REVIEW COMMENTS
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ # Q2-049
,
VARIANCE REVIEW STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION
March 7, 2002
Meeting
Date:
March 12, 2002
File No:
ZNCV 02-005 - Front Yard Wall Height
203 NW 3rd Street
Location:
Owner:
Mr, Steven N. Leach Jr. and Pamela Mrkvicka
Project:
Front yard wall.
Variance
Request:
Request relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations,
Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4. J. 1., limiting a wall to a maximum height of four (4)
feet within the front building line to the front line to allow a 3,5 foot variance, and
a six (6) foot wall within the front building line.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located at 203 NW 3rd Street at the intersection with NW 1 sl Avenue.
The property and nearby neighborhood is currently zoned R-1-A, single family residential with
the exception of the lot located immediately north of the subject site, zoned C-2. The lot is
currently developed and conforming with the R-1-A zoning district requirements, The subject
neighborhood is mostly developed (See Exhibit "A" - Location Map),
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.
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,
Page 2
Mrkvicka Variance Staff Report
Memorandum No, PZ # 02-049
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 "B" contains the applicant's response to the above criteria.)
Staff has reviewed the application and conducted this analysis focusing on items "a", "d", and "f'
above. The subject property is part of the subdivision known as Boynton Heights Revision
Addition that was platted in 1924, The County Property Appraiser file indicates the construction
date for the original house as 1925, and it is identified as a "Mission Style" house, The southern
and western sides of the property have a greater finished grade than the remainder of the
property, There are two (2) existing retaining walls on the property: the first is on the western lot
line, with an elevation of 4 feet; and the second is on the southern lot line, with an elevation of
2.5 feet above the finished surface of the ground adjacent to the exterior of the wall, The
eastern and southeastern portions of the property coincide with the grade of the adjacent street
(NW 3rd Street), Contrary to other properties in the same neighborhood, the subject property
was originally filled in order to create a suitable finished grade to build this single-family
dwelling, The geological characteristics of this site present unique or special conditions that did
not result from any action of the current owner/applicant.
The Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations restrict front yard walls, fences and hedges
to a maximum height of four (4) feet for visibility, safety and aesthetic reasons. The front yard
setback requirement in the R-1-A district is 25 feet. The subject property has the characteristics
of a corner lot, therefore requiring a minimum 25-foot front yard setback and a minimum 12.5-
foot side corner setback. It should be noted that prior to the beginning of this project, the
property had an old 6-foot wooden face located along the entire western property line,
The applicant's proposal is to 1) build a 6-foot high wall in place of the previous 6-foot wood
fence along the western property line; and 2) build a 3.5-foot high wall above the existing 2.5-
foot retaining wall along the south property line, raising the total wall height to (6) feet as
measured from the outside of the wall. However, without the variance the wall would be limited
to a maximum height of four (4) feet, which would allow a maximum increase of 1.5 feet above
the existing 2.5-foot retaining wall. This scenario would not serve the purpose of the structure,
and could create a tripping hazard to residents of, and guests on the property. Although the
application represents the absolute minimum variance required in achieving the reasonable use
of the land, a minimum 3.5-foot high wall will be necessary to create a practical barrier to
ensure privacy and safety, The variance for wall height will apply to the first 20 feet along the
southwest (rear) corner of property, along the western property line, and the southern property
line. (See Exhibit "C" - Survey),
The applicant intends to address a safety and a privacy issue. Under current code the applicant
could only construct a four- (4) foot high wall (as measured from the outside of the wall).
However, the wall as proposed would be built at 6 feet high on the entire length of the rear yard
(west) and the first 86 feet of the side corner yard (south). Since prior to this proposal there
existed a 6-foot wooden fence in this place, staff believes that this new structure would have
minimal if not any impact on the property to the west. The applicants' proposal to provide the
minimum safety and desired privacy barrier would not appear to constitute a special privilege
nor would it be incompatible with the adjacent properties,
Page 3
Mrkvicka Variance Staff Report
Memorandum No, PZ # 02-049
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recognizes that the situation as presented is unique, The applicants' intent to combine a
safety and privacy wall is reasonable. Clear-site triangles will be preserved at the property, and
the proposed wall would not obstruct views needed at adjacent driveways. Staff therefore
recommends that the request for a 3,5-foot variance to allow a six (6) foot high wall in the front
building line be approved, This recommendation is conditioned upon the wall not to exceed six
(6) feet in height from the surface grade outside of the wall. This requirement is indicated in
Exhibit "D" Conditions of Approval.
MDAldim
S:IPlanningISHAREDI WPIPROJECTSIMrkllickalST AFF REP-Wall Heightvar.doc
Location \ Map Exhibit "A"
Mrkvicka Variance
\ -----............... .,
If \ []] ~~ I~
~ OJ]]] -
-
... - ~jf~
n -
-
:j omo ~
-
~ ~~~
~ IJIA.41 a M
.,
~ 1 , \ -- ~I JI
- ~tt) J!
;: I": \ \ I - .~
, I.l ~.&> -<1 Ie'
111!~;f L-- .;.~
~ .
-
l -
-'~
< ":iOi, N ~,'"~#~~:~
H'&:
Hl >, 18 I
c ~ SITE
. : OJ , ...
-
:~' , I , - DIDJ
- = r I-- I I TT T T]
::: 9 I I
) ----
\ 1- N'; l ~ ~
~ -'i
- - I I
.~ ~ Ir1 - _t .. 10._
=rte: em I
1_ ~~- rr- I--
... I I-~ r
m t<. I] 1-0- IT~ .NA
.~ ... L..-
~I , . , , . -, . . , . . . ,-' -
...
,
.
800
......... ..~.
s
(
EXHIBIT "B"
A) Our house was built in 1925. The finished grade on most of the south side property line is 2'4" higher than that of the city
and our surrounding neighbors.
8) There is a retaining wall which existed when we bought the property, The retaining wall is a runwayllaunching ramp for
children. It is also a fa\Crite sitting area for assorted indi\04duals After the sun goes down it is not uncommon to \o4ew ladies
soliciting and men selling their products from our retaining wall. We frequently pick up beer bottles and other trash that has been
left on our lawn from the night time \o4sitors. Two homes in our area (one down the street the other directly across the street) were
recently burglarized, The indi'-Adual who robbed the house down the road dumped a stolen TV and bicycle in our yard in his efforts
to elude the police.
C) The granting of this \6riance would only giw us what el.elYone else has or is entitled to haw; a reasonable barrier to insure
safety, pri-.ecy and protection,
0) Denying our request would place us at risk for liability suits, promote undesirable acti'-Aty in our neighborhood and depriw
us of our right to a reasonabfe barrier.
E) A 4 foot high fence is allowed from finished grade, We are asking for a 3' 8" stucco wall matching the texture and color of
our home running the length of the south side property line minus the 25 foot set back, We would like to continue that height for
the 25 foot set back on the west side property line, Prior to beginning this project an old 6 foot high wooden fence ran along the
entire west side,
F)"The completion of this project is in no way detrimental to the pubic welfare. It will cause no traffic concern and will .
eliminate many safety issues. Approval of this -.eriance will complete an improl.ement project suited to our 1925 Mission style
home, We hal.e taken out a home equity loan to fund this endea\Or. This is a substantial inl.estment in our home, neighborhood
and hence this city,
, ; : FEB I 3 2002
f.~._ _.
W8dhacJay, ~ f3, 2002 Amerfca Onlllle: MerlIll Mrkvtcb PIge: 1
~ I'
j ~
I'
/iQlrS;.
1J~~i~~~^g~~l~i~~[1 ~ liF~~J~A TE LAND SURVEYORS, iNC,
I '
6 FOOT HIGH WALL
rrm:E
o.~'r-
'M.SI UN(
(1.01S I IIIRU 11, nlOOC' . F'L. A r
_I_I -T-
rOUNn 1/2"
"'ON "'0' 12sloo'
t'
L0,
14 ~' --7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CERTIFICATION'
nls IS TO C[RllrV niAT I HAVE R[C(NTl'" SUR~V[O Ul( PROfI[lUV
DrSCRI9[O IN THE rOR[CQNC nTl[ CAPnnN AND IlA~ 5(T OIl rOU~1O
UONUWE.NTS AS INDICA TED ON nls $I([lCH AND mAT SAID ADO\{
CROUND SUR"":'" AND SKETOI ARE ACQJRAT( AND CORRrCT TO Tile
8EST Cf' ...,. KNOM.COC[ AND aHl(r. I rURnieR C(RTlfV nlAT TIlI~
SUR\I[Y wEETS WINIVUU TEQ-fNfCAl STANDARDS UNDER RULE 61CI76
FLORIDA o\OWINISTRA Ttv[ COOC ADoPTED DY m[ rLMtDA nOAlm Of"
lAHO SURVEYORS. WAY 119~
~ /_-------.... /
~~~~:"......---
ROBERT L THOMPSON (PRESIOENT)
PRon::SSIONAl SUR\t:YOA AND "''''''P[R No.JM9 _ SIA It l"Jf' n omn~
OA
JASON H. PINNELL
PRortSSlOHAL SUR~YOA AHO "'APP[R No..7J4 - SIAlt nr "ORIO~
i '500
.'. 1"' AI: H(TAINING WAll.. I.', ... .' "j
I
,
I
,
wi :J
::>, <
~! E~
<( Ii" ~
. ~ ~:I:
~ I!.fl-
(f) ~O
'I ~O
.~ LL
3: I (0
zl
,
I
,
I
,
i
I
II
o I
II'
, I
II
I I 16.5' ASPHALT P^\1:l.CENT I ~
L - _ _ _. __. _~ _ _ _ _. _ _ _.. ~o~ R/VI) _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ -.J ~_
I .
N. W. 3RO, STREET
W~ll
O.J~'S-
.~
'"
25' R(T
WALL
4' c.er. I
AROUND POOl.
OW<
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
+
I
--1--
25' IlU1lOlNC ~
SE18ACK lIN( I
PO IOP~~~
I
~
~
- "
to ;;!
r-. .."
. .u
to -z
.0
~ u
--19.64'
I
I
[r/r. I'AD
~ Db
.n .10'
N '-! I
1.;; :J'" o'
2.10' . "-tllUNEY
I
LOT 8
.w,
LOT 11
~
~
1203
2 S10RY
c.n.~.
RF:<i.
LOT 9
: "',
I
I
I.
I
\,
SHEET OF PERMIT SET
DO NOT REMOVE
1. U"Il[SS Onl{A'Mt( NOIED nno UrASUR(UOHS AR( IN AGR((Iol(NT NTH RECORD
lol(ASUA(U[NIS. I
1.' B(ARlNGS SflO~IIl(R(ON ARC OA5(O ON A D(AR~C rr HI... AlONG
nl(~ _PlA' [JOQI(_. PAC(_
CCJJNTY R[COOOS.
J. ~ nl{ lANDS S..O WUfON 1ll{R( NOT A8SIRAC1t.O FM O",,",CR9nP. RIQUS-Of"-WAY.
lASlW[NIS. OR Onl(A WATt(RS or RECORDS BY ACCURAI( lAND SUA\ot:YClA5. tNC.
4. nllS Sl".vt''r 15 JOR Tlft.r ANO UOOTCAl",( PUm>oS(s ONt Y.
ArVlSlONS DAIC OY
OA I[ or SUAVE Y
6/09/00
nRA'M~ BY
0.0.1.
ClleCk ~Yr-
III LO UOOl<
4!tl/14 At 677/5 5~C.
.~~') 1/12 1<"
'AX. 'UJ~l') 1/1]..1.10
'\
EXHIIPIT"C"
~'~""''''''''...'''...
~'l.W-- ~----
rOWlll .ROt~
ROll k CA"
IIU(.J~I
fiNer
-o..n
... ...~ .--.-.----
, . .
:.:: .:2.. _~_. .;.'-
,r,-. .-
I;,
;;dl\
\ L_..:,., ;.;17"
.. Ii, 1 ,l~.'. ; T :.' .
._-~--_. ...--
: ~i'l:
Ii'
~!-.
"
.>.
U
a 0
_J
N m
O'l
lO
1-
0
_J
LOT 7
~I"':'-:
I
RECEIVED
NOV 0 'j 2001
FILE cOpy
BUll.DlNG O\VISln~
SEll L
H"f VAUD WI ntOUT
lllt. SIroN", JURe AND
}lIe ~IGlNo\l RA.IS[O
Sf: Al Of A nORIOA
UCENSlO SUR't'{YOR
AIm ~APP{A.
SCALE 1"=20'
~: SU 2000- 2660
EXHIBIT "I)"
.
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Mrkvicka Variance
File number: ZNCV 02-005
Reference:
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None
UTILITIES
Comments: None
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DMSION
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None
FORESTERJENV1RONMENTALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
1. The portion of the wall located into the front building line shall not
exceed six (6) feet in height, measured from the surface grade outside the
wall,
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined,
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined,
S:\Planning\SHARED\VVP\PROJECTS\MRKVICKA\Condition of Approval 2 page revised 2002 brm.doc
DEVELOPMr T ORDER OF THE CITY COMMIS~N OF THE
ell'\' OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORID),(
PROJECT NAME: Mrkvicka Variance
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Pamela Mrkvicka
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 203 NW 3rd Street Boynton Beach, FL 33435
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: March 12,2002
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for relief from zoning code requirements for wall height within
the front building line,
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 203 NW 3rd Street Boynton Beach, FL 33435
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
X 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
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJ ECTS\MRKVI CKA \Develop. Order Form-2002-Revised .doc
DE~ ."\RTMENT OF DEVELOPL,.cNT
Planning and Zoning Division
Memorandum
PZ 02-027
FROM:
Quintus Greene
Di,rector of Develop~ent
Michael Rumpflf)(-J
Planning & Zoning Director
February 4, 2002
Variance application for wall height at 203 NW 3rd St.
Preliminary Review
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Staff has reviewed the above-referenced issue in anticipation of the filing of a variance application, I
understand that the property owners at this address desire to construct a continuous wall around their
property, excluding that portion of the perimeter located within the front setback (east side), This wall
is to replace a 6-foot fence that previously existed along the rear (west) property line, and will include
raising the existing retaining wall located along the south side (corner) by approximately 3' 6", I also
understand that the maximum variance necessary to accommodate the proposed project will be
approximately 4 feet. The ultimate objective of the property owner is to provide the minimum
perimeter wall necessary for the purposes of security and safety. The necessity of the variance is
due to both grade difference (being higher on the site than surrounding properties), and the
requirement to measure wall height from the outside of the wall,
Based on the preliminary information available, staff concludes that there exists justifications for a
variance and therefore staff support, based on the following:
1) That special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land as represented
by the difference in elevation of the subject property and adjacent properties;
2) That special conditions exist which are not totally the result of actions of the applicant; and
3) That the proposed improvements and needed variance would represent the minimum
variance necessary to reasonably provide the desired security and privacy,
It should be noted that this is only a preliminary opinion favoring the anticipated variance, and is
presented without review of an official application and potential feedback generated by public notices,
MR
S:IPlanningISHAREDlWPICORRESPICorresp M thru ZIMrkvicka wall review.doc
S 'PL4\IN!NG:3i-fARED\VVPICORF~ESP\COR8ESP M THRU Z\i'vlRK\j[CKA WALL PEIJ:E?J COC
BP201I02
,CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
Applicati\ Selection By Application ~er
2/13/02
08:21:12
Property address . . . . .
PCN . . . . . . . . . . . .
Type options, press Enter.
l=Select 5=View detail
Opt Appl Nbr
i( 01 00004282
00 00003784
00 00003491
93 00000697
93 00000096
92 00004847
92 00004572
92 00004354
92 00003193
90 00002884
87 00000665
Type
F
F
RR
SE
F
IG
OW
F
AC
RM
F
Stat Date
AP 10/26/01
VO 8/16/00
FI 8/01/00
AP 2/25/93
AP 1/07/93
AP 12/29/92
AP 12/04/92
AP 11/16/92
AP 7/31/92
CL 8/15/90
CL 2/26/87
F3=Exit F12=Cancel
2.1
b
203 NW 3RD ST
08-43-45-28-10-001-0091
Tenant Nbr/Name
BLOCK COLUMNS & SOILDWALL
4' C/L FENCE
FLAT DECK
SCREEN ROOM - EX ROOF
FENCE AROUND POOL 4'
TO CITY WATER
REPLACE EXISTING FENCE
01 - 42../Ot-
'16: Mev<' I fY\.L
h)y ~(lf11 n (()'vlU, c D:L
t;1-b~q1
,;1)"3 I\)W "3rd S-f-
tell C L Vel r~: (\ \ 7(' €-.
?lctU>2 ~;G~ ?~al +h,s
/'!~ J I l
LJ::, ? '-{ - '---li '\[u l 2>-, tJe u l c~ I
.,.~' I Review Comments for Permit Application #
,rhit application and supporting documentation do not comply with the City of
..on Beach Code of Ordinances, Prior to receiving a permit to construct or install
.:;; requested improvements the plans and documents shall be amended to show
compliance with the below listed comments, Prior to making the changes to the plans
and/or documents please read the attached Submittal of Corrected Plans form, This
form contains important information relative to amending documents and submitting
corrected plans and/or documents, Questions regarding the comments may be
directed to the reviewer named above. If a conference is necessary, please schedule
an appointment with the reviewer. Please note that additional comments may be
generated following staff review of the amended plans. Timely approval of your project
is dependent upon your prompt and correct response to the information provided in this
document. Find attached, a form titled Submittal of Corrected Plans, this document
shall be properly completed and stapled to the file copy of the corrected plans when
submitting them to the Plans Analyst.
Fence to the west can not be more than 4 feet in height for the 25 feet measured from
property line on NW 1st Avenue runninq north. Also. fence can not be more than 4 feet
in height alonq the property line on same NW 1st Avenue, The reason is to avoid
blocking neighbors' view adiacent to the west of subiect property. and also to maintain
the 25 feet setback requirement for structures along NW 1st Avenue.
Jose
---
. ---.,
- .
p..- .~
, \
I L ;
, . ,
, .
I '
I 'I
I :i
I JLI
,.
,.:2- _!..~ ~_~ _ ~.~
J luO/
/';1 I!
I';. I;
. i
.
I..---.r _.
, .----- ----
. r "I:'
~-' ~ It ~ l," - 'l
2