REVIEW COMMENTS
6.C.l
DAVILA VARIANCE (ZNCV 03-006)
ZONING CODE VARIANCE
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 03-140
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board and City Commission
THRU:
Michael W. Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM:
Maxime Ducoste-A.
Planner
DATE:
June 9, 2003
PROJECT NAME/NO:
Davila Variance/ ZNCV 03-006-Fence Height
REQUEST:
Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2,
Zoning, Section 4,).1, limiting a fence to a maximum height of six (6) feet within the rear
building line to allow a 3-foot variance, and a nine (9) foot high fence.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Property Owner: Joseli and Mildred Davila
Applicant/Agent: Joseli and Mildred Davila
Location: 3616 S.E 1st Street
Existing Land Use/Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR)/R-1-A
Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No changes are proposed
Proposed Use: Fence for single-family house
Acreage: 0.24 Acre (10,383 square feet)
Adjacent Uses:
North:
Single-family houses zoned R-1-A, single family residential district;
South:
A single-family house zoned R-1-A, single family residential district;
East:
A single-family house zoned R-1-A, single family residential district; and
West:
S.E. 1st Street right-of-way, and farther west single-family houses zoned R-1-A,
single family residential district.
Staft'Report
Memorandum No PZ-03-140
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located at 3616 SE 1st Street. The property and the adjacent neighborhood is currently
zoned R-1-A, single family residential. The lot is currently developed and conforms with the R-1-A zoning
district requirements. The surrounding neighborhood is mostly developed (See Exhibit "A" - Location Map).
ANALYSIS
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 lan~ 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 ofthe
lan~ 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.
Staff reviewed the requested variance focusing on the applicant's response to the above criteria contained in
Exhibit "B". Staff reviewed the application and conducted this analysis focusing on items "a", "d", and "f"
above. The subject property is part of the Debonaire Estates Subdivision that was platted in 1952. This
portion of the plat varies in elevation between lots. The western portion of the subject property has a greater
finished grade than the remainder of the property. The rear yard slopes down from finished grade toward the
abutting lot to the east (Lot 1). The abutting property to the north is also at the lower grade, approximately 3
feet lower than the finished grade of the subject property as a result of the natural terrain and the new
finished grade required for construction. Contrary to other properties in the same block, the subject property
has a higher finished grade. A retaining wall, which was required by the City during the construction, is
located on the subject parcel at the northeast portion of the lot. The natural characteristics of the site
present unique and special conditions that did not entirely result from any action of the current
owner/applicant.
The Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations restrict walls, fences and hedges in residential zoning
districts to a maximum height of six (6) feet. The applicant's proposal is to maintain an existing 6-foot high
fence along the easterly 80 feet of the north property line. The lower grade of the adjacent property prevents
the applicant from meeting code regarding fence height. The existing three (3)-foot retaining wall along the
north property line, would raise the total fence height to nine (9) feet as measured from the surface grade
outside of the fence. However, without the variance the fence would be limited to a maximum height of six
(6) feet, which would allow a maximum increase of three (3) feet above the existing three (3)-foot retaining
Staff'Report
Memorandum No PZ-03-140
Page 3
wall as measured from the suject property. This scenario would not serve the purpose of the structure (i.e.
fence/screen), and could create a hazard to residents and guests of the property by being too short to
prevent someone from falling over the fence. Although this application represents the absolute minimum
variance required to achieve the same privacy achieved by others, a minimum nine (9) foot high fence is
necessary to achieve the same six (6) foot height as typically allowed and intended by code. The variance
regarding fence height would apply to the first 80 feet along the northeast (rear) corner of property (See
Exhibit "C" - Survey).
The applicant intends to address a safety and a privacy issue. Under the current Land Development
Regulations the applicant could only construct a six (6) foot high fence (as the measure is taken from the
outside of the fence). However, the fence as proposed would be built at nine (9) feet high on one half the
length of the north property line. The applicant's proposal is to provide the minimum safety and desired
privacy barrier and this would not appear to constitute a special privilege or be incompatible with the adjacent
properties. The subject fence is also intended to satisfy the poolsecurity screening requirement which is a
minimum offour (4) feet pursuant to the Florida Building Code. Although the fence could be reduced by two
(2) feet to meet this safety requirement while also reducing the variance request by two (2) feet, again it is
arguable that this will deprive the applicant from the same screening benefit enjoyed by others.
With respect to item "f", regarding impact on the area or the public welfare, although the proposed fence
appears normal when viewed from the subject property, it creates a unique circumstance when perceived
from the rear yard of the adjacent home. Whether the effect of the proposed variance creates an "injurious
impact" on the area staff has evaluated based on the intent of the code to preserve property values and the
intent of setbacks to ensure proper light and airflow. Based on the proposed fence being located along the
rear property line of the adjacent property, rather than along the side property where it could be as close as 7
1/2 feet to the home, the reduction of air and views is minimized. As for impact upon property values, staff is
of the position that the additional three (3) feet of screening provides more benefit to the property than
compared to any negative characteristic represented by the aesthetic uniqueness.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recognizes that the situation as presented is unique. Based on the analysis contained herein, staff finds
that a "hardship" exists. This request will not be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare, and
the variances requested are the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land. The
applicants' intent to combine a safety and privacy fence is reasonable. Staff therefore recommends that the
request for a 3-foot variance to allow a nine (9) foot high fence be approved. This recommendation is
conditioned upon the fence not exceeding nine (9) feet in height from the surface grade outside of the wall.
This requirement is indicated in Exhibit "0" Conditions of Approval. However, any additional conditions of
approval added by the Planning and Development Board or the City Commission will be placed in the Exhibit
"0" - conditions of approval.
MWR/MD
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Davila Variance\STAFF REP.doc
R1AAB
I
i'L
I i I I
~ll
i 1\ I
'E~U ID---
UI\
i ! i
! i I
i~1
, I'
\ I
------
Location Map
DAVILA ZNCV 03-006
I '
: I
I
SE-34-T-H--AVE
I 1 I I i i
, II !
R1AA
REC
Ii:
I 1 I
I. i
I '(1)
m
IN
, iZ
iR
10
':-1
, I !
I i I
'I i i
ii,
. . I
I \ I
, I I
II!
III
I I
I
I
I
[
I
I 1
(1)[
I I
~I ,---~I'D
Oi ': I :i I I \, I
ml I i.....J ... II I 'L
-ill ~~A I I I l~SITE
~l i i
r, I
<I .
0, '
'~I
I 1 1
: I
I :
I
, I
I 1
I ! !
'-
(n
m
~
(f)
-;I
(j)
:-I
C1
: I
I .
I
I I I
!
I
Nit
I
EXHIBIT "A"
. '(1)
'm
w
';;0 -
0-
o
:-I
NIC
N
W~E
s
EXHIBIT "B"
A. Retaining wall required by city during construction of single family home
due to natural elevation of lot, nearly 5'0" difference in height from
west to east boundry. Surrounding existing homes and yards vary in elevations
due to natural grade.
B.
The conditions of this house elevation are due to natural land grades.
floor elevation was lowered to 12" above medium crown of road from 18"
adjacent properties.
Finish
due to
c. The granting of this variance is solely for the purpose of fencing for pool
requirements and safety requirement at retaining wall.
D. The variance is needed for home owner to comply with city and state regulations
on pool safety and being able to fence in rear yard.
E. Variance being requested is minimum required for property owners concerned.
Retaining wall is minimum height and length required and fence is stepped down
to natural grade as quickly as possible without infringing on neighbors property.
F. The granting of this variance will be in the best interest of the general
public and immediate neighbor by retaining drainage and eliminating erosion
and insuring pool safety.
~ ~ (pLAT & MEAS.) q'
_~ J~ 102.0~'----f' ~ 'tY 1- 3616SElSTSTREEr
~ ~... ' . !~ q::
~ "'-1"OI),'-J;'7 1"}.61 L "'I'T,6f7 j ---
~ (. U 1'l,'-1 U 1\...1 r':I e r< :'D;" '-- FO () r--I r) tJ,6 I l.
: . ~ I ( Ul-JN Utvl F::;e-r<.eD)
~ ~l
~
EXHIB!T "e"
\
~-
I
I
I ~o~
J
,
I/).o~
I I
69.86'
_'9"
cP. ' , i .,: : '
~o ';=i : Lh- . 1 " i ,-,J~-+.l~_i-ttJ
~~". -, j, ..-f L-L--r' '_.I-._~t' L-l' I, :.'! II
v-.....: ~-1-l." I] I!! -! !--!- '11-i'--j---t-~-
'-i. ! fAVECPJRICK.J'- r r-tr<;
~q... ' r I I':: I I ,: I-i-~.-t!'.::
~... :-- T . t + i I ., . -l . - ! .- I 1- ~ ~
- ;: I:; f ..~ - __I L_. ~
,I I I I i ~ J I
17 _ ___ i r~.3 ., ~ .-.-"-'-;- ,--:-+..
I,E, r:-,l.J! 10.'-.1 - r. - - --', ~ .... .-.-.; - -"-I..
. _-.. \ I .,.- It' r
A r:z ~ A " .... I: '0' i' : '",".
'- ~__);- z;,~, ~
fOUl.-Jr7 Yo" I. R. ----/-
r
\.. UI--1NU M PJeRE:D)
LOT 14
,
1.7
o.~.
G. t>.? WI;. LL
(OU/'..JO 78"/.;<, C:J
( UN 10 U "-'1f7 elZe.())~
rvv)Y
~
",~)I'
)/::: ~}(10TIN~ t;.LS'/L710f'.J
('-
~l ; ; : ~~_~_ LOT 13 ____,-'_d__, )
-t-;1 ~L.:-;.; I,. ": ~----""~-,-,--- "
rt:::it: ~f t~.
r, I I I , I r.? -- ~., "--- nr:::-r'r:::~ IjlJ-"l '
tl:"'1': -, . r DOL. -- ,-' I-<.c:;. I c:./"-J . '../:----
f LI i-I" " ,-;> ~ I'.
I I I . ' -- 1..)1' 1,:;.......
! l--t I-rr-i I .. .--~ h_"
~-i~ J.n-l-~-l~_, . . -.- ~ ---
J I r I ' , 'f ~ T~; ----. .
I' ~ .1. L 1__:".1-':' .:.'::::-- t~-'---;--- --..:.....
I. ' I I :, I I ~ 1-- ~I -;--- --- ~---
-l -r" ----.--t-1- , I
I L ' ,. I '1::t:L -, -1 ,- -;-' -j-- .
. L i !, ';~!=htt(t~fDH .
, , i ,- ;--1 ' J
" ..
\.' ~
, .
~o."q- - - - -~"'--..
,~ f(~-r~f'.JTION ~ReA ~'" )
L_ "'A
-- -,t
.69.87' ,J, 2~~,
fOUN,? ;Vb" /.;~ J
( UNIVUMP;E3rz.eDJ
,
7.1'
,
N
;;'~
"'N
"'l"
W\
7. c,'
I
11"t.' /'",
, \. GQve:r<:E:O
. ~ .. ", / - '5 TO rz. Y"'-'
"" R t:;:;, f De IV GG"
, '
:_:~. ''-,.;/lJ/?H FLOe/<.. eU3.V,:: '3;J.ra'
'" /" eov' eRE-a "-,
k '2. S ,.." '. ",
\', . ... ", ......
'-
o
~' "'. Z2. S'
...
~
00
~
""'; 7.&'
~
NOT INCLUDED
...)
-.l
<('
':I
'2
C:I
\-
"?i
r-
\b
t:::.L'
~
~
:;:
...
~
o
~
liS'
..
~
.Qo..
.....:
~
""-i
"'- pouND 723'1
( UNNUt~li?e
-~+
E
J
E
^
L
^
F
C
~
~
~
^
E
E
c
C
F
F
F
F
C
C
F
L
-0:0', ..
E.)i--IST'~~ "I
'-fe../'JGc.
( T'-(f. )
r
F
~
-
I-
>~~$'~
"'
"><.
~,
--I
\.i"
\ .~
,'.
-,I
')
~
...,
~
P
8
~
/'
c: -2]
Zc
7-
''-
s: ,\
(~
\)1(5,
11\
1\):---
(\\^1 Dr~
,\J .
.', '\\
~.
"'~\
'F
"'s '~.
'<( ~rL
( ~:.'I
~. 7'. ~.!', ............,.
I. \1': I
, ." I
I ;1 I
I ~ I
I.','
I J' I \)b
Ii,\"
Ii' J'
...,:--
01'
0\
:0
00
~
i
\~R /rv ( t
1-i\V) D
,....""" OJ_
-1'"
,=.
=i(\
'--'(1\
x
~
~~
l\'l
:;7
N~
~
\J
"
~'l 9:. Z
C 11 .
;1 a.;::.
~!~
:3'2-
~ ~ ~
"
Q.
~
I
g
z
f
~
i
IIWj
~g~H'l
",,-- ~
~i~~ CD~Z;
33 iftn
;;r "<.,..
)( g':i
.. >
" <
?!D
moo tn~g,
00 Q)W::o;
00 -WCD
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
CO--CDCD~
i:: "
.. 0'
'C 0
Z Q.
~ ~
~
N !'!
\j
>
~ ~
~ ~
~::a S
"1ocn-<
~~!~~
~~~~c
~~i~~
Iii 2 ~ ~ <:
> ~ 2
2!5~:o:~
Q ~ ~. ~
~ "
2 '"
5' ~
:z
('l
-Sl -\\ .
",\'.(I
~ <.::)
I \j
()l \)
N\ll
.I;\
j
r f-)
It'-<;:: /\ ~
~ C. / \
...,;' .
t:::; c;,.7'
(\
o
<-
en
'-';l..
11\
(J
'TI
;;: 4.)'~:
:t A)
\1\ - .,
?! (~ ' C'-'>
'" _ Il' \) '-
"'J -j /
;;, lI\ Cl iU
~ z. ~ ~l'
(:I (\ \ ~\~
~{\\
2/.2'
N
" ~ ,
OJ, ~, /
54.2'
;- !
I. I
( :2 147.90'
AJ
(i\
e>;; WALl.,
All RE'TftJiloN
"'-(
)>-
\l NOTINaUDED
?
r:Doo\J\J\J\JOQ
~r-~mi::>i::>nn"'~
~9l~~!D9~0~~
i'r II II tiJ II II II II II II
~ ;; 8 5'-g"8 -g -g 8 g
~~"2~ a" a"; a'g 5:
C'~~at2.2.~ai~
~.~&: gg ~ g ~8
; ~ 3 i~' 3 a.g g a.
~~~a~.~gg:-g
c- l.On2::J;io
~~, ~2.~a~
Q CD a~"~:;
:a
::c
~
p
p
~
-'"'
mo~.. \J\J\JO"-l
h;~""OII~:-;n~:-u~
<::z:il::lullOIlQa'
: ~ : ~-g~" "II g ~ ~
f~&.~a~~.; Jla
~ ~"'O 3 a = 2 ii g, a
g 0 ~":: g;.2.3 &r3
gCJ~lQ;a;g\J~
l~;;~~~C~i
CIl ~ o.~ g:~ ~ ~ 0-
~ :Joa.QIII
~ ca:
<II a:
tl:l
c
.,
IJQ
~
CIl
CIl
-
p
n
n :0 P E i:: ~@)[>~ .... "
CIl :n"m:r"Ollll::E~!JJ
~ ~11~il=:g-SIl~1I
c. II ~~~ ~ ~,~~~"~
~ j 5'~ 5- -g.~ ~ '6 ~ ;
~g~Q.~g-~-:", g
a1 ~ 3 CD ~,~ ~ 7:"
a. ~ CD 5" "<
;; g a. CIl
;;;
~h~P:;-~;;~~~
~ "II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,3 "8 j
5-gi'~ii"~gg:~-
~ 3'~ CIl ~ C ~ ~
L: - C ~r.Q (I'l "2..... "8
~ ~ ~, ~. :T~. ~ ! ii"
- c c a
:2 3
..
C
;;;
nm()Qo:n:-\J
~3gcnllll.:DP
II ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~
~:g~a.~g~
g :g g ~ a t1l
~~~ a.
o.aCD
n
~
G'
//
~~~
~:i!"
~iiiZl
>:0:;J
Cri3l~
000
:tI'"ci
:J10:tl
mo::!
~~~
g~",
o,"~
>:"'",
~~Q
~"'~
,"~CI)
8iil"
~:<!~
, 0."
",0
,;;'"
~~
"
gg~
~~1Il
0,,'"
~5~
0>:"
>:"''''
;!og
-"'>:
"'c:o
~E~
Iii~~
:<::.rrii
:bit
ni~
~Jd
~~
"'0
0...
~~
rn~
o
~~~
"'::j"'
mo;::
"'l;::j
0,..0
:i!"~
~g~
~~o
~r;~
~~~
iil~il:
Poo
,,>:
,.."
~il:
~~
~~
~o
~:t:
""
~~
,,;!!
"'>:
"'''
"",
"''''
"':t
~o
g:~
. :t
g:
"'
o
>:
"
'"
"'
'"
~
::t
Iii
Cl
"
~
...
<
;::(';.
~ ~:
"<
z
sa
is
(J)
"
..
iii'
\---
z
o
:II
~
J:
1)-"~
/1,0 ~~ :_:
,~ ------:-.
:-'l n._'_
\>
__n'<:.__
fiI-"'::,
---fL
-. i
\So
---i'l n'
_;~ 0___,
7'- .
EXHIBIT "C"
I
S.E. 35TH AVE.
. "' ~ct-
'I
\'1
C)
IJ\
1\
t>
r
\\I
II'
'-' i
~:::i':i;,:3; ::,.:. I
J1.
I
II
,,/
CI1
(:\:l
c.~
t
\:'0
';>
"- '-'.)1
\l 03"
'71 ~
- -.
N'
(\10
--2
":,,
~9
~'-
- 'r
::~
t'-< "-
,--- C AI .s~'
~ ..., "\ .11 ,
)J' l- ~ ~ t -"'0 :-
..... }11\' C~ ;;J
<- ~ \ \1 (~
i> \.:
l' " ,
, -
, - 0 :- I., ,
J VI .~ /
I j-j 148.62'
:>..
"
"
... "
'" ~
"
" ;;'
::: ""
<:;- -
~::
::;..
~ '"
'" ""
5~
~ ...
'" '"
'" "
" "
::;.. ...
~ i}
~ "'-
~ ::: ;;'
S' ~
~ :::J
~ " ~
" ... "
::;.. 1} "
~ ".
....
'" .;...
;; ~~
S'
:::J -CIQ
'" '"
::: ....
" "'-
::!. ...
fr ~'''~
El ...
.~ '"
"
"
~ ...
;;' i}
~ "'-
~
:: s.
:s.~
"'" -
'" -
s" ~
CtQ i=)'
s.
25.0'
.>-
o
~'-
~
~
~
~
~
trj
~
~
~
~
!; "
LI0
z..c
C.,
i:..:J
\J~
'11 t>
fJ ;:
(II
,:.J.
r.
. -,\
~\.-,
, ,-:.
.:
C ,J
,~ =-
I
..,.
\0
'(,
,-,
v...
~
0\
I~
~
~
->'
o
>-
t"-
o
..,
....
...
EXHIBIT "e"
PHOTOS
-------------------
-----
EXHIBIT "e"
PHOTOS
r~
----
~~'I'
EXHIBIT "D"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Davila Variance
File number: ZNCV 03-006
Reference:
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None
UTll..,ITIES
Comments: None
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None
PARKS AND RECREA nON
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
1. The portion of the fence located on the northeast property line shall not
exceed nine (9) feet in height, measured from the surface grade outside
the wall.
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
I 1. To be determined. I I I
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\MRKVICKA\Condilion of Approval 2 page revised 2002 form.doc
~-^- 10\ ~~ ~~ c 6.J..
7.B.l
DAVILA VARIANCE (ZNCV 03-006)
ZONING CODE VARIANCE
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 03-140
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board and City Commission
THRU:
Michael W. Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM:
Maxime Ducoste-A.
Planner
DATE:
June 9, 2003
PROJECT NAME/NO:
Davila Variance/ ZNCV 03-006-Fence Height
REQUEST:
Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2,
Zoning, Section 4,).1, limiting a fence to a maximum height of six (6) feet within the rear
building line to allow a 3-foot variance, and a nine (9) foot high fence.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Property Owner: Joseli and Mildred Davila
Applicant/Agent: Joseli and Mildred Davila
Location: 3616 S.E 1st Street
Existing Land Use/Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR)/R-1-A
Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No changes are proposed
Proposed Use: Fence for single-family house
Acreage: 0.24 Acre (10,383 square feet)
Adjacent Uses:
North:
Single-family houses zoned R-1-A, single family residential district;
South:
A single-family house zoned R-1-A, single family residential district;
East:
A single-family house zoned R-1-A, single family residential district; and
West:
S.E. 1st Street right-of-way, and farther west single-family houses zoned R-1-A,
single family residential district.
Staff Report
Memorandum No PZ-03-140
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located at 3616 SE 1st Street. The property and the adjacent neighborhood is currently
zoned R-1-A, single family residential. The lot is currently developed and conforms with the R-1-A zoning
district requirements. The surrounding neighborhood is mostly developed (See Exhibit "A" - Location Map).
ANALYSIS
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
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.
Staff reviewed the requested variance focusing on the applicant's response to the above criteria contained in
Exhibit "B". Staff reviewed the application and conducted this analysis focusing on items "a", "d", and "f"
above. The subject property is part of the Debonaire Estates Subdivision that was platted in 1952. This
portion of the plat varies in elevation between lots. The western portion of the subject property has a greater
finished grade than the remainder of the property. The rear yard slopes down from finished grade toward the
abutting lot to the east (Lot 1). The abutting property to the north is also at the lower grade, approximately 3
feet lower than the finished grade of the subject property as a result of the natural terrain and the new
finished grade required for construction. Contrary to other properties in the same block, the subject property
has a higher finished grade. A retaining wall, which was required by the City during the construction, is
located on the subject parcel at the northeast portion of the lot. The natural characteristics of the site
present unique and special conditions that did not entirely result from any action of the current
owner/applicant.
The Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations restrict walls, fences and hedges in residential zoning
districts to a maximum height of six (6) feet. The applicant's proposal is to maintain an existing 6-foot high
fence along the easterly 80 feet of the north property line. The lower grade of the adjacent property prevents
the applicant from meeting code regarding fence height. The existing three (3)-foot retaining wall along the
north property line, would raise the total fence height to nine (9) feet as measured from the surface grade
outside of the fence. However, without the variance the fence would be limited to a maximum height of six
(6) feet, which would allow a maximum increase of three (3) feet above the existing three (3)-foot retaining
Staff Report
Memorandum No PZ-03-140
Page 3
wall as measured from the suject property. This scenario would not serve the purpose of the structure (i.e.
fence/screen), and could create a hazard to residents and guests of the property by being too short to
prevent someone from falling over the fence. Although this application represents the absolute minimum
variance required to achieve the same privacy achieved by others, a minimum nine (9) foot high fence is
necessary to achieve the same six (6) foot height as typically allowed and intended by code. The variance
regarding fence height would apply to the first 80 feet along the northeast (rear) corner of property (See
Exhibit "c" - Survey).
The applicant intends to address a safety and a privacy issue. Under the current Land Development
Regulations the applicant could only construct a six (6) foot high fence (as the measure is taken from the
outside of the fence). However, the fence as proposed would be built at nine (9) feet high on one half the
length of the north property line. The applicant's proposal is to provide the minimum safety and desired
privacy barrier and this would not appear to constitute a special privilege or be incompatible with the adjacent
properties. The subject fence is also intended to satisfy the poolsecurity screening requirement which is a
minimum of four (4) feet pursuant to the Florida Building Code. Although the fence could be reduced by two
(2) feet to meet this safety requirement while also reducing the variance request by two (2) feet, again it is
arguable that this will deprive the applicant from the same screening benefit enjoyed by others.
With respect to item "f", regarding impact on the area or the public welfare, although the proposed fence
appears normal when viewed from the subject property, it creates a unique circumstance when perceived
from the rear yard of the adjacent home. Whether the effect of the proposed variance creates an "injurious
impact" on the area staff has evaluated based on the intent of the code to preserve property values and the
intent of setbacks to ensure proper light and airflow. Based on the proposed fence being located along the
rear property line of the adjacent property, rather than along the side property where it could be as close as 7
112 feet to the home, the reduction of air and views is minimized. As for impact upon property values, staff is
of the position that the additional three (3) feet of screening provides more benefit to the property than
compared to any negative characteristic represented by the aesthetic uniqueness.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recognizes that the situation as presented is unique. Based on the analysis contained herein, staff finds
that a "hardship" exists. This request will not be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare, and
the variances requested are the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land. The
applicants' intent to combine a safety and privacy fence is reasonable. Staff therefore recommends that the
request for a 3-foot variance to allow a nine (9) foot high fence be approved. This recommendation is
conditioned upon the fence not exceeding nine (9) feet in height from the surface grade outside of the wall.
This requirement is indicated in Exhibit "0" Conditions of Approval. However, any additional conditions of
approval added by the Planning and Development Board or the City Commission will be placed in the Exhibit
"0" - conditions of approval.
MWR/MD
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Davila Variance\STAFF REP.doc
Location Map
DA VI LA ZNCV 03-006
EXHIBIT "A"
R1AAB
__~ I
~ --
,$
IC11_~1
I
I - NIC
~~~ \-
, II \ - ~
L ~ L \ \ \
NI
I --r~
N
__ W~E
S
EXHIBIT "B"
A. Retaining wall required by city during construction of single family home
due to natural elevation of lot, nearly 5'0" difference in height from
west to east boundry. Surrounding existing homes and yards vary in elevations
due to natural grade.
B.
The conditions of this house elevation are due to natural land grades.
floor elevation was lowered to 12" above medium crown of road from 18"
adjacent properties.
Finish
due to
C. The granting of this variance is solely for the purpose of fencing for pool
requirements and safety requirement at retaining wall.
D. The variance is needed for home owner to comply with city and state regulations
on pool safety and being able to fence in rear yard.
E. Variance being requested is minimum required for property owners concerned.
Retaining wall is minimum height and length required and fence is stepped down
to natural grade as quickly as possible without infringing on neighbors property.
F. The granting of this variance will be in the best interest of the general
public and immediate neighbor by retaining drainage and eliminating erosion
and insuring pool safety.
"
, \.\. ~~
~o",q- ~ - - -~...---.,
: ~ r< E'. -r ~ 1'111 ON b. R r!:.A ";..~ )
./ ):
-~ --...----"t"
<>
.69.87' ,,1, -S:5C'
POUN17 ~/J /.;~ j
( UNfJUMf?;7r3r<.fE;r;i
,
~ ~ (pLAT & MEAS.) 0 q'
-~ J -= 102.0q'-IJ~ 1: 3616s.ElSJ'STREET
;x:: "'-r=OI)i"-!:? i~t:.IL ~T;6F7 I .........
E-..; (, u/,-lrJUi\.1P76-r<C.DI'" FOiJt--lr) NL:;.j L
~ .' ~, ( u,-.JN UM F:Je-rzeD)
tr)
~ ~I
~ '
! ~O:7 69.86'
.-v ~ : -+-++ ; , ~ ! : : : : : '
~ "Ill ,t!I!" Il
:;,D'r~-t~ ~-;-t-~t-+",,'+-f
Q -t-LL --1 i ,--. T it 1+_L+__~t--ll
~ i.-t-l j I i-f H-f :Hh.l iH +-;1 '-
... T++O.e:..VCIZTf?t.7/GKJ r q-t~
-. t t' ' . C, r - , '--; . . . I-".-...j....,-t- '"
~":"",,. Ii' I ! ! Ii, I ' Iii ! 'i, ",
~. ,- T . , ;- ! I t '-:-"-1 ft,' -, ,--1 ...--~,,'~
~ ); ! 1 ~ . : I' i i J ; r ; : :
. " "I' ,.., .- > .-' f--' -r---T
. ';' . 1 f~ ' . ,H-t++H-+'-
!<.ET~f,J-rIO,'-1 - ---F:: - -, "1. ~G' i i :-rrp+l--
f-,r<,eA \ --=- _) :f ". z;,s' \
I
I.
I
FOUNr]o/b' I. R. /-
( UNtJU M P..7E:R.CD;
7.1 '
,
N
~~
" ...
'-N
"'t
I..l\
LOT 14
, 1
11"t,/""'--
". \.. GOVeREI7
". ", I-? i 0 rz.. -?".
... I\-. R2SIDCNCG',
~ . "-, FIN/7.lH FL09fZ f3Lr3.V.;'P}.ro'
. : . '. "-
00 : :-~ ""-. co v ERE-!) "'-,
"fo "', "
"""4 7.c:/ ':'-..?- 8 , ~ "", .'-,
10.
~' ""- Z2. 8'
,
1.7
o.?;'
G. t>, '?, W;:::' U...
(OUNO 7;"8" {,J<' ~
( UNIVVJV1 i?e"fJ))~
rvy
~
~
~ ~)(10TINC;; r;:L~\/,6.tIOf',J
NOT INCLUDED
~
Cl
"
~
o
~
liS'
EXHIBIT "e"
\
~-
I
I
I ~o~
I
"- POVN 0 78"
( UNNUNI-7C
-F::J~
E
J
f
^
L
..J ^
...l F
<[' c
:I ~
... "2 ,.,
~.
.0\ C) E
t-.: r- E
"fo ?i ~
"""l C
r-
ill ~ C
~ F
~ F
F
F
"- r:< e. -r r3.N -r! 0 !,-' C
br<.~A. c
R
L
I
o.e. .
E.)to,.s -r tJc:. '"
fE..N Gc.
(TYf. )
r
F
E
-
r
[T\
'"'-
\';\
- ,
c\
\ Ii-
,.\
I'
'.1
')
~
....,
~ 01'
~
S
@
/'
e:-"
z:g
;:~
c.::,\
.\~
\)l(J',
n\ c
;"'1 :---
(\\^\ Or~
0'
(
'_R /'1)
11,1/)
>- ~\\
c
L.
o
~
~
~
I
,-
J
148.62'
o
,>,
"
"
~
0"
~
(~,'\
\ .i'..D ,
71 I ~~"''''
, Wi I
J ,\\ I
I ~I )
I .7:. r
~,:
(0
) J' I \:)b
'i.\"
J,- .~~ j
;-- -j
~ , '
()
()
1-' <..
en
''''.'
h'
(]
"'.7' -
N
:"
Cll.
(
t
D
01_
i 2 147.90'
(\\
C> ~ RE'Tt;!J1'loN WALl,.
;All
~::\
~ NaTINCLUDED
r-~
7z.
710
'-' (1\
t'-<
C
....,
.....
~
AI
,.\
l.> \
;'11\\
f\1(
J. ..'
v
"
"2
{ ;'J
\1\~
~\~ ' I'~
'>- ~ ll:...
~'J ;: <
"'\JI0 \11
~<:..'? ;'1
[7\ (\ ,\q
~ [\\ .J
~
~.
I
II
~ r:ooo"'tJ"1J"1J"VOQ
I ~ri:mooooi:D:n
I .J 1I~~IIi:J:JO;:'OCnm
if" II i. it ~I il il il il il
g ~,g 8 5""8 'B ~ -g 8 8:
z '" -'2c! :r5'3 :i"::J cr
I !,!! d)-- -QA;"
CT~~ CD 2.2.~ 2.!!~
... ~.~&:!8 ~ 8 ~8
I i ~ 3 i :i" 3 a.g g a
g: o.~a2.~ n g "'"0-
~!!. .ggg:J!.g
~" CDao.fl"'"
-6" 3_n
QCD ~~.i;
a
'Tl-<::;:::;:'Tl'U ::c
~gm~~i5
1111-- :J ~ mo:e:". "'0-0 "1JO-n-i
mi~~ CD ~~ :s h;if"tJ II :"'=-:Id::.o;
::l <::;11::)'11 II nil g.?
3 3 i)!l1 ~ IJ~:;-g~.i,gr~
'Tl -<... ~"1 !-,&. !!.a:a-g Q ~~
~ ~:T ~
.. )> ~.~"C ~e.~a'~[a-
n < c:
:::r ~ g 0 ~.G> iii'~2.3 g.3
U\;D~ "1 RQ)fg.sc;;a;o"'CG
<rtl
c>>oo ~ i~~~~~E~j
00 0)(,.);:;.- '" CDCDo.n=.UJ31>>Q.
<?<? -;"'(,.)1>> -'" g '<g~~;
~~~~t;~~~ - ~ ~
Hl~~~8; :s
r CD it
ow WQ)N
(X)........<O<O~
;:: 'Tl 0 :0 P ~ !l= i:@)[>~ -< :0
.. 0 CD ;n"T1m;r~ II II :t;!Xl
" 0. :\ ~ II ~ II II i ~ II !!.. II
Z 0. '"
N i II ~~~ IX ~.~cg:~"~
R 0. 0.
:J > -< ~ :r~ 5- -g.~ !t 6" ~ i
~ !' :j R 3~e:0.!!!.0-"-
\'l 0 ::l ~iGlii"-~.~~ ~
?i '=' Gl ti' 3 en Gl~
..,
--!l -tl .., := i:t '"' ~ga ~
~ -< ::j
-XI, \\ (I "! 0 '" -< ;-
'" .; '" ~ .. ..'U)>or-:D:-;::l51.'U
\ I'" \) .., ;:l
\J ::j ~ e 0 :J hrr II "'U:-O II II II
-- '=' '" ~.flll>>1I113-g"O
+-~ I ~ '"' 3 .., ..,
.., ?- t: lI.nn"'-'Gl ;-
N~ \)l '2 . ~ 5-gllaS'~ge:~-
N \}l '=' '='
'" ;; . '"' E a" ~ ~cE fi"2 ~ ~
\J c: ~ '" >
-L\ ~ 2 > -< ~ 2. 3 5.9-"8 ~. ! _
Cl ~ 2 ~ ::) n 3" c>> _. (D
2 J5 :>: - c c.: a-
n < 3
" .., .. ~" ~ ..
" ::! '" :;l c:
'!oz
" ell . "omOQO:D'-'U
c 0."- 2 c:
;> ~~ F' '" ~3gUiIlIl;np
~ '2 :i u-nua.;lln
g, <II 0 ~:~g~~~r-g <
" 3 ~ s:: n'
" ('jl>>OM ~ 10
.0 CT m ~~~~ g~ .. ~:
It> 0 tIl "
-~Vl ~~;. .:<
.,
0.
gC!J~ C:~f!! .10
~~~ ~::l" ~~ \l\
:::0;: .~ \\
CIlj;::l "''''
~::l~ ",,, t>
Or-~ .CIl
00" ;j!"CIl CIlCll r
",iIi", ~g~ CIl:t
;j!og ~o \Ii
;!1~0 "'~
-"'", ~o~
CIlC::o !J:t
~E~ ~"'ili ~ ~
"'~'" iil!h ~ \I
I1ICIlO !J5~ t\
:<::.trii lIO'" .
a r-. '" ()
~ill '"
111", '"
~j;l ~~ ~
~... ~CIl ::t
82 ~~ ili
oiil _0 C
lIO:o ~<:
il15n ~
0
...
z
2
o
C/l
n
..
m
z
o
Jl
-i
:r
\---
c--..
;c"
,(C
c::'Z:.
('0
~ '-'J1
\J OJ "-
l11 ,
,,-
N'
CiI?'1
\J
~
EXHIBIT "e"
C-n
.:()
z-c
cz.
-..::J
-'
\Y ""-'
'" IP.
~'" ;--'
en ;iJ
\.' .
~I
;...
"
"
... <:I
~ ~
S; ~.
i:}_
~ ~
" :::-
;]l~
i~
~~
~ ~
S-a
~~
~ ~ i
b:I~~
~ ~ ~
~~~
~ -. tv
... ~".w
!j ~. ~
-:< :::: <iQ
~ " ..
~ ~ t::
~ ~..w
S ~
".~ g
~~
~. ...
:;'
S ;::-
I:l. ..
<>-"'"
.. :::
s" ~
ClQ r:)"
!j'
I
S.E. 35TH AVE.
.....A:.u
4" \ 't
'j
,\
\ "
~
l_ ,\ s:
:~ j-:: ::; "-i
\I, -, !'->l(..
,I ,~~
"; -... l' ~
" ~.l ::t,;:
'1'-~ ~
25.0' ;
..Y
o
,".
.:,'
o
.~-
'Lob'? '(" ,-.>'
n I \0
\'- ,-",
.'? \ .
~-n
[..l..J
~ Z.c
C>, ~
-<:.~ r ,]
[11::-" 0' 7_ 3:
,.7'<. ,~ l> I~
~ 01
~ N .-:: ~
A 0" (1\ i
2/.2' (\ ~ :)
, ~
n 1'--
" . --.,
Ol i i
i ,
/ , :~+ )
- 27. 3"-
~ p()oJ,
<S" $2"
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Vi
t-<
o
..,
...
.....
EXHIBIT "e"
PHOTOS
EXHIBIT "e"
PHOTOS
_.----------
I
,
t .
-t-----
I
I
I
I
-..-..-.---
EXHIBIT "D"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Davila Variance
File number: ZNCV 03-006
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 RECREA nON
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
1. The portion of the fence located on the northeast property line shall not
exceed nine (9) feet in height, measured from the surface grade outside
the wall.
Conditions of Approval
2
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
I 1. To be determined. I I I
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\MRKVICKA\Condition of Approval 2 page revised 2002 form.doc