DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BRIEFING August 17, 2016

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BRIEFING August 17, 2016 REQUEST: Three (3) Variance requests to allow a single family residence to be constructed with front and side setbacks less than the code required minimum: Variance 1 A Variance request to allow a single family residence to be constructed with a front yard setback of 25 feet instead of the required setback of 40 feet. Variance 2 A Variance request to allow a single family residence to be constructed with a north side setback of 7.5 feet instead of the required setback of 10 feet. Variance 3 A Variance request to allow a single family residence to be constructed with a south side setback of 7.5 feet instead of the required setback of 10 feet. CASE NO: , , and DATE OF BRIEFING: August 2, 2016 Summary of Request This request, if granted, would allow a single family residence at 191 South Atlantic Avenue to be reconstructed with a front yard setback of 25 feet and a north and south side setback of 7.5 feet for each side. The required setbacks, as listed within the Cocoa Beach Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter III Design Standards, Table 3.01A (Attachment F), require a front yard setback of 40 feet for homes along SR A1A and side yard setbacks of 10 feet on each side. The subject property was platted in 1924 as a 50 foot wide by 250 foot long odd-shaped lot, and has almost 100 feet of property that is unbuildable due to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) building setback restrictions. Currently located on the subject property is a legal nonconforming residence built in 1969, which the property owner plans to raze and rebuild. Because the property is located along the coast, FDEP permitting, in addition to City building permitting is required. In 2015 the property owner arranged for the architectural and engineering design of a new residence that would be built in compliance with all regulations in place at the time. Submittal of an FDEP permit application occurred in September 2015, and FDEP made a later request for more documents, and completion of the submittal was confirmed by the state agency on February 8, The FDEP permit was issued on May 2, 2016, and a City building permit was applied for on May 27, On March 3, 2016, between the dates FDEP permitting was applied for and when the permit was issued, the City approved a revised LDC, and residential setback requirements for the subject parcel changed from 7.5 feet to 10 feet for each side, and from 25 feet to 40 feet for the front. Therefore, the completed design and the City building permit application request is now out of compliance with current LDC regulations, but a redesign would require the applicant to arrange for new architectural and engineering designs and, because FDEP permits are very specific about building placement and dimensions, another FDEP permit application submittal, and another City building permit application submittal would be required. The specifics of the variance request and findings of facts have been detailed below.

2 Applicant: Dimitrois Kaptis, Agent for Vanessa Deese, Owner Location: 191 South Atlantic Avenue Zoning: Single Family Residential (RS-1) Land Use: Low Density Residential Acreage: 0.29 A. Specific Variance Request The applicant is requesting a variance to Cocoa Beach LDC Chapter III, Article II Schedule of Lot Dimensional Design Standards, Table 3.01A, which is provided in Attachment F, to construct a single family residence with reduced front and side setbacks, as follows: Variance 1 ( ) is requesting a front yard setback of 25 feet, instead of the required front yard setback of 40 feet. Variance 2 ( ) is requesting a north side setback of 7.5 feet, instead of the required side setback of 10 feet. Variance 3 ( ) is requesting a south side setback of 7.5 feet, instead of the required side setback of 10 feet. The justifications for the request are listed below. Residential redevelopment of the subject parcel was designed in compliance with the previous LDC requirements, but there was a delay in the building permit submittal as FDEP permitting was pending. Final approval of the revised LDC occurred between the time that FDEP permitting was applied for and the approval. This property was platted in 1924 at 50 feet by 250 feet, and as such restricts the available width to site a residence. The buildable area of this parcel is restricted to the east by FDEP building setback regulations. Attachments: Attachment A Site Vicinity Aerial Attachment B Application and Letter of Intent Attachment C Concept Site Plan Attachment D Photograph Attachment E Neighboring Properties with Structures at 25 Foot Front Setback Attachment F LDC Referenced Section B1. Variance 1 Findings of Fact for Review: The Board must find the application meets the following variance criteria, according to LDC Chapter IV Article IV Section 4-39C: 1. The Board of Adjustment is empowered, under the Section of the LDC regulations described in the application to grant the variance. The request is for a variance to allow a single family residence to be reconstructed with a front setback of 25 feet instead of the required 40 feet, as stated in LDC Table 3.01A. According to LDC Section 1-40B, the Board is empowered to consider this type of variance request.

3 2. 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 district. The design, within City code compliance, for the rebuild of a residence on the subject property occurred and FDEP coastal construction permitting was applied for during the time that the previous LDC was in effect, but an FDEP permit was not issued until after the revised LDC was adopted. This is a condition peculiar to this situation and not applicable to other properties within the same district. 3. The literal interpretation and strict application of the LDC regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the LDC regulations. The applicant arranged for the design of a residential redevelopment that was in compliance with City and FDEP regulations, but the processing time occurred during the time that City codes were being revised. The strict application of current LDC regulations would place an undue burden on the property owner to begin the design and regulatory agency permitting processes all over again. 4. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The setbacks for the subject property changed as a result of the revision of the City s LDC, which occurred after the applicant had applied for FDEP approval for a coastal construction permit. These are actions that occurred outside of the control of the applicant. 5. Granting the variance will not give the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the LDC regulations to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The granting of this variance would allow the applicant to share in the same privileges provided to other property owners within the same district, who given these same circumstances, would go through or already have gone through, this same variance approval process in order to build a residence that was designed under the previous LDC but did not receive final FDEP permitting approval until after adoption of the current LDC. 6. The reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The property owner is attempting to construct a residence that complies with all FDEP and City regulations and requirements. Unfortunately, City building setback requirements changed before FDEP approval was finalized. This is the minimum variance that will provide the owner the ability to construct a residence without the requirement to incur additional time and expenses to arrange for architectural and engineering redesign and resubmittal of an FDEP permit application. 7. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the LDC regulations and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence that will be a significant improvement to the current property value, and the granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the LDC regulations and will not be injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood or public welfare.

4 C1. Public Comment As of the date of this staff report, this office has not received any public comments. D1. Sample Form Motions: Motion to Approve Variance 1: In Case No (Variance 1), I move to approve the variance request to LDC Chapter III, Table 3.01A, to allow a single family residence to be constructed with a front setback of 25 feet instead of the required 40 feet, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a building permit within two years of the date of this decision or the variance will expire. 2. This variance approval does not grant the applicant an undeniable right to a building permit; all other Federal, State and Local regulations remain in full force and effect. Motion to Deny Variance 1: In Case No (Variance 1), I move to deny the variance request due to the fact that the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that all standards required by LDC Chapter IV Section 4-39C, to grant a variance have been met. B2. Variance 2 Findings of Fact for Review: The Board must find the application meets the following variance criteria, according to LDC Chapter IV Article IV Section 4-39C: 1. The Board of Adjustment is empowered, under the Section of the LDC regulations described in the application to grant the variance. The request is for a variance to allow a single family residence to be constructed with a north side setback of 7.5 feet instead of the required 10 feet, as stated in LDC Table 3.01A. According to LDC Section 1-40B, the Board is empowered to consider this type of variance request. 2. 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 district. The design, within City code compliance, for the rebuild of a residence on the subject property occurred and FDEP coastal construction permitting was applied for during the time that the previous LDC was in effect, but an FDEP permit was not issued until after the revised LDC was adopted. This is a condition peculiar to this situation and not applicable to other properties within the same district. 3. The literal interpretation and strict application of the LDC regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the LDC regulations. The applicant arranged for the design of a residential redevelopment that was in compliance with City and FDEP regulations, but the processing time occurred during the time that City codes were being revised. The strict application of current LDC regulations would place an

5 undue burden on the property owner to begin the design and regulatory agency permitting processes all over again. 4. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The setbacks for the subject property changed as a result of the revision of the City s LDC, which occurred after the applicant had applied for FDEP approval for a coastal construction permit. These are actions that occurred outside of the control of the applicant. 5. Granting the variance will not give the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the LDC regulations to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The granting of this variance would allow the applicant to share in the same privileges provided to other property owners within the same district, who given these same circumstances, would go through or already have gone through, this same variance approval process in order to build a residence that was designed under the previous LDC but did not receive final FDEP permitting approval until after adoption of the current LDC. 6. The reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The property owner is attempting to construct a residence that complies with all FDEP and City regulations and requirements. Unfortunately, City building setback requirements changed before FDEP approval was finalized. This is the minimum variance that will provide the owner the ability to construct a residence without the requirement to incur additional time and expenses to arrange for architectural and engineering redesign and resubmittal of an FDEP permit application. 7. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the LDC regulations and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence that will be a significant improvement to the current property value, and the granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the LDC regulations and will not be injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood or public welfare. C2. Public Comment As of the date of this staff report, this office has not received any public comments. D2. Sample Form Motions: Motion to Approve Variance 2: In Case No (Variance 2), I move to approve the variance request to LDC Chapter III, Table 3.01A, to allow a single family residence to be constructed with a north side setback of 7.5 feet instead of the required 10 feet, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a building permit within two years of the date of this decision or the variance will expire. 2. This variance approval does not grant the applicant an undeniable right to a building permit; all other Federal, State and Local regulations remain in full force and effect.

6 Motion to Deny Variance 2: In Case No (Variance 2), I move to deny the variance request due to the fact that the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that all standards required by LDC Chapter IV Section 4-39C, to grant a variance have been met. B3. Variance 3 Findings of Fact for Review: The Board must find the application meets the following variance criteria, according to LDC Chapter IV Article IV Section 4-39C: 1. The Board of Adjustment is empowered, under the Section of the LDC regulations described in the application to grant the variance. The request is for a variance to allow a single family residence to be constructed with a south side setback of 7.5 feet instead of the required 10 feet, as stated in LDC Table 3.01A. According to LDC Section 1-40B, the Board is empowered to consider this type of variance request. 2. 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 district. The design, within City code compliance, for the rebuild of a residence on the subject property occurred and FDEP coastal construction permitting was applied for during the time that the previous LDC was in effect, but an FDEP permit was not issued until after the revised LDC was adopted. This is a condition peculiar to this situation and not applicable to other properties within the same district. 3. The literal interpretation and strict application of the LDC regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the LDC regulations. The applicant arranged for the design of a residential redevelopment that was in compliance with City and FDEP regulations, but the processing time occurred during the time that City codes were being revised. The strict application of current LDC regulations would place an undue burden on the property owner to begin the design and regulatory agency permitting processes all over again. 4. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The setbacks for the subject property changed as a result of the revision of the City s LDC, which occurred after the applicant had applied for FDEP approval for a coastal construction permit. These are actions that occurred outside of the control of the applicant. 5. Granting the variance will not give the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the LDC regulations to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The granting of this variance would allow the applicant to share in the same privileges provided to other property owners within the same district, who given these same circumstances, would go through or already have gone through, this same variance approval process in order to build a residence that was designed under the previous LDC but did not receive final FDEP permitting approval until after adoption of the current LDC.

7 6. The reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The property owner is attempting to construct a residence that complies with all FDEP and City regulations and requirements. Unfortunately, City building setback requirements changed before FDEP approval was finalized. This is the minimum variance that will provide the owner the ability to construct a residence without the requirement to incur additional time and expenses to arrange for architectural and engineering redesign and resubmittal of an FDEP permit application. 7. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the LDC regulations and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence that will be a significant improvement to the current property value, and the granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the LDC regulations and will not be injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood or public welfare. C3. Public Comment As of the date of this staff report, this office has not received any public comments. D3. Sample Form Motions: Motion to Approve Variance 3: In Case No (Variance 3), I move to approve the variance request to LDC Chapter III, Table 3.01A, to allow a single family residence to be constructed with a south side setback of 7.5 feet instead of the required 10 feet, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a building permit within two years of the date of this decision or the variance will expire. 2. This variance approval does not grant the applicant an undeniable right to a building permit; all other Federal, State and Local regulations remain in full force and effect. Motion to Deny Variance 3: In Case No (Variance 3), I move to deny the variance request due to the fact that the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that all standards required by LDC Chapter IV Section 4-39C, to grant a variance have been met.

8 ATTACHMENT A Site Vicinity Aerial

9 ATTACHMENT B Application

10 Letter of Intent

11 ATTACHMENT C Concept Site Plan

12 ATTACHMENT D Photograph

13 ATTACHMENT E Bold Red Line 25 foot setback line Red Bordered Parcels homes setback at 25 feet or less Yellow Bordered Parcel 191 South Atlantic Avenue

14 LDC Chapter III Table 3.01A ATTACHMENT F SCHEDULE OF DIMENSIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS TABLE 3.01A DISTRICT FRONT SIDE AND STREET SIDE REAR RS-1 25 ft. Front setbacks from all streets except State Routes 520, A1A, South Banana River and Ocean Beach Boulevards, where front setbacks shall be 40 ft. Side is 10 ft. and street side is 15 ft. from local streets and 20 ft. from all other streets and 25 ft. from State Routes 520 and A1A and Ocean Beach and South Banana River Boulevards. 15 ft. or Coastal Construction setback line on oceanfront property. RM-1 Same as RS-1 Same as RS-1. Same as RS-1. RM-2 and RM-2A Same as RS-1 Side is 15 ft. and street side is 20 ft. from local streets and 20 ft. from all other streets and 25 ft. from State Routes 520 and A1A and Ocean Beach and South Banana River Boulevards. CT-1 Same as RS-1 Same as RM-2 and RM-2A.. All buildings exceeding 45 ft. in height shall have an additional side setback of 5 ft. on each side for the lot for each additional 10 ft. or fraction thereof of building height exceeding 45 ft, as governed by the tallest building on the lot. Same as RS ft. or Coastal Construction setback line on oceanfront property. CN Same as RS-1. Same as CT-1. Same as CT-1. CG Same as RS-1. Same as CT-1. Same as CT-1. B-1 NONE PS-1 NONE LDC Chapter I Section 1-40.B B. The Board of Adjustment is the quasi-judicial Board that hears and decides on variances (other than for height and density), special exceptions and appeals to administrative staff determinations and other certain appeals as required.