REVIEW COMMENTS
8.B.l
REAM VARIANCE (ZNCV 03-004)
ZONING CODE VARIANCE
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM #03-108
Staff Report
Planning and Development Board
and
City Commission
Meeting
Date:
File No:
May 27, 2003
ZNCV 03-004
Location:
710 SW 2ih Avenue (Lot 11, Block 9, Forest Hills Subdivision)
Owner:
Peter and Stephanie Ream
Project:
Rear addition to an existing single-family dwelling
Variance
Request:
Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning Section 5 C 2 a, requiring a minimum rear
yard setback of 25 feet for a Single-family home within the single-family
residential (R-1-AA) zoning district, to allow for a variance of 5 feet, and a rear
yard setback of 20 feet.
BACKGROUND
The subject property and surrounding neighborhood is zoned R-1-AA, single family residential
(see Exhibit "A" - Location Map). The lot, developed in 2001, conforms to the current R-1-AA
zoning district building and site regulations Currently, the subject neighborhood is mostly
developed
The property is located at the south side of Southwest 2ih Avenue with a depth of
approximately 110 feet and a frontage of 80 feet. Staff surveyed the area and it was observed
that the majority of properties along the south side of SW 2ih Avenue comply with the minimum
rear setback requirement of 25 feet, as estimated by the straight alignment of the rear building
lines with few exceptions The subject variance is requested because the applicant intends to
expand the existing single-family home with a bedroom/bathroom addition (approximately 317
square feet). This planned expansion is consistent with new construction and redevelopment
projects observed throughout the city
ANAL YSIS
The code states that the zoning code variance 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.
b That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
Page 2
Ream Variance
File No. ZNCV 03-004
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
(Exhibit liB" contains the applicant's response to the above criteria)
Staff conducted the analysis focusing on items "a", lib" and "c" above, which require that the
request is initiated by special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to the subject land,
structure, or building, which are not the result of the actions of the applicant, and that the
granting of the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by
the regulations to other properties within the same zoning district.
According to the applicant's response to the above-criteria, the applicant stated that other
properties in the neighborhood do not have the same setback restrictions Therefore, the
applicant feels that he is also entitled to the same privilege, and accordingly, has provided a
proposed site plan depicting the proposed addition (see Exhibit "C" - Survey and Proposed Site
Plan). Staff researched City records and was unable to confirm that any similar variances for
setback reductions have been granted within close proximity to the subject property In the last
twelve (12) years, two (2) variances for rear setback reduction have been submitted, and both
have been denied due to lack of hardship
The subject request has been initiated for the sole expansion of a home situated on a standard
lot within this neighborhood. Therefore, the applicant, solely for individual benefit, has
generated the circumstances.
Given that the subject property has been improved with a single-family home, and occupied
since 2001, and since most other lots in the immediate vicinity have dimensions similar to the
subject lot, criteria items "a", lib", "C" and lie" are not met. Further, since the necessity of the
variance has been caused by the proposed home expansion, condition lib" above is also not
satisfied
Staff has observed that several homes in the neighborhood have rear building lines that appear
to encroach into the rear yard setback of 25 feet. However, no public records could be located
related to proper permitting and/or date of improvements. Staff assumes that due to the age of
most homes in this area, many of the observed improvements in the neighborhood may have
pre-dated the current setback regulations.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5,C.2.a , to allow a
20-foot rear setback and a five (5) foot variance within the R-1-AA zoning district, be denied
Page 3
Ream Variance
File No. ZNCV 03-004
due to the lack of traditional hardship, and due to the circumstance being created by simple
home improvements and unit layout 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 would be placed in Exhibit "D".
Staff understands that the applicant is in need of extra living space within the subject home,
however, staff recognizes that the layout of this unit is built to the extent of the R-1-AA district
setback regulations leaving no opportunity for future expansion. In order to achieve additional
living space, a substantial redesign of the structure would be needed, resulting in significant
cost to the applicant.
Staff also recognizes that past variance requests have been reviewed by the city using more
than the traditional criteria, or interpretations of this criteria, which places greater emphasis on
economic potential, minor home expansions, and characteristics of surrounding properties. For
this reason, if the Board and City Commission support this request, staff offers the following
information for consideration.
1 The subject improvement represents a minor expansion of the home relative to the
minimum living area standard applicable to the subject zoning district; and
2. Staff has received no letters of objection, but received only letters of support from adjacent
property owners Specifically, those letters are from the abutting property owners to the
west, the south and east of the subject property, which would be the most impacted by the
proposed expansion
MR/mda
J'\SHRDA T A\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Ream Variance\ZNCV 03-004\ST AFF REP .doc
Ir'____~- --i II ~----4---
, I " I
1 " I I \ i
1,- ~ -CII \ r-- r--
M- ,--------j 1 1- -+-
:;s L,~ '11l_
~-- I' 'I II!~
~ - ~ I!_ -I~_ 1\ !c-_
'" , I', '
',- I I '1 ,
I I - It-' ~'T-
: Ir-- !"_~_~ \ ~-+-
1'1" , I! I\~II '!
\ ,- ~ -- , - - L -_ _ . ~fItLFF, M/E-...___
1_ ___~ ' . -__L---- - - - -,J\ _ _ , ___
--- --_ ~- - 19tIJSITE -:_- --: - , ~-- I \ I ' '
1 I ' I \ II'
\ I ' 1! 'j 'I ' I T
, , I -I-- - _I -! I !
, j L r -, , , , ! I '
~ , , 1- - -I " I , ' ','--+-1 1,---+
I I I I I I I I I I
:: 1_-_ ij '_6W 2.7~1-j-::el--::~- ~- ~- - ~ ~ ~!,
I - - -I '~l"
II - II I['d> _ _JI,
,II "~' I '!,I
1-+1 , , ' " '
_ C/f) I - I ,-----+- ------j , c-
i!f'! 1,(Al \ III
, '-,-1-- --l- - -1'
, I '
_~ ~ I I
--- y--- I+--- I
--.~ - -f !, '
rip! \ I'~--L--J
ii'" I , I
-II -'1--- , L I
I' 1----.,
'/, II I Ii \ II II I I II
, -,'__ =.sW-Zlf-tt1"ER-~- -- --=- - - -I
-- -, -'--T~
I - I I I
I I 'I
\ 'L ",
L_ -I -
I :
~.
~;
k1;
~
\
f!...- ~--
_ -fj/J -- \-- --,
__ is' \ II
rtJ:, ,- -- T...L- -1 ..L_
- --1: / II \1
f//} L_ _1_
. , -
,
,
,
I
~ l
i- \
I T
I I
L_ L -~ -
\ I
I
I
I
L
-,
Location Map
Ream Variance ZNCV 03-004
_ 1_ --'-- --
- l
.;.
\ \ r - I
- I II I \
'. r--i
III___L
'! i i
,
\ -
-.\
4110
~
,
1---'
,
,
i 'j
, .
, r-
, '
j I II
,-
, i '
T
i
-'---
,
: I
, ,
, ,
I
&}-
,~
I!~ ----I
, -r-\
-,~-
I'
li~ ---
I:
!
4110 Feet
EXHIBIT "A"
PU
-c-~
PU
N
W-<l-_
5
EXHIBIT "B"
Statement of special conditions, hardships or reasons justifying the
requested exception or variance. Respond to the six (6) questions below
(A-F) .
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.
We bought our house from a previous owner. At the time we had 1 child.
The main house has 2 bedrooms and 2 baths The previous owner laid the
patio at the 20-foot setback. If we could extend an addition to the
patio this would give us enough room to add an addition that would make
room for our future family members (a new baby on the way!) This would
not be an addition across the entire back of the house. It would be on
one side of the house measuring 22 feet, 10 inches across the back of
the house The yard is completely fenced in with a hedge around it.
This blocks the views of our neighbors from us and us from them.
B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicantj
Again we did not build this house and have tried to find other ways to
deal with this, besides having to sell our home and move (and we love
our neighborhood) !
C. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the
applicant with any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance
to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning districtj
There are many other homes in the neighborhood that do not have the
same setback restrictions. I also have letters of support from
surrounding neighbors in regards to our planned addition.
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 applicantj
Again, there are many other homes in the neighborhood that do not have
the same setback restrictions. I had the city clerk's office pull all
of the variances granted in the Chapel Hill neighborhood and many have
been granted over the years.
.,
EXHIBIT "B"
E. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will
make possible the reasonable use of land, building or structure;
I have spoke to an architect and we tried to figure all of our options.
The way the house is laid out we would be able to build the addition
with only needing to obtain a 5-foot variance to make a comfortable
bedroom and bathroom for our new baby and future children. I feel this
would accommodate our family after the birth of our second child and
any there after for many years to come. We are a young couple and would
like for our children to grow up in this home.
F. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the
general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such variance will
not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare
The yard is fully private because of the fence covered by the hedge.
The addition would blend with the rest of the house, and would make it
both look attractive from the outside and be functional on the inside
Again other homes is the same area were not required the same setbacks
ulrON LAND SUR~ORS
EXHIBIT "e"
500 Gulfstream Boulevard - Suite #103B
Delray Beach, Ronda 33483
Office: 561 276-7575 - FAX: 561 276-6621
A..ORJD^ ST^ TE BOARD OF PROflffiONN. 9JR VF.YORS AND MN'PIJtS NO.l.B0007114
(50' TOTAl.. RjW.)
S.W. 27th AVENUE
-------~-----
20' PAVEMENT
o
ll"i
N
o
ll"i
N
FIR. 1/2-
No 1.0.
17.8'
15' PARKWAY
FIR. 1/2.
No 1.0.
b b
" <Q
ll"i iii
N N
<Q
C7!,
19.10'
7.80' 2
17.8'
22.20
~
aq
c:;:;~
~
o
1"'1
c::i
LO
Poo..
0"1
~
u
e
.-J
CD
1- STORY
Res. , 710
N
iii
CONC.
-U')
U')
.
..-
..-
..-
...-i
27.70'
C"l
7.70'
l-
e
---l
0.40'
14.35'
46.00'
'b
r-
...-i
.t
;....
ll"i
14.2
CONe.
19.8'
0.60'
80.00' (M)
-------------
6' U.E.
flR. 1/2
No 1.0.
~
q
L _-;.
170.80' (M)
- -(j)
flR. 1/2.
No 1.0.
BLOCK CORNER
..-
o
o
..-
..-
0.80'
0.80'
flR. 1/2-
No to.
0"1
~
u
e
.-J
CD
cS
l-
e
.-J
J!J
~J.!
~~~
:l!~
:;!...~
fit Ii
j1i .
.~'t
'COo,. 81 ~
: J
jJ~
~ ~J~
will
~ iii
@ MANHOLE (M.H.)
WI CATCH BASIN (C.B,)
f-ANCHOR a GUY
-Legend-
t1 FIRE HYDRANT (F H.)
o WATER METER (W M )
\jI CABLE T.V. (CATV.)
BENCHMARK REFERENCE:
SHEET Z OF 2 SHEETS
C' Scale: J "~ 20'
LOT 6, BLOCK 9
NiA
o
:,..
q
u,'f{ VltUJ~
( ~
LmON LAND SUR~""~ EXHIBIT ."e'
500 Gulfstream Boulevard _ Suitee~g~OSED SITE PLAN
Delray Beach, Rorida 33483
Office: 561 276-7575 - FAX: 561 276-6621
A...OIUD^ Sf ^ TE BONtD OF PROfImONN.. ~JR VEYORS AND MN'f'I RS NO.I.B0007IH
(50' TOTAl R/W.)
S.W. 27th AVENUE
-------+------
20' PAVEMENT
FlR. 1/2-
No 1.0.
FlR. 1/2"
No 1.0.
c
.n
N
.n
N
17.8'
IS' PARKWAY
b b
r-- co
iii .n
N N
2.
7.80' 2 17.8'
22.20
b
-
170.80' (M)
--{!)
RR. 1/2-
No 1.0.
BLOCK CORNER
en
~
<...>
o
-.J
CD
0 <<!
r") c:;:j
~ ci ~ en
LO ....-
~
-1.0 1- STORY N CONC. or- U
1.0 Res. , 710 i.n .n 0 e
.- 0 ---l
or- ...-:i 27.70' CD
or- or-
or- ..- c5
N
80.00' (M)
I~.
I- 0.40'
o
-.J
46.00'
lAse of 3tnc.chu-t 'S
- ~'\...J bC\./11. rcc -"1 .
fle:va,:hOh "f Ic;,.Jqr f,,,,<ottvl
~I~III" IS J'Oll.I\J l~ve,l.
~
~
~
V5
R
-------
0.60'
---------
6' U.E.
FlR. 1/2
No 1.0.
~
o.
Scale: J )/ -= 2a .
LOT 6, BLOCK 9
SHEET
-Legend-
@ MANHOLE (M.H.) t1 FIRE HYDRANT (F H.)
1m t'^T(,U l'I^~I"" I,.. A 1 r1 WJl.T&:'D U&:'T&:'D IW U 1
BENCHMARK REFERENCE:
WI
l-
e
-I
0.80'
,~
'I::>
V'1
.....
~
r'
:3
~
A
0.80'
FlR. 1/2-
No 1.0.
~~j
:z:"<<
~).!
1't11
't 't
~~f!
tJ:
~ ,,~~
~ is (J
:5 I
'f'
~ Jij
WIll
C) a:::::"
~ III
OF 2 SHEETS
EXHIBIT "D"
Conditions of Approval
PrOject name. Ream Variance
File number ZNCV 03-004
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 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments
1. To be determmed.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments.
1. To be determmed.
S '\Planning\SHARED\ WPIPROJ ECTS\Ream VariancelCOA.doc
S:\Planning\Planning Templates\Condition of Approval 2 page -P&D ORA 2003 form.doc