- "!I a,' ..", ,.'t' ,
!~gh 1~~j i~~!4 ~~~'!; i
~~~>,~'- ~.i~" I~~;:! ~i~~'; ;
· 'ii1 1m :!2l >!~h'
I!., J,!Oj~ .. ~l "
). ~. ~ ~
...~~~.l.g ~?\'t""\
t:h
~
.~'~>.
. ,
(,
\. 'II:
...~~L
(--,
L_j
~
c
(")
c:
(/
~
I
o
(;J
~
~~L
C5
i Ii.e..!. ~ el! .e i:!. ~ '"'
mil-il~~!1 i ;~~j,W;
1~~hW>" "i~1.'i -
11~'i'I~I~! !b~ii}l
f~iW"I,'il >. ~~;';~; -
!'!-,i ,',! "j 5h~.-, '
.i!l~, ~~"- II. >I'~<~
~i'I';'IH~ :'~ ~~.U~,
i';m~;gh, ~~f i W ~
~l!I'J~'I~l..~~1. i ."~ !
i~a~,-~, .~~!~ _~;i~~~ i ;i~ !
I, $"".'. I ! i'~ ~ II' i
li'j~IIl'I'l'~1 "
;~J !~I Ii :;
- ,
~ ~ ~ ~.e i!
;~H!~i;f~I!~J~~:ii~~~ i~~ f
m~ja, ~J1;11!! 'llIH :ji!
,~~,!'~i ~l"l.!:i'l'lt"
~~'!~l.~ $l!jl-l'!~:~~' ~.~ i
;1,t~ til:'" ~;,;ijI:; i !-jll !.::;".51
'"'Fli5 '''J ~i~1' -;slfh.... 11:1.0::
~i!i ~ ; !illWiiH n ~ I
i!'! i ! '1"6"'j'" ~:!,
'H~ : ! !,;W!~f~ ~~ ~!
'~l ~ ~ h'li~'~~' a' I'
i ~ i i ~~~ :~al~ Q~ ~
~ ~ ~ !i~ U~~.i l::.
I
I
m
X
:J:
-
to
-
~
=
RmrE DUPLEX
/'
I
I
I
I j
'--.-----"
LOTS :lU-41, BLOCK l W.5- SHEP.4..RD'S St'8DI\ISIO!Ii
UllY;-.lTC~ DEACH, P...UI BEACH COUSTY ~'LURID:\
:l':~~~"'~l"~~":_
',---
(;.o.r._ Il~".~,
''M'l 'Tn I~"
o
=
r--
, "ALTER KARPl:-iIA. P.E.
1~"'f.RED PROfESSlOS4L [NCi:\"HR
ll'PIITR. noRmA.
(:>81)743-1400
n, RE'iU;-'!'::l rOR STRUcn.:R4.L
MPlJA.!'lCF..
~~ ... I~ 21 ~t: C9?ll<<1 [Glori
IOh..lIcoo.\G)"\Io: nO:l...
~~.~..-
~
-,.,;
~
~.;I
-.-;~:-"~~~~"'--
,
!
I
I
\.
I
(
"'U
::0
o
"'U
o
(j)
m
o
o
m
(")
^
a~
~ ~
~ ~o
~ ~ i
1~
~ &
~~
~
o~
~~
~
-r-
-m
,."
'-I
I~
1m
Il'~<
h.
...f.....
'-
;0
:2
i
i
I
I
I
/
/
/'T
/
/
)
!
1---
,
Ro WE D L P I.E\ SCDOI\l51O'
2 W S SIIEP,,?]} S Y fLOR:DA
T5 39-41, B~OCK PALM SHCII caUiT. _
~OY>TO:,,~.~~~;~ ;;:~;:;: o.;~~,;.~~;
"1J
::0
o
"'U
o
(j)
m
o
o
m
(")
^
W,\,LTER KARP!:\"IA, r.E. HR
REGISTfRrD
:;:~;ER.3~~~~~'" nl\ ST!ll'Cit'R.u
TE: RE~'iE1fED r. -----"
i'U4~=-=-
(j)
-i
m
"'U
r
:t>
Z
m
X
:J:
-
OJ
-
-t
-
m
=
EXHIBIT "F"
ConditIOns of Approval
PrOject name' DaVid Rowe's reSidence
File number ZNCV 01-003
Reference: Annhcatlon received Januarv 22.2001
DEPARTMENTS 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
FORESTERlENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments. None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments. None
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
To be detenmned.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
To be determmed.
S, ,Planning\SHARED\ 'o\lP\PROJECTS\D"id & Mary Rowe \ ariance\COND OF APPROV ALdoc
DEVELOPM~' IT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMlf -ON OF THE
(" .-V OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIL".\
PROJECT NAME David and Mary Rowe
APPLICANT'S AGENT David Rowe
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 647 & 649 Lake Street, Boynton Beach
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION March 20, 2001
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT Zoning Code Variance
LOCATION OF PROPERTY 647 & 649 Lake Street, Boynton Beach
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 "F" 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
S:IPlanningISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIDavid & Mary Rowe VariancelDevelop.Order CC 4-3-01.doc