REVIEW COMMENTS
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 04-053
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Chairman and Members
Community Redevelopment Agency
THRU:
Michael W. Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM:
Maxime Ducoste-A.
Planner
DATE:
March 1, 2004
PROJECf NAME/NO:
Mariners Way/ ZNCV 04-001
REQUEST:
Relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.C.2.A, reqUiring a minimum front yard setback of
forty (40) feet, to allow for a variance of thirty (30) feet, and a front yard setback of ten (10)
feet for a structure within a R-3 zoning district.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Property Owner: Mariners Way Homeowners Association
Applicant/Agent: K.P. Hislop
Location: 800 Mariners Way, Boynton Beach, Florida
Existing Land Use/Zoning: High Density Residential (HDR)/R-3
Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No changes are proposed
Proposed Use: Accessory structures (tiki hut and bathroom)
Acreage: 4.75 Acres (206,910 square feet)
Adjacent Uses:
North:
A single-family house zoned R-1-AA, single residential district, and farther north is
South Road right-of-way;
South:
A multi-family residential development zoned R-3, multi-family residential district;
East:
The right-of-way for the Intracoastal Waterway; and
West:
A commercial development zoned C-4, general commercial district.
Staff Report
Memorandum No PZ-04-053
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The subject property is currently zoned R-3, multi-family residential. The property is adjacent to the west side
of the Intracoastal Waterway atthe end of N.E. 12th Avenue (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map). The applicant
has requested relief from the above-referenced code requirement to allow for the continued existence of a
192 square foot "tiki hut" built at the northeast corner of the subject property, which represents the front of
the subject development. The "tiki hut" measures twelve (12) feet by sixteen (16) feet, and is 11.4 feet high
(see Exhibit "B" - survey/site plan). For a structure with those dimensions the code requires a forty (40) foot
front yard setback and twenty (20) foot side yard setback in the subject zoning district.
As part of this request, the applicant is also proposing to provide a bathroom facility at the pool area, which
this development currently lacks. Such facility was not required when this development was built. The
bathroom, measuring 5.8 feet by 5.8 feet, is proposed to be located ten (10) feet from the north property
line. This would place it immediately west of the pool area, in an the existing parking space. The applicant
placed the "tiki hut" at 10.8 feet from the front property line encroaching into the forty (40) foot front yard
setback (see Exhibit "B" - survey/site plan).
The owners did not apply for a permit for the "tiki hut". Consequently, Code Compliance issued a citation for
the construction of the tiki hut. In response to the citation, the applicant has submitted a building permit
application and minor modification (see Exhibit "c" - Denial Letter). However, these requests were denied
due to encroachment into the front yard setback. To rectify the situation and to allow this encroachment, the
applicant is requesting this variance. If approved, the owners would then be required to submit a minor site
plan modification and obtain all necessary building permits for the desired structures.
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 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.
g. Variances to minimum lot area or lot frontage requirements, that property is not available from
adjacent properties in order to meet these requirements, or that the acquisition of such property
would cause the adjacent property or structures to become nonconforming. Applicant shall prOVide an
Staff Report
Memorandum No PZ-04-053
Page 3
affidavit with the application for variance stating that the above mentioned conditions exist with
respect to the acquisition of additional property.
The applicant's responses to the above criteria (see Exhibit "D"), fails to satisfy hardship conditions for the
following reasons:
1. The subject parcel's size and dimensions, as approved by plat, meet the current code requirements
for a R-3 zoned lot; and
2. The variance is made necessary by actions of the applicant.
Staff visited the site and estimates there to be sufficient space to accommodate this bathroom with a
significantly greater setback than proposed.
Staff concurs with the applicant that special conditions and circumstances exist. The fact that the pool is
constructed in the northeast corner of the site, at the most narrow portion of the property, makes it virtually
impossible to construct the tiki hut on the pool deck for maximum usage for pool activities, in compliance with
minimum setbacks. However, these conditions are not natural to this particular property, but result from
actions by previous developer (project design and pool location), therefore criteria "a" is not satisfied. The
fact that the pool was built along the north property line, and the tiki structure was constructed by a Seminole
tribe member does not exempt the applicant from zoning requirements.
With respect to criteria "b" above, staff realizes that the variance request would not have been necessary if
the applicant had initially applied for a site plan modification and building permit as required. During the
review process, the applicant would have been informed of the code regulations regarding the proper
placement of this tiki hut in this zoning district. Although the subject parcel is unusual in shape, the actions of
the applicant have generated the circumstances.
With respect to item "e", given that the property has been approved for a permitted use (multi-family) in the
R-3 zoning district, approval of this variance request would grant special privileges to the applicant, by
allowing a structure to be placed within the minimum required setback, thereby possibly creating adverse
impacts on adjacent properties. Accordingly, denial of this variance request would not deprive the applicant of
the rights already enjoyed by others. Therefore, criteria "c" is not satisfied.
Although the properties to the north are not in the same zoning district as the applicant, thereby not
applicable when reviewing Criteria "e", variances have been granted to various properties which allowed
reductions from the required 25-foot rear setback, down to the 10 foot seatback being requested by the
applicant.
The subject property was improved with a multi-family development in compliance with minimum setback
requirements, and developed by maximizing the site. As such, this request does not represent the minimum
necessary to make reasonable use of the land, structure or building. Therefore, since "reasonable" use of the
land has been proven, this variance is not justified, and criteria "e" is not met.
With respect to impacts on the area, and criterion "f' above, the tiki hut and proposed bathroom would be
separated from nearby single-family properties to the north by insignificant distances (10 feet compared to
the required 40 feet). Staff understands that the proposed tiki hut would provide needed shade for the pool
area, but this would potentially be at the detriment of reducing views, light and airflow for the adjacent
properties.
Criterion "g" is not applicable to the subject request.
Staff Report
Memorandum No PZ-04-053
Page 4
Staff realizes through this analysis that the owner has limited options for this tiki hut. The proper placement
of a structure is limited by the existing swimming pool layout on the property, the property's configuration at
the easternmost portion, and the district requirements. However, where setbacks cannot be met, alternatives
for providing shade without involving structural improvements must be considered.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis contained herein, staff recommends that the request from Relief from Chapter 2,
Zoning, Section 5.C.2.A, requiring a minimum front yard setback of forty (40) feet, to allow for a variance of
thirty (30) feet, and a front yard setback of ten (10) feet for a structure within a R-3 zoning district be denied
for the following reasons:
1. Lack of traditional hardship, and specifically, that relief is not necessary to make possible the
reasonnable use of the land;
2. The special conditions and circumstances are a result of actions taken by the applicant (e.g. design
and layout of the proposed improvement); and
3. The proposed bathroom addition could be alternatively placed so as to maximize the setback and
therefore minimize the magnitude of, or need for a setback variance.
No conditions of approval are recommended; however, any conditions of approval added by the Community
Redevelopment Agency Board or the City Commission will be placed in the Exhibit "E" - conditions of
approval.
MWR/MD
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJEcrs\Mariners Way\ZN0I 04-001\Staff Report.doc
r\\: I
I
...
1 in. = 221.6 feet ~~
~
IJ./
,.. 0
-m-- .
I.L.
:z . CANAL C-16
. BOYNTON
.
.
.
- !
I~ur ""u . ~ I I I Ll J J I I , I I III
nun. , ,n
R 1-~ ,A I! I ~
I ~
~ Ii
:r I; I-
~ .- ". ~- ...
UJ 1
CI
UJ >-
I.L. ~ I I~ I 'iI' liil 'II fllll IH II~ ]UI ill!l: !Il~iil
z !111~ ~ 11:11 ; md! II ;1~1 II
c .4 !~l~ I i'iU, .H,~. " ',.",
"!:Iit :~I!l !il!! ;~m ,I!. ",~, ,!Nil,l ~ll~iW
., .. I' 11~11 !,~!,l I' l'",
~J' ; ~I ~ i !IIIII i!!lil! I~!II 1",1", !1!~! lilill:illllllll
; _,il!, :!mi ~in I
NE,12TH AVE ~
>:
~
to ~ 2 rI E~ ......
~ .',",
~ p'4J ,
:r
: MA ~ORDF<
IJ./ Si
0
l.U Z
I.L. m
:z C
t1:~ ~ z
Q m ICWW
I ~ -..l
-l
:r:
fl (Il
,BLVD ~lItL~~Il~IAUi~li.aUW-____.__..Il&.ARJ".......wTlIJi:R.I~""'---------------
I I ITIJ ITIDJJ \
z
m
::i
1 :r:
en :
-l
I .
l I
. NE,9TH.AVE J
, J \ ,
\ ,
z ,
I m 1 .
- ::\ I
I 1 1 :r: a
~ (Il
-l
v
LOCATION MAP MARINERS WAY EXHIBIT "A"
~.. r
&,
~
6>
~
~
~
j
~
~
.
j
~
~ ~~~ ~ j j )' ~ p ,~
h~~' I~d~
. ~~. ~ ' ~ ~ ~
-i: ~.~ '5 ; . . . 5 ~ ~
; l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ '
~ l;~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ '~~ ~
" ~~ i ~
~~ ~ ~
2~
"
;!~l III leg-
l;j ~~ ~ !Ii ~~~;
t! ~ 't~' ~ 1111 'I'~
_ ~ <: A I;
f~{i\:'v, l'~ .
~.~"I;I;;;1 ~H~
...~=~~M" Qi~~
~~I~~~" ii~!
~~~~~R> ~~ ..IU
,~ii a ,. - - ~~..
:: s~'> to ,I' ~':!l, ;~~~
P.I! ill :,;",~~ "i, 1'"
I B .~. ~f: f.l, ~~:I
~', ~i ;I~" , ~~~.
~ . ,., '::: Iii
f; i:! ~ I:
nn
~ n ~
n~
~ ~ ~
2 ~ ~
n~
~ . j!
~ . 0
~ ;:
P
l! ~
~ .
~ ~
n
~
"
~
),.
'"
I
<0
~
---.-
'"
~
rii
-<
ia
I I Itl!' I I
I I 'il I I
I I ,: I I
I I 1111 I
I I ,S I I
h I + I---t,
I I i'" I I-
II. r I'~ I :~
I 1,~ I I ~
II U ; I'" I I~
I :'~ I I
I I :\'., I'
I I i,~' I
; I"' I I
II 1"'.1 I
I I I
I
1
1
,
1
1
c,
'"
/
/
--_.-/'
/-----
//
/
/
. /
; /
i (
e I
~ \
\
\
\
\
,,'
'- '--!------
'----/.' -
1---
I
'"
"
"'
l A K C
", 0 R 'H
EXHIBIT "B"
>:
~~
~'"
'" a
Q '"
~n,
~ '"
^i ~
~;;:
'"
I
1--'
I
=- ;~ 7L
j\ /
(1", t " ~), ' ' ,0 ,.~
, I
~.
'i' 'L'
,
The City ofBoylrton Beach
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DMSON
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
TEL: 561-742-6260
FAX: 561-742-6259
EXHIBIT "e"
www.boynton-beach.org
October 29,2003
Mr. Ken Hislop
Mariners Way Homeowners Association
Boynton Beach, Florida
Re: Mariners Way Tiki Hut
MMSP 03-0108
Dear Mr. Hislop:
In response to your request dated October 21, 2003 for the
administrative review and approval of the modifications proposed to
the above-referenced approved site plan, depicting the following:
· Installation of a Tiki Hut building (as depicted on the attached
drawing) .
Please be informed that the proposed changes on the revised plan
date stamped 10/22/03 are ~ "minor" as defined within the Land
Development Regulations, Chapter 4- Site Plan Review. This project
may not continue to be processed by the Building Division as a
permit application.
Be advised that the proposed change requires a Zoning Code Variance
for the encroachment into the required side yard setback. That
process involves Board and Commission action above and beyond staff
interaction. The applicant must also demonstrate a hardship in
complying with the City's development regulations associated with the
construction of your project. Please contact me at (561) 742-6260 if
you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Principal Planner
Cc: Karen Main, Plan Review Analyst
Documentl
EXHIBIT "0"
5. Statement ofspeciM'co'nditions, hardships or reasons iustifylllg\.h"; requested exception or variance.
Respond to six (6) questions below (A-F) on a separate sheet.
A. That special conditions and circllm'Stances exist which are veculiar to the land. structw'e or buildin$! involved and which are
not aov/icable to other lands. structw'es or buildings in the same zoni1l1! district;
We are planning to build a tiki hut and bathroom in the pool area for the safety and convenience of
homeowners. The community comprises thirty-two townhouses, and the pool is smalL There are no
shade trees. The 40' setback was intended for the roadway and turnaround which is contiguous to the
pooL The homes adjacent are single family.
B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the QfJTJ/icant.
When Manatee Cove was constructed in 1986 Code did not require a bathroom at the pooL Now, a
variance is necessary for us to bring it up to code mandated by Florida Building Code, Chapter
424.1.6.1. sec. exception. Also, the tiki hut is planned to provide shade for pool users since there are no
shade trees there. Both structures benefit the health and welfare of homeowners and guests.
C That wanti1l1! the variance requested will not confer on the aop/icant any svecial privile$!e that is denied by this Ordinance to
other lands. buildings or structw'es in the same zonin$! district.
Other applicants in the zoning district have, in fact, received variances. Eight landowners in the
Harbor Estates have been granted 10' rear setbacks. Two of these, lots #38 and 39, are contiguous to
the pool area of Manatee Cove. Also, Mariners Village, which is across the canal in clear view of our
community, has both a tiki hut and bathroom at the community pooL Our not providing a bathroom
at the pool presents an inconvenience for homeowners; more importantly, it jeopardizes the health of
pool users (Florida Building Code, Chapter 424.1.6.1).
D. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chaoter would deprive the QfJTJlicant of riJlhts common/v enjoyed by other
properties in the same zonin$! district under the terms of the Ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the
QfJTJlicant.
Clearly, variances have been granted to landowners in Harbor Estates to build structures which loom
over our pool area. Also, Manatee Cove homeowners must leave the pool to use rest-rooms at home (a
walk of up to 974 feet); Mariners Village homeowners, on the other hand, have the convenience ofa
restroom at the pooL Protection from the sun, not provided at Manatee Cove, is afforded Mariners
Village in the form of a tiki hut similar to the one we would like to build. Such sun protection is
essential protection for people of all ages who use the pooL
E That the variance wanted is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land. buildi1l1! or structure;
The position of the tiki hut provides shade in an area away from the pool itself: Considering the size
and configuration of the pool area, road! turnaround, and the water pipes, there are no other places to
construct the bathroom. Thus, the variance requested is the minimum variance to provide a 10' rear
set-back to construct the minimum structure allQwed. by the Florida Access Code, i.e. 5'8" X 5'8".
This will be a unisex bathroom with handicap facilities; it wiD Qbviate a health hazard for pool users.
F. That the wantin$! of the variance will be in harmony with the f(e1leral intent and 1JU17JOSe of this chapter and that such variance
will not be in;urious to the area involved or otherwise detrimtl(llal to the vublic welfare.
The bathroom and tiki hut are necessary for the health and safety of users of the pool. These
structures conform to the intent of the chapter to make the recreation area safe for people
using it while protecting the environment; it does not interfere in any way with the well-being
of neighbors or any other members of the public. Also, the design and color conform to that
of the townhouses and will blend aesthetically.
EXHIBIT "E"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Mariner's Way
File number: ZNCV 04-001
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/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: None
ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments:
1. To be determined.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined.
S :\Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\Mariners Way\ZNCV 04-001 \COA,doc
S:\Planning\Planning Templates\Condition of Approval 2 page -P&D ORA 2003 form,doc