REVIEW COMMENTS
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 05-120
STAFF REPORT
To:
Chair and Members
Community Redevelopment Agency Board and City Commission
Through:
Michael Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
Eric Lee Johnson, AICP <.... ? 2-d--
Planner ()
From:
Meeting
Date:
July 12, 2005
File No: ZNCV 05-002
Location: 2623 Lake Drive North (Lots 33 & 34 in Lakeside Gardens)
Owner: Mr. John Trach
Project: Solid-roof screened enclosure addition to a single-family detached home on a parcel
zoned R-1-AA.
Request: Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter
2, Zoning, Section 5.C.2, regulating the maximum lot coverage, to increase the maximum
lot coverage from 35% to 38.5% for a single-family residence within the R-1-AA Single-
family Residential zoning district.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is comprised of two (2) lots, zoned R-1-AA, single-family residential (see Exhibit
"A" - Location Map). They are located on the east side of Lake Drive North, just south of the
intersection of Lake Drive North and Dimick Road. The lots were platted on January 22, 1922 as part of
the Lakeside Gardens subdivision. Both lots combined form a single parcel that is dimensioned 47 feet
in width and 161.93 feet in depth. The parcel and the existing house do not conform to the current R-1-
AA zoning district regulations.
On October 24, 2001, the owner was given a building permit to demolish most of the old house and
reconstruct a new/larger one in its place. It is believed that the original house was built in i:1959. This
allowed the property owner to reconstruct the legal non-conforming house. Subsequently, on March 16,
2005, the property owner submitted a permit application to the Building Division to construct a solid-roof
screened enclosure to the rear of the newly built house. This covered patio, according to the survey,
would be 8.67 feet by 33.33 feet, or approximately 289 square feet. The intent of the property owner is
to add a second story balcony to overlook the Intracoastal Waterway. However, it was never approved
due to it exceeding the zoning district's maximum allowable lot coverage (see Exhibit "B"). The required
building setbacks of the R-1-AA zoning district are as follows:
· Front and Rear setback: 25 feet;
· Side setback: 7.5 feet if lot is platted prior to June 13, 1975
· Maximum Lot Coverage: 35%
Page 2
2623 Lake Drive North Variance
File No. ZNCV 05-002
The maximum lot coverage of the R-1-AA zoning district is 35%. The proposed lot coverage, as a result
of the requested permit for the solid roof screen enclosure, would be 38.5%. Therefore, as depicted on
the survey, this addition would exceed the allowable lot coverage by 3.5%, thereby generating the
subject request. Mr. Jeff Tomberg, agent for the property owner (Mr. John Trach) submitted the
variance request on April 20, 2005 (see Exhibit "C"). As of today, this office has not received any letters
of support or denial by the neighboring property owners.
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.
Staff conducted the analysis focusing primarily on items "a", "b", 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. Additionally, the criteria
require 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.
With regards to the applicant's response to criteria ''a''and ''b'; no circumstances appear to be peculiar
to the land on which this variance is being sought. The applicant is clearly the one who desires approval
for the covered area over the existing patio of his two (2) story home. Therefore, staff does not concur
with the applicant's justification that special conditions and circumstances exist, related to lot
configuration, which are not the result of actions by the applicant. Based on this information staff has
found no evidence of a hardship. The applicant claims that their contractor informed them that he (the
contractor) was bonded and insured, and that the building permit (#05-1543) to erect the solid-roof
enclosure / balcony was approved. While it is unfortunate to have this miscommunication between the
two parties, the response is not pertinent to an argument that there are no special circumstances or
actions caused by the property owner. This is, in fact, a self-created hardship due to negligence on the
part of the property owner, thereby representing a special privilege to just the current property owner of
the variance were approved. Despite the responses by the applicant, a variance is to be granted on the
basis of a hardship, which is established by characteristics other than those created by the landowner, or
previous owner(s) as a result of various site improvements or alterations. The emphasis of criteria "a",
Page 3
2623 Lake Drive North Variance
File No. ZNCV 05-002
"b", or "c", in order to justify a hardship, is based upon natural or unique limitations relative to other
properties within the neighborhood or similarly zoned. Staff does not concur with the applicant's
arguments (Exhibit "0'1 related to special privileges. Denial of this variance request would not deprive
the applicant of the rights already enjoyed by others owning standard sized lots within this subdivision.
Therefore, criteria "c"and "d"are not satisfied.
Criterion "e" above considers if the request is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable
use of the property. The property is currently improved with a 2-story home including a 2-car garage,
and patio and swimming pool. The footprint of the structure is 2,761 square feet, significantly in excess
of the minimum living area for the R-1-AA zoning district (1,500 sq. ft.). Therefore, it is the opinion of
staff that "reasonable use" of the land has been achieved, and therefore the variance is not necessary
according to criterion "e". Although the subject improvements may be less in value than other properties
similarly located along the Intracoastal Waterway, which is due to land values, attributes of waterfront
properties, and personal choice, the applicant has not substantiated the position that "reasonable" use
cannot be attained without the subject variance.
Regarding the intent of the zoning regulation, and impacts on adjacent properties, staff acknowledges
that if the standard building envelope (and likewise for solid-roof screened enclosures or extended
balconies) are expanded closer to property lines, the impacts on adjacent properties can include reduced
light, air flow, and views. However, this is not necessarily the case with this particular request, because
the requested expansion of approximately 289 square feet is at the rear of the home, facing the
Intracoastal Waterway. This 8.67 foot extension to the rear of the home should have little if any impact
on light, air flow, or views to the neighboring properties, looking directly out onto the waterway. While it
may be difficult to say that the request is detrimental to the public welfare, it is equally difficult to say
that the request is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the zoning code.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5,C.2, to allow an increase
in the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 38.5% for a single-family residence within the R-1-AA zoning
district, be denied due to the lack of traditional hardship, and due to the circumstances not being
peculiar to the lot itself.
Staff is supportive of residential redevelopment and associated improvements and 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
improvements, and characteristics of or impact upon surrounding properties. For these reasons, staff
also offers the following information for consideration:
1. The Land Development Regulations (LOR's) are in the process of modification to encourage
reasonable home improvements and expansions. Previously, both the Planning and Development
Board and the Community Redevelopment Agency Board reviewed the proposed residential
development regulations and recommended their approval to the City Commission. The City
Commission approved the code amendments on 1st reading at their July 5th meeting. The
applicant's request would fall within these regulations, which would allow up to 45% maximum
lot coverage; and
2. The subject request is minimal relative to the magnitude of physical improvements on the site;
the balcony and enclosure that would extend out from the rear of the home 8.67 feet and cover
approximately 289 square feet of an existing patio.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECfS\2623 Lake Drive North\Staff Report.doc
Exhloit 'A' - Location IVrap
40 20 0
I
40
80
120
160
I Feet
..'
Jun 27 05 11:48a
Universal Surve~ing S~ste 561-736-0908
EXHIBIT B
PBTZfV1 IT IV{).. 02-'/4-Z~
~CJ J./. 7\1 I lLA..e \-t
L..-la '23:, LA.-Iut:?.. n fL 1J.
56 'I 1\..JTI) ^-J ~H
SITE & BUILDING DATA
ADDRESS OF PR.OI"ERiYr TRAGH RESIDENCE
2623 LAKE DR. NORTH
OO'1'NfON eeAC.H. Fl..
51'TE CAI..GUl..A nONS:
&I're~
LOT~
6UILDfNe FOOTPRINTS
I.AND5CAPE APv.
DRIVEJliAY AND
FRONT HAL.K5
POOL. AND REAR DECK.
TOTAL
FLOOR AAJ:A. RA no
FIRST F1.OOR N<V.
5EWND F1.OOR AAE.A
0Ttf:R Fl.OOR AREA
TOTAL
',e~ $G. FT.
,~ 5Gl. FT.
:35~ OF 51'TE
233 OF SITE
p.2
l'-=fr 6'-8'
-~
\<401 $G. FT.
n.~ OF 51'TE
IQ06 5Gl. FT.
:24.1~ OF SITE
i,6~ SG. FT.
I~
2,n6 SG. FT.
2"""1 5Gl. Fr.
i4S fiG. FT.
5402 5Gl. FT.
6e..~ OF S/'TE
{,~._.[}.,W..C. ~ fn1
!~L~@
OU'AFlrM[NT OF ()EV
---~
06/28/2005 16:22
561734pCl71
Jun 27 05 U:4S.
" ..ni vel" 'l II I
PROPER7Y ADDRE'?'?:
2'-2;\ L..oklt 0.;." Newlh
""""tl)Tl ee""t" F'1~ri.u
n.."s
FL.OCD ZONE:
ZOM.' 'A-'.
w.~tv ,.. dI,c1 No.
17.00Q" 0004 C
'='crtcm~c!(' }O, /<162
JEFF TOMBERG, J-~~
SUl"ve::li.." Sl:I!l.te 5S1-7:ilGl-090d""
...-..-,,----. .
VIG~1ity M/lp
PAGE
EXHIBIT B
03
COI.N)A!:Y "'UR'VEY
Prcp",,-cJ For:
JOHN TRACH
z,z~ ~AKe O~lve NO~TH
e>OYNTON Ol:ACH.
F~IOA
~H~$
:: ...
"~
~
i ,p'~
:: II
~ ..... .
~ ~..
R;., ...
... ...
~~ 3
z
f
II
r'"f
=:~ 8~
:;
N:UZ
.........
! ~
f
,,,.
i
!
i.
.. ..
NoI T. '!lcoIo
NO~fH
LOT foRf:.^ .. 7"12'1 ~Q FT -I" :;:; I<;;'O"Q
I1:LG:)6t FOurP2l1lff Z7bJ/"I ~4-S~~
tIttD'Pll::>G'b COO V '0. PI"> Tl CI
fii,,.7'k ~;.;'S ~ z.'Oio.q.,~::; ~~
"38.49 .'10
Te,>,
~GIlOI.Nl lJT II. IT fC'll WCa.: rcr
L..OCA CX~~I"T II'> ~.
% I't!ICI!lN WERE N(1T
. ~TR,ac; 0 IC EP/ t,ENT,>
1C1clt!T.",.....4V';. oll-t,
..IMIl-AIII W.TTE~ Of' r.r;:t;.f.IE .
~, n..r.vAT ION') AICE Nb,T 1011I61_ 6EODETlC
VE,",lc.<lI,. 04TLN at'1 'lH.
... flWINIl'> AilE: PA'lCP nN ~ we.,r ICIW L..11E
01' L^,,~ ';>IOC L'>~IY!. ^'~ TO Dl!4P.
N 00 00'00' E.
~. ~T III"" Itoo fW) eAr \.M.5"J ~~
(.. ~1T;<J rl:orU)fp I.OT \!IP.-=,
7. OEN:lTe-, EXI"m~ I.CIT ~~.
L.!!0fN:>,
D -D~D
r . n.AT
T' - r lI:Ll'
A\O. . FOl.Nl
r;(lfIlC;. . C(NC;~l:Te
E\... . eI.EVAT'~
~o .. NAIl. t o,~
1(1"1 - P.I~HT (1(' WAY
'>.e!. . 'JOt,IT~ ElE\-1..
IP-tt: - 11e0N t(Jt) t (.1\1'
I).E. . IIrll..tTY E4';E!ENT
N4TT . NAIl.- /Ik) TIN loA!'
M,t:. - MAINT1!N.wC1!! E~NT
FP'L - FL./lll: ID^ rOWl!( , 1.16H1'
".,f.r.- r~ r~~~ rOINT
Q!) . "ATEIII !>ETEP.
~ .-~~
t.SddL. ~t:U.TlCN:
~..;r&!.~-t::F~)l.-~rn'M!i'fJ:H~~rJ,~~~A~..
~1"'91"'" 1lI:COIlDa:> IN lH: 0l'T'1C!! Of' M a.eIlI: t1I' _ "Il:WfT GDUP.T IN
=~PIl~~~~~g^~ ::It'Li'8''M ~t~~~~I~
EVI~ ""err AftA "'m.'~
""'~ Wt'O:P r""ul ,alP.."
r II'W. ~IMy '" -(/C-In
1:),,11 eU!1~ee fl1G.
P.O. Box Z 4 ,88 7
Boynton BBIlG.h,
Florid", ;)'424-'887
5(;;1-7;12.-7877
0..,. 1/ ~~~
~"..o{/'o
.fJ'
16.J!
T'~
,.
T)oP.'~"--t~",,~....,.rlll'''''''''''''''''' II... "~~~P"'J'If6~I.~
~~"=:J:.~~ /"::::.'-:~":'-:':;.="'7:'::1;=~~~~ ~
f"r......J in "'" OIilu .1 II", ..........,....
:l;l:l e.~t 5.l1~~..... 1:)""'0....", lSlo,.,tQn f)~lOC;h, F!"ri.d.l ~''''';)5
LAW OFFICES OF
JEFF TOMBERG, J.D., P.A.
P.O. Box 1426
626 S.E. 4th Street
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
EXHIBIT C
Jeff Tomberg
Board Certified Civil
Trial Lawyer
June 28, 2005
(561) 732-6488
(561) 737-1345
FAX: (561) 734-8971
e-mail: piatty@yahoo.com
Mr. Ed Breeze
City of Boynton Beach
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Fax and mail transmission: 742-6259
Re: John Trach
Dear Ed:
The building footprint including the proposed covered patio totals 38.49%
of the lot area. The code permits 35%; so we are asking for a 3.49% lot
coverage variance.
A copy of the survey and site and building data is enclosed.
JeT/ah
enc.
cc: Mr. Trach
Very truly yours,
~BERG
(Dictated by Jeff Tomberg. Signed in his absence to avoid delay.)
(0)1 ~ @ ~ II WI ~ @
tnJ JUN 3 0 2005 ~
I
I
.r~_i:.~!nMENT OF OEVELOPMENl
EXHIBIT 0
Application for variance of John Trach
Statement of Special Conditions:
A. The special conditions and circumstances which exist peculiar to land structure
of building which are not applicable to the land is that the applicant seeks to
square off his building as set forth in the proposal under his survey, to extend the
covered patio over the patio of his two-story residence.
B. The special conditions and circumstances result from the failure of the contractor
retained by the applicant to pull a permit. The contractor claimed to be licensed,
bonded and insured, and assured the applicant that he had pulled the permit
necessary to erect a covered patio extension.
C. The granting of the variance requested will not confer on applicant any special
privilege denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures. Applicant
believes that the variance would be consistent with changes currently being
proposed by ordinance as to lot coverage, for the applicant seeks only to extend
a balcony and is not enclosing the patio.
D. The literal interpretation of this chapter would cause applicant unnecessary and
undue hardship. Lot coverage issues should not be included as this is an open
area balcony that is being extended and not enclosed.
E. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the building as contemplated by the owner.
F. The granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and
purpose of this chapter and would not be injurious to the area involved otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare in that it is simply a covering over of the patio
and will provide the applicant with a sheltered area to enjoy his pool area in the
event of rain.
G. Not applicable.
EXHIBIT "E"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: 2623 Lake Drive North
File number: ZNCV 05-002
Reference'
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
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
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
Comments:
1. To be determined.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
2. To be determined.
S:IPlanningISHARED\WPIPROJECTS\2623 Lake Drive NorthlCOA.doc
S;IPlanninglPlanning TemplateslCondition of Approval 2 page -P&D ORA 2003 form.doc