REVIEW COMMENTS
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM #03-265
Staff Report
Community Redevelopment Agency Board
and
City Commission
Meeting
Date
November 20, 2003
File No
ZNCV 03-019
Location
807 Ocean Inlet Drive (Lot 12 Coquina Cove)
Owner.
James Buchanan
Project:
Rear setback variance for an addition to an existing single-family dwelling
Variance
Request:
Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development
Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5 C 2 a, requiring a twenty-five (25) foot
rear yard setback to allow a seven (7) foot variance, resulting in a 18 foot rear
yard setback within the R-1-AA single family zoning district.
BACKGROUND
The subject property and surrounding neighborhood is currently zoned R-1-AA, single family
residential (see Exhibit "A" - Location map) The lot was developed in 1960, and it conforms
with the current R-1-AA zoning district building and site regulations The subject property is
surrounded by developed lots some of which are undergoing renovation as well
The property is located at the north side of Ocean Inlet Drive and has a depth of 98 feet. For
comparison, those properties located at the south side of Ocean Inlet Drive have a depth of 112
feet. Some of the parcels on the north side, including the subject property have rear yards with
open views to the Intracoastal Waterway Staff surveyed the area and it was observed that all
properties along both sides of Ocean Inlet Drive appear to comply with the minimum front
setback requirement of 25 feet, as estimated by the straight alignment of the front building lines
with few exceptions A nine (9) foot variance was granted on October 10, 2000 to allow a 16-
foot rear setback for Lot #13 to the east. The subject variance is requested in conjunction with
a plan to expand the existing single-family home with a second story including an additional
one-car garage It should be noted that previous variances for a front yard setback reduction
and the maximum lot coverage were granted for the subject property in February 2003 (ZNCV
02-017)
The requested setback variance is only for a rear balcony overhanging on the second floor of
the proposed addition to the house This planned expansion is consistent with new construction
and redevelopment projects observed in the subject neighborhood
ANAL YSIS
The code states that the zoning code variance cannot be approved unless the board finds the
following
Page 2
Buchanan
File No ZNCV 03-019
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 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
(Exhibit "D" contains the applicant's response to the above criteria)
The subject parcel totals 7,350 square feet, which is less than the minimum 7,500 square feet
required for a lot platted before 1975 (the lot was platted in 1952) The lot is considered a legal
non-conforming parcel according to the Land Development Regulations Chapter 2, Section
11 1 C 3 This section of the code allows the development of a lot within the R-1-AA zoning
district as long as the parcel contains one whole platted lot, the lot cannot be assembled to
increase the size to a conforming size, and the lot is not less than 6,750 square feet (see
Exhibit "B" - Survey)
The Coquina Cove Subdivision was platted in 1952 with typical lot dimensions of 75 feet (wide)
by 98 feet (deep) for the lots located north of Ocean Inlet Drive In contrast, other subdivisions
throughout the city that are similarly zoned have typical lot dimensions of 80 feet (wide) and 100
feet to 120 feet (deep) The shallow depths of typical lots within this subdivision, when
combined with the required minimum rear and front setbacks (totaling 50 feet), may limit
expansion design flexibility
Given that the subject property has been improved with a single-family home, and occupied
since 1955, and since most other lots along the north side of Ocean Inlet Drive have identical
dimensions to the subject lot, criteria items "a" "d" and "e" are not met. Furthermore, since the
property is currently improved, and that the necessity of the variance has been caused by the
proposed home expansion, condition "b" above is also not satisfied
Regarding the intent of the zoning regulations and impacts on adjacent properties, staff
acknowledges that if the rear setback is reduced, the standard building envelope could be
expanded closer to the north property line, thereby theoretically impacting on adjacent
properties through reduced light, air flow, and views The applicant proposes to extend the
balcony portion of the second story addition to 18 feet from the rear (north) property line (see
Exhibit "C" - Variance requested), which is an additional 4 feet beyond the applicant's existmg
Page 3
Buchanan
File No ZNCV 03-019
screen room and only 2 feet beyond the overhang/eave of the screen room It should be noted
that the existing rear setback (20 feet) of the subject property is non-conforming
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the subject request for rear variance be denied due to the lack of
traditional hardship, and due to the circumstance being created by simple home improvements
on a standard platted lot. No conditions of approval are recommended, however, any conditions
of approval added by the Planning and Development Board or City Commission will be placed
in Exhibit "E"
Staff should indicate that past variance requests have been reviewed by the city using more
than the traditional criteria, or interpretations of this criteria placing greater emphasis on the
magnitude of the proposed improvement, economic potential and characteristics of surrounding
properties For this reason, and to indicate the consequence of denial, staff offers the following
information for consideration
1 The redevelopment potential of this neighborhood, as evidenced by newly constructed and
redeveloped homes in the area, tends to encourage similar improvements regardless of lot
constraints,
2. Although the proposed variance would allow relatively minimal improvements, it would allow
the value of the improvements to more closely match the value of the land as well as the
value of other improvements in the neighborhood,
3 The proposed variance would allow physical improvements that are needed to accomplish
certain architectural design goals related to the second-story addition, without negatively
impacting adjacent or nearby properties (the rear setback variance would allow the home to
simply encroach toward the Intracoastal Waterway, and that additional 2 foot encroachment
is an open-air balcony),
4 No objection from adjacent property owners has been received by staff; and
5 As noted earlier, the lot to the east was granted a nine (9)- foot variance for the rear
setback to allow a 16 foot rear yard in October of 2000,
6 Rear setbacks regulations are being evaluated as part of the Land Development
Regulations rewrite, and preliminarily, the subject circumstance would be one that staff
desires to have accommodated by future amendments
MR/mda
J"\SHRDA T A\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Buchanan Variance\ZNCV 03-019\ST AFF REP .doc
Location Map
BUCHANAN VARIANCE
EXHIBIT "A"
I ,I I
WI
1 i
I
,
.!
~
I I '
! I I
R3
i !!
i!,' i
!i,
It f I
.f i
f ! !
; I .
VIA LAG~
R3
LAKE WORTHlICWW
II I
ct
N
.~,
s
~ La, , 68\311
51 ,'EYING EXHIBIT "'8"
i~
it
C /9 N "c; C.
~.P ~~olI'.7N'''''/~
p//PE 8P.t!.,<'/rE7i'v
I-d /
(~$ N~
~
~
i I "
~ "
~ ~ ....
l
"
~ ~ ~
~ ~
7,1 \l
~7
~-
ceA/7E"det/A/E /A/~ET ~,€ /(/6'
/" c.5t?~;Fez? ;(!.!2#r-CV"-N'~/
n:F,;!;J"
~~-
ELEVATIONS BASED ON BENCHMARK. A//...9
C \' "'V.9!!11i-'f~1'
. ..1 e I, " :lr~1t'~-t~~!..~...
DESCRIPTION FURNISHED BY
SEE SHEET ONE OF TWO FOR ADDITIONAL
NOTES AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
SCALE =_~~____
1\IE SUR'IEY OF '\lIE PROPEIIlY SHO'Ml KtREON IS III "cCOAiiAllC!..'lhacR1P'1lllir~~ BY woo OR CUElm IlEl'RtSDlT""VE.
NO StARO! OF '>>It PU8UC RECDR1lS KIIS BEEN 'oI1\IlE,,~:j~'i1'~~~"if~IlAC"t DR ClIlSSlONS OF DEStRlPllON NRNISIlED.
..,.~'-~.. 'tt''''Jil. .
1IIS pu., OF SURVEY IS NOT VAIJO "''>>lOUT '>>IE SlllN"~:~O:."':, ,li~g...~:~' Of' A FlORIOA UCENSEIl SUR\IEYOII AND IIAPPDl.
I HEREBY CER"N 'lIU.T lIIE P\.AT or SURVEY AND IlOUNO"RY. . ;6Ml K[ll[\Jl.1S " '11IIlt ANO CORRECT REl'RESDlTAllON Of' " SlJRVEY Of" '>>IE
[)(SalIBED IN lifE C.....noN lIfEREOF WADE UNDER '01'1' ClRfC;T1OIl.,NjD'.ISiACCURA1Eil~nlJKE BEST Of WY ICNOll\EDCE AND BEUEF
I fVRTHEll CEll'll"" lIfAT 1IfIS SURVEY WEElS lifE '01 1Mi"'ttCii~'S~~ 8'1' lifE FtDRtDA 8DAAD OF SURVEYORS AND WAPPERS PURSUANT TO
SEC'llON 471.017 FtORID" STAlU'lES ANO RU\5 'lER' '~'~ P.~'llVE CODE.
~\~' ~
1-
>.
- "
'i,.
,~
.~
._----~-------------
<111
Ql
~
; ~~~~ . . 0~. .~~0~. ~ s g~ ~ . .~. .~~ P. . ~ 6
~~~~~gg$0dddS~~~~~~ffiE8~~~~d~~ii~~~~~~~;~Z~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~;;i~~
~
~
8
OJ
"
<:
EXHIBIT"
~~~
15g~
~~~
~8d
;l1!I'"
a: ~O~ f5~~
~~!~d~~~8 ~ ~
88g~~~~~~ v G
~
~~~~~
~G5~~
~::J::t::::E::t
'"
..J ;i. ~~
: ~ !:~~~~ ~
:: ~ ~itl!515~ ~
o
~ ~
I-~ ~
tIl~O :....
3 ~c'8id~!~ ~
B~~i~ii~~~~~g~
3iVlt."I\:ll- :::>::>55~'>'~~:f
-- - - ----- ---',
,
i
. I
~ I
i
I \ z ~
.Z-,Il 'n- , ~
I \\
l' ~
Gj~
-I" 1-',,...,
U1~ ~ I ~
~~ " "
;, ~ ~>!
OJ'''
~. ~~~
E. ii~
'$.:t!.\l
~~ bl
, j ~ i ~
--- f- ...;;.- - ~'~ I
1 .~
,~ of
)t
J ..
I ..
... ~
~
o
~
"'
+------' -
.- _...i:~-'::':=--
d-
Z:i-.
.too-
I
I
I
I
t:d~
m
~."......,~..<.. ._,~,
""~~".l!.,v~_-"","_ - ;<.:-K;..-
" 0
N
I
<{
>-. I
;: ~I
>'<"1
!g B\~j~
18 ,;I!:llo '"
10 .'u-~"
g~~ci~
I~
:~ .. ~
t; .. ~ fa ~
~ ~ i is ffi
~ !I.l ~ ~ ='
Q.. ~ 0 U lJ...
w
u
Z
w
o
UJ
w
a:
<:JZ
Z<(
!j::z Il') (/J
I~ ~ w~ ~
liJS~ ~~ I;:::
! ~ ~ ~~ ~
1(J)w...J...J --.J
Z L. ~1L W
,2 ~ ~~ ~
I~~ g~ Iw
Iffi L oS I''''
~~ tn~ ,0::
<( ~ g I~
.If I"
~
: i!1
I -~, h
~!i tif..
~~ Ji
! '0 II
-l Ji ii
! t
i;< &,
~7~
/1
l/_ I
I ;~ ,
\ '~n~
.. I ~"'I H
..J 1i ~ il
w~ >li.
t-;;; I ~ \i
~5 ~jS
W"'-j <.i i
I ~ I
I
[]j]
r-;
I !
f
i!
i I ..
i i i'
-~-.t--1
: I
;
zj
0,
1='
0'
" ~
~:a: ~
z 131
81'~
a: w
w z ~
~ ~ i
~l ~
",
z
z
i
~
f
I
I
-[
------ ---------~---,
.'*f.!>
~...~ l~,~~~<c ....>-~~'-:# T JI1. ~t!t...]-~-ll ;~ ~
TO. 1
L i /["-
,:",-.;/-__m
i ,iJ' ------
'~~~~~~ ?'" ,,~,
i /11"1'-'111
'4Jf- (~r~,r I i J, -1 .1 i l@!
, ; 1\,1:11:' i' '\\-.,11 .~ \ . [B: .~
I '\ \: ~ ' ':' , t,~. . r
-------1..,~ 1 \' - : I' _f, i
\\ \~~i I.,~l~~ rTf\\~':I~]T='==
.' ,r----. ~, .
\\ ~::-- . -k-,.
\ \ \ ------ I ' \' Ill,
\ ~-~-~":-- ~~:. : r ' h- - ---4H-
\1 I II 1'[ZJ'
j\ :'
\ I
\ i
\\
.
I fl'
. -
If
r EXHIBiT" ;:J,
c::
.4
;V
A
&
//I~C""
~~iI
N,
t
"'
~
~
\1
~,
"\
~
\J
,
.
.
-
W!!!J/I4"AA!r /~Ir tP44'''''
_~'-~A'~ ~I~..J _
SITtS ~41V
VII;t('If"e:tr ~~cJ€r71Ft:J
SH~fCJ~ IN D'jntYJ .LIlt/lit" oaJ AJ.IlTIf S,.. tJP
~~ ,4~cH (~AJ4r I9I"FRr Adr,~,.,r)
. . r - ~I/' -----~~-T'C
VlfL14111(W ~.-viiM>>. ~
cJt'l'tN STdA y Otl'-~"'ta
SC/?<<N~fI ~~Clf
1-." /filii I
reI;jO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-------------1
~ ,
#~ I
- I
I
,
1
,
r
U. ROllI. l
I
I
,
,
JKf'G
CMMiE 1
~----~---~~-~~~~~--~-----------
-...,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
..._____....___.....-_......J
EXHIBIT "e"
J,-41V~ I
--
IJl1)R()OW
~
GMA(I; 2
...-
I
,
I
(
,
I
,
,
-....
~~_____~~~~___~_______J
'P ~ o"P D-:a~ t;:J ....,~~--r fI'L&7DR Rf!!JE..,fl ~ fDtol"S - ~
EXHIBIT "0"
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Buck and Susan Buchanan
807 Ocean Inlet Dnve
Boynton Beach, Flonda 33435
STATEMENT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. Special condluons and CIrcumstances eXistIng that are pecuhar to tins
property are the SIZe of the lot and ItS location on the Intracoastal WatelWay
(JCW)
Tlns lot IS on the north side of Ocean Inlet Dnve and IS 75 feet WIde but only 98
feet deep The lots on the south side of Ocean Inlet Dnve are also 75 feet WIde
but are 112 feet deep Jf thIS lot were as deep as those on the south sIde, a
vanance would not be needed for the contemplated expansIOn of tins home
Further, tlns property IS located dIrectly on the JCW and has a WIde water VIew to
the Boynton Inlet with no houses to obstruct that VIew The propertIes on the
south SIde are located on a canal wlnch IS not as deSIrable but can accommodate a
larger house because of the greater depth of the lot. The ongmal developer erred
In not SIZIng the lots such that the more deSIrable lots on the JCW could
accommodate as large or larger homes as those on the canal.
B. The specIal conditIons and CIrcumstances discussed above are not the
result of the actIons of the applIcants SInce
. the lot SIZe IS the same as It was ongmally platted
. the home was built by others In 1959, and
. the applIcants dId not purchase the home until 1987
c. GrantIng the vanance will not confer a specIal pnvilege on the applIcants
because It will allow the creatIOn of a structure conSIstent WIth new and
remodeled homes In the neighborhood, some of wlnch have obtaIned vanances
or were ongmally constructed WIth less of a setback.
In fact, the adjacent property to the east was constructed WItlnn the past year WIth
a rear vanance of 9 feet and a front vanance of 5 feet for a two story structure
The vanance requested here IS for a rear vanance that will only affect overhangs
and not affect the footpnnt of the reSIdence
EXHIBIT "0"
Currently the edge of the screened porch IS 22feet and the two-foot overhang of
the roof20 feet from the rear property lme, well wIthIn the 15 feet m the ongmal
deed restrIctIon but now non-complymg.
The vanance bemg requested IS to allow for an addItIonal two feet mto the
current setback for overhangs
D. LIteral mterpretatIon would depnve the apphcants of nghts commonly
enjoyed by other propertIes m the neIghborhood and would cause undue
hardshtp for the followmg reason.
The pnmary Impetus for the remodelmg project IS to prepare to
accommodate an agmg mother GIven the deSIgn of the house and the
lot SIZe, the only way to accomphsh thts IS to add a second story
For reasons of aesthetIcs, functIOn, and value, the current screened porch will
have a second story porch above It whtch will serve as the roof for the screened
porch.
In order to better protect the screened porch from the severe weather from
the north, It IS necessary to extend thts second story porch an addItIonal two feet
beyond the current roof overhang thus proVldmg a four-foot overhang to shelter
the screened porch.
Thts two-foot projectIon beyond the current roof overhang results m a vanance of
seven feet and a setback of 18 feet.
Denymg the vanance would negatIvely affect the utihty, value, and overall
aesthetIcs of thts remodelmg project.
E. The 7-foot vanance (two feet beyond the current structure) IS the tmmmum
needed to shelter the screened porch, an mtegral element m the open-arr, flow-
through deSIgn of the project.
The mtruslon mto the setback IS IDllllmal smce It affects only overhangs and does
not affect the footpnnt of the reSIdence
EXHIBIT "0"
F. The vanance requested IS not InJurIOUS to the area Involved or detnmental to the
publIc welfare In fact, It would have a posItIve effect.
The adjacent neighbors to the east and west will be unaffected because In both
cases thelf garages face thiS property, and they have no WIndows faCIng thiS
property Further, dense vegetation separates the properties
The new structure will be more attractIve and ImpreSSIVe than the current
structure and will add value and beauty to the neighborhood. It will take
advantage of the natural enVlfonment and breezes, have a Flonda style With a
large amount of outdoor lIVIng space, be harmOnIOUS With the enVlfonment , and
be one of the most beautIfully deSIgned and landscaped reSidences In tills
emergmg neighborhood.
EXHIBIT "E"
CondItlons of Approval
Project name Buchanan Vanance
FIle number ZNCV 03-019
Reference
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments None
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
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/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments, None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments, None
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
CONDITIONS
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments.
I To be determmed,
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments
I To be determined.
S '\Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\Buchanan Variance~CV 03-0 I 9\COA.doc