palm beach county planning, zoning and ...2015/04/05 · zc april 02, 2015 page 118 application no....

ZC April 02, 2015 18 Application No. ZV-2014- 02498 BCC District 05 Control No. 1984-00139

PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

ZONING DIVISION

ZONING COMMISSION VARIANCE STAFF REPORT

April 02, 2015

APPLICATION NO. CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE ZV-2014- 02498 V1

7.F.3.A Walls and fences with a continuous footer shall be setback a minimum of ten feet from the edge of the property line. 10 feet (ft.)

Allow fence to be located on the property line.

Eliminate the ten foot setback for a fence.

V2 7.F.3.B A minimum of 75 percent of required trees shall be located between the exterior of the fence facing adjacent property, Shrubs or hedges shall be installed on both sides of the facing adjacent property.

Allow 100 percent of the landscape material to be located on the inside of the fence.

Increase of 25 percent of the landscape material to be located on the inside of the fence.

V3 5.B.1.A.2.e The maximum height for a fence in a landscape buffer shall be six feet on residential property.

Allow a maximum height of eight (8) feet along the south property lines.

Increase of two feet for the height of a fence.

SITUS ADDRESS: 9599 Donna Klein Boulevard. (Access is from Central Park Boulevard North)

AGENT NAME & ADDRESS:

Land Design South, INC. - Lindsay Libes 400 Columbia Drive, Suite 110 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409

OWNER NAME & ADDRESS:

Jewish Community Facilities Corp 9599 Donna Klein Boulevard Boca Raton, Florida 33428

PCN: 00-42-47-19-23-001-0000 S/T/R: 19-42-47 BCC DISTRICT: 05 PROJECT MANAGER:

Hank Flores, AICP - Site Planner II

LEGAL AD:

ZV-2014-02498 Title: Resolution approving a Type II Variance application of Jewish Community Facilities Corp by Land Design South, Inc, Agent. Request: to allow an increase in fence height; allow the fence on the property line; and, allow the landscape material to be located on the inside of the fence. General Location: Southeast of Glades Road; east of State Road 7

ZONING DISTRICT: Residential Transitional Suburban (RTS)

ZC April 02, 2015 Page 119 Application No. ZV-2014- 02498 BCC District 05 Control No. 1984-00139

LAND USE: High Residential (HR-12) CONTROL #: 1984-00139 LOT AREA: 24.32 acres +/- LOT DIMENSIONS: 616.18 feet (Width/frontage) by 931.35 feet (Depth) CONFORMITY OF LOT:

Yes CONFORMITY OF ELEMENT:

N/A

TYPE OF ELEMENT:

Fence ELEMENT SIZE: Proposed construction

BUILDING PERMIT #:

N/A NOTICE OF VIOLATION:

N/A

CONSTRUCTION STATUS:

Proposed Construction

APPLICANT REQUEST:

To allow an increase in fence height; allow the fence to be located on the property line; and allow the landscape material to be located on the inside of the fence.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requests subject to 6 Conditions of Approval as indicated in Exhibit C. PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY: At the time of publication, Staff had received 0 contacts from the public regarding this project. ________________________________________________________________________________ STAFF SUMMARY Proposed are three Type II Variances for Rainberry PUD. The development was last approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on May 22, 2012, to modify the Master Plan, reconfigure the Site Plan, and modify and delete Conditions of Approval granted through Resolution No. R-2012-0778. The Applicant is requesting three Type II Variances to allow an increase in fence height; allow the fence to be located on the property line; and, allow the landscape material to be located on the inside of the fence. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses NORTH: FLU Designation: Medium Residential (MR-5) Zoning District: Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Supporting: Vacant PUD Civic Parcels (Ponte Verde, Control No 1997-00056) SOUTH: FLU Designation: Medium Residential (MR-5) Zoning District: Residential Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Supporting: Rainberry Park (Control No. 1983-00057) EAST: FLU Designation: High Residential (HR-8) Zoning District: Residential Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Supporting: Outdoor Recreation (Tennis Courts) (Rainberry PUD, Control No 1984-00139) FLU Designation: High Residential (HR-8) Zoning District: Residential Suburban (RS) Supporting: Boca Lago Country Club Golf Course (Control No. 1973-00036) WEST: FLU Designation: High Residential (HR-8) Zoning District: Residential Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Supporting: Multiple Family Residential Development (Rainberry PUD, Control No 1984-00139) FLU Designation: High Residential (HR-12)


Zoning District: Specialized Commercial High (CSH) Supporting: Nursing Home (Rainberry of West Boca Medical Center (Menorah House) Control No 1983-00056) PROJECT HISTORY: Application No. Request Resolution Approval Date 1984-00139 Rezoning from Agricultural Residential

(AR) Zoning District to Residential Multiple Family (RM) Zoning District.

R-1985-279 February 19, 1985

1984-00139

Special Exception to allow a Planned Unit Development.

R-1985-280 February 19, 1985

1984-00139 (A) Rezoning from Agricultural Residential (AR) Zoning District to Residential Multiple Family (RM) Zoning District.

R-1989-750 October 29, 1987

1984-00139 (A) Special Exception for the overall PUD to amend and expand the Master Plan for Rainberry PUD, to 1) increase the acreage; and 2) to redesign the Site Plan.

R-1989-751 October 29, 1987

1984-00139(B) Special Exception for the overall PUD to amend the Master Plan and to designate retirement housing as conventional housing and to abandon the Nursing Care Facility.

R-1992-183 October 24, 1991

1984-00139(C) Development Order Amendment for the Overall PUD to increase density (413 to 461 units) and to amend Condition E 3.8.

R-1993-1359 October 28, 1993

1984-00139 (D) DOA in Pods A, B, and C (only) to increase acreage (+53.5 acres) and to allow three requested uses: 4 private schools (elementary & secondary), a Type III Congregate Living Facility (CLF), and an adult day care facility, and an Official Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning) from the Agricultural Residential (AR) Zoning District to the Residential Transitional Suburban (RTS) Zoning District.

R-1995-1321.14 R-1995-1321.13

September 28, 1995

1984-00139(E) DOA to increase building square footage (+60,000); to decrease number of students (-116); and to allow a 200 children daycare center (Requested Use) in the Private Civic (Pod C).

R-1996-645 May 23, 1996

1984-00139 (F) DOA for the Rainberry PUD Pods A & B (only) to amend Master Plan; to increase adult daycare square footage (+2,140); to increase number of JARC units (+5); to reduce high school students (-65); and to add assembly, nonprofit institutional (+15,360 sq. ft. and 97 JARC students).

R-1996-1953 December 2, 1996

1984-00139(G) DOA for the Rainberry PUD Pods A, B, and C (only) to modify and delete Conditions of Approval; to add JARC units (+2); and to add building square footage,

R-1999-17 January 7, 1999

DOA-2006-00344 DOA for the Rainberry PUD Pods A & B (only) to modify Conditions of Approval.

R-2007-0424 March 22, 2007

SV/ZV-2010-01435 Type II Variances to allow the reduction of frontage required for the Private Civic Pod and to eliminate the frontage required on a collector or arterial street

R-2010-008 July 1, 2010


DOA-2010-00417 DOA for the Rainberry PUD's Master Plan and Site Plan Pod A and B to modify and delete Conditions of Approval (Engineering, Landscaping, Lighting, Building & Site Design and Use Limitations); to add square footage; to reconfigure the Site Plan; and add 3 Requested Uses (Type III CLF, Non-Profit Assembly Institutional use and Nursing or Convalescent Facility) within Pod B.

R-2010-1172; R-2010-1173

July 22, 2010

ZV-2011-000421 Type II Variance to allow a reduction in the number of required parking spaces

ZR-2011-0006 April 7, 2011

ZV/DOA-2011-02350

Type II Variance allow a reduction in the required parking; R2012; to modify the Master Plan, to reconfigure the Site Plans for Pods A and B; to re-designate uses for Pod A; and to modify and delete Conditions of Approval (Use Limitation and Engineering)

ZR-2012-012 May 3, 2012 May 24, 2012

ZV-2013-01840 Type II Variance to allow a reduction in the side setback.

ZR-2013-033 November 7, 2013

Findings of Fact

The Applicant is requesting three (3) Type II Variances to allow an increase in fence height, allow the fence on the property line; and, allow the landscape material to be located on the inside of the fence. Pursuant to Art. 7.F.3.A, fences are required to have a minimum setback of 10 feet from the edge of the property line, Art. 7.F.3.B requires a minimum of 75 percent of the required trees to be located between the exterior of the wall or fence facing adjacent property, and Art. 5.B.1.A.2.e allows a maximum height of six (6) feet for a fence in a landscape buffer. The existing six foot fence is located on the property line and 100 percent of the required trees and shrubs are located on the inside of the fence. The applicant is proposing the reconstruction of the fence in its existing location on the property line with a proposed height of eight (8) feet and 100 percent of the landscape material to be located on the inside of the fence. The subject fence has been located in its current location and was issued a building permit since 2003.

ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.B.3.E VARIANCE STANDARDS When considering a Development Order application for a Type II Variance, the Zoning Commission shall consider Standards 1 through 7 listed under Article 2.B.3.E of the ULDC. The Standards and Staff Analyses are as indicated below. A Type II Variance, which fails to meet any of these Standards, shall be deemed adverse to the public interest and shall not be approved. 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the parcel of land,

building or structure that are not applicable to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district:

V1, V2, and V3 - YES: The overall Rainberry PUD is an approximately 115.47-acre site located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Glades Road and State Road 7. The PUD has access to Glades Road through 95th Avenue, and to State Road 7 through Central Park Boulevard. The Rainberry PUD is divided into six Pods: 3 Residential Podsand 3 Private Civic Pods in a campus-style development with controlled (gated) access. Uses include Multi-Family residential, Type 3 Congregate Living Facility, Nursing/Convelescent Facility, Assembly Nonprofit Institutional, General Daycares (Adult and Children), and Private Schools with accessory uses and offices. Pod D is the subject of the proposed variances and accommodates a day care, recreational facilities, school, family child services center, activity center/auditorium, and administrative offices. Pod D is approximately 19 acres in size and is fully constructed. There is an existing six-foot high fence located on the south property line of Pod D.


To the south of POD D is the Rainberry Park residential development. The purpose of the fence is to screen Pod D from the adjacent property. The request is to reconstruct the existing six-foot fence which currently exists on the property line and increase the height to eight feet. The purpose of the eight foot fence is to provide maximum security, enhance maintenance efficiency, and reduce impacts to adjacent homeowners. Offsetting the fence from the property line would create an issue with lawn maintenance, as a result of having to access the yards of private residences in order to maintain it. By placing the fence on the property line, it would allow 100% the landscape to be internal to the property, eliminating any intrusion into the adjacent homeowner’s private property. 2. Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant: V1, V2, and V3 - YES: Special circumstances and conditions exist for the project, which are not a result of the actions of the Applicant. The proposed eight foot fence would replace an existing six foot fence, which is located on the south property line. The landscape materials are also located within the required buffer. The location of the fence on the property line allows for the maximization of security and minimal impacts to adjacent residential property. On properties with a non-residential zoning district designation, eight foot fences are allowed. The use of this Pod of the Rainberry development is institutional in nature. 3. Granting the variance shall not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied

by the Comprehensive Plan and this code to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district:

V1, V2, and V3 - YES: Granting of the variance does not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Comprehensive Plan and this code to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. The applicant has supported the criteria needed for the grant of the variances, as would be allowed for other parcels in the PUD Zoning District. The requested variance also decreases any incompatibility issues by providing a visual barrier for the neighboring single family development. 4. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Code would

deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels of land in the same zoning district, and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship:

V1, V2, and V3 - YES: The applicant is proposing a reasonable use of the property and the request meets the intent of the Code. The variance request does not negatively impact adjacent property to the south. The variance request improves the quality of the residential and civic campus-style development and will be an asset to the community. The existing fence has been in its current location since 2003 and a building permit was issued for it. 5. Grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable

use of the parcel of land, building, or structure: V1, V2, and V3 - YES: The variance request is the minimum variance to allow a reasonable use of the parcel that complies with the character of the area. The existing site layout does not allow for alternative design options for the relocation of the fence to be within the buffer. Approval of the variances will promote residential quality of life. 6. Grant of the variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and

policies of the Comprehensive Plan and this Code: V1, V2, and V3 - YES: Granting of the variances is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Code. The purpose of the fence is to create a visual and more secure buffer between the Rainberry residential development adjacent to the subject property and Pod D. Granting of this variance will allow the fence to maintain its current location and act as a buffer, while maximizing security and minimizing impact on adjacent property. The request does not have negative impacts on the adjacent residential property. In fact, it provides additional buffering for these properties from the activities at the Rainberry PUD. 7. Granting the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental

to the public welfare:


V1, V2, and V3 - YES: Granting the variances will not be injurous to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The request is compatible with the surrounding area and promotes the residential quality of life and the aesthethic of the campus-style development, as well as providing adjacent property with a buffer from the campus’ activities. Granting this variance will increase security, aesthetics, and minimize impacts on adjacent homeowners.


CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT C Type II Variance - Standalone VARIANCE 1. This approval is granted based on the Preliminary Site and Master Plans dated February 12, 2015. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 2. The Development Order for this non-concurrent Variance shall be valid till April 2, 2016, a period of one year from the date of the Zoning Hearing. The Property Owner must obtain approval for an amendment to the Final Site and Master Plans to vest the Variance approved pursuant to UDLC Table 2.E.3-B-1. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 3. At time of application for a Building Permit, the Property Owner shall provide a copy of this Variance approval along with copies of the approved Amended Site Plan to the Building Division. (BLDGPMT/ONGOING: BUILDING DIVISION - Zoning) 4. In Granting this Approval, the Zoning Commission relied upon the oral and written representations of the Property Owner/Applicant both on the record and as part of the application process. Deviations from or violation of these representations shall cause the approval to be presented to the Planning Commission for review under the compliance Condition of this Approval. 5. Failure to comply with any of the Conditions of Approval for the subject property at any time may result in: a. The Issuance of a Stop Work Order; the Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order; the Denial or Revocation of a Building Permit; the Denial or Revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy; the Denial of any other Permit, License or Approval to any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any other Permit, License or Approval from any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any concurrency; and/or, b. The Revocation of the Official Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or any other Zoning Approval; and/or, c. A requirement of the development to conform with the standards of the Unified Land Development Code at the time of the finding of non-compliance, or the addition or modification of Conditions reasonably related to the failure to comply with existing Conditions; and/or d. Referral to Code Enforcement; and/or e. Imposition of entitlement density or intensity. Staff may be directed by the Executive Director of PZ&B or the Code Enforcement Special Master to schedule a Status Report before the body which approved the Official Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or other zoning approval, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.E of the ULDC, in response to any flagrant violation and/or continued violation of any condition of approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) DISCLOSURE 1. All applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development authorized by this Development Permit.

ZC 04/02/2015 Page 125 Application No. ZV-2014- 02498 BCC District 05 Control No. 1984-00139

Figure 1 -Zoning Map


Figure 2 – Aerial


Figure 3 – Preliminary Site Plan dated February 12, 2015


Figure 4 – Preliminary Master Plan dated February 12, 2015

ZC 04/02/2015 9 Application No. ZV-2014- 02498 BCC District 05 Control No. 1984-00139

Exhibit D - Disclosures

ZC 04/02/2015 0 Application No. ZV-2014- 02498 BCC District 05 Control No. 1984-00139


Exhibit E – Applicant’s Justification Statement

JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT Type II Variance (Standalone)

Rainberry PUD Pod D Control No. 1984-139

Initial Submittal: December 17, 2014 Resubmittal: January 26, 2015

REQUEST On behalf of the Petitioner, Land Design South of Florida, a division of Wantman Group, Inc. is requesting three (3) Type II Variances (Standalone), in order to replace the existing fence, which is located along the south property line of Pod D, within the Rainberry PUD. The requests and ULDC code sections are as follows:

ULDC SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE V.1 Art. 7.F.3.A 10 feet 0 feet - 10 feet V.2 Art. 7.F.3.B 75 percent 100 percent + 25 percent V.3 Art. 5.B.1.A.2.e 6 feet 8 feet + 2 feet

SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The overall Rainberry PUD is an approximately 115.47 acre site located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Glades Road and State Road 7. The PUD has access to Glades Road through 95th Avenue, and to State Road 7 through Central Park Boulevard. The Rainberry PUD is divided into six (6) distinct Pods: Pods A, E and F are residential; while Pods B, C & D are of private civic/school use in nature. The Rainberry PUD is not subject to any overlay or neighborhood plan. Pod D is a campus that accommodates a day care, recreational facilities, school, family child services center, activity center/auditorium, and administrative offices. It has a zoning designation of RTS and is part of the Rainberry PUD, which received a Special Exception, pursuant to R-85-280 to allow for a Planned Unit Development. The Future Land Use designation is HR-12 (High Residential - 12 units per acre). Pod D is approximately 19 acres in size and is fully constructed. The portion of Pod D that will require a Type II Variance (Standalone) is the fence located on the south part of the property. Pod D is surrounded by compatible uses on all sides, as outlined below: North: To the north of the site are Pods A and E. Pod A holds a congregate living facility, has a Future Land Use of LR-3 and a Zoning District of RTS/PUD. While Pod E holds the Heritage Village Housing, has a Future Land Use of HR-12, and a Zoning District of RTS/PUD. There is also a vacant property owned by Ponte Verde PUD, a residential development, to the north of the subject site. The community has a Future Land Use of MR-5 and a Zoning District of PUD. The site is a civic parcel and has been approved as a school. South: To the south of the site is Rainberry Park, a residential development. The community has a Future Land Use of MR-5 and a Zoning District of RS. Also to the south of the parcel is Boca Lago PUD, a residential development. The community has a Future Land Use of HR-8 and a Zoning District of RS with a Special Exception for a PUD. East: To the east of the site is Boca Lago PUD, a residential development. The community has a Future Land Use of HR-8 and a Zoning District of RS with a Special Exception for a PUD. West: To the west of the site is Pod F, which holds the Arbor Oaks Apartment Complex, a residential development. The community has a Future Land use of HR-12 and a Zoning District of RTS/PUD. Also located to the west of the subject property is the Menorah House, which is a Nursing Home. This site has a Future Land use of HR-12 and a Zoning District of CSH. APPROVAL HISTORY The Rainberry PUD development has received numerous development approvals over the course of its history. A summary of the development approvals for the subject site and Rainberry PUD have been provided below:


CONTROL NO. REQUEST ACTION DATE RESOLUTION

1984-139 Rezoning, From AR (Agricultural Residential) District to RM (Residential Multiple Family) District (Medium Density).

Approved 02/19/1985 R-85-279

1984-139 Special Exception to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Approved 02/19/1985 R-85-280

1984-139

Rezoning from AR (Agricultural Residential) Zoning District, in part, and RM (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District (Medium Density), in part, to RS (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, in Part, and RM (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District (Medium Density).

Approved 04/25/1989 R-89-750

1984-139

Special Exception to amend and expand the Master Plan for the Rainberry Park PUD; to increase the acreage by five acres and to redesign the site.

Approved 04/25/1989 R-89-751

1984-139

Special Exception to amend the Master Plan for the Rainberry PUD to redesignate retirement housing as conventional housing and to extinguish a previously approved nursing care facility.

Approved 02/04/1992 R-92-183

1984-139 Development Agreement. Approved 10/28/1993 R-93-1358

1984-139 Development Order Amendment in the residential PUD to increase density (413 to 461 units) and to amend Condition E.3.8.

Approved 10/28/1993 R-93-1359

1984-139

Zoning Map Amendment from the Agricultural Residential (AR) zoning district to the Residential Transitional Suburban (RTS) zoning district.

Approved 09/28/1995 R-95-1321.13

1984-139

Development Order Amendment to the Rainberry West PUD to increase acreage (+53.5 acres) and allow 4 private schools, elementary & secondary, a Congregate Living Facility (CLF) - Type III and an adult day care facility (requested uses).

Approved 09/28/1995 R-95-1321.14

1984-139

Development Order Amendment (DOA) to increase building square footage (+60,000); decrease number of students (-116) and allow a 200 children day care center (requested use) in the Private Civic Pod (Pod C).

Approved 05/23/1996 R-96-0645

1984-139

Development Order Amendment to amend Master Plan; increase adult daycare square footage (+2,140) ; increase number of JARC units (+5) ; reduce high school students (-65); add assembly, nonprofit institutional (+15,360 sq. ft. and 97 JARC students).

Approved 12/02/1996 R-96-1953

1984-139

Development Order Amendment to modify/delete Conditions of Approval of Resolution R-96-1953; add 2 JARC unit; add building square footage.

Approved 01/07/1999 R-99-017

1984-139 Development Order Amendment to modify Condition of Approval. Approved 03/22/2007 R-07-424

1984-139

Subdivision Variance to allow access points onto an ingress/egress easement for Pod B; and allow previously approved access points onto a major street.

Approved 07/01/2010 ZR-2010-007

1984-139 Type II Variance to allow reduction of the private civic pod lot frontage. Approved 07/01/2010 ZR-2010-008


1984-139

Development Order Amendment to modify and delete Conditions of Approval (Engineering, Landscaping, Lighting, Building & Site Design and Use Limitations), add square footage and reconfigure the master plan and site plan in the PUD Zoning District.

Approved 07/22/2010 R-10-1172

1984-139

Requested Use to allow a Type III Congregate Living Facility, Nursing or Convalescent Facility and Assembly Non-Profit Institutional in the PUD Zoning District.

Approved 07/22/2010 R-10-1173

1984-139 Type II Variance to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces. Approved 04/07/2011 ZR-11-006

1984-139 Type II Variance to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces. Approved 05/03/2012 ZR-12-012

1984-139

Development Order Amendment to modify the Master Plan, to reconfigure the Site Plans for Pods A and B; to re-designate uses for Pod A; and to modify and delete Conditions of Approval (Use Limitation and Engineering) in the RTS/SE Zoning District.

Approved 05/24/2012 R-12-778

Note that a building permit records search was performed at Palm Beach County, and the following fence permits were on file: B03003056 and B05006007. Copies of these permits have been included as part of the resubmittal. We are still working with the County to locate the fence permit for existing fence that is part of this petition. VARIANCE REQUEST The request is to locate an 8 foot high fence on the property line, located on the south side of the subject site, and to have 100% of landscape on the inside of the fence within the property boundaries. The applicable ULDC Code Sections that require the variance requests are as follows:

ULDC SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE V.1 Art. 7.F.3.A 10 feet 0 feet - 10 feet V.2 Art. 7.F.3.B 75 percent 100 percent + 25 percent V.3 Art. 5.B.1.A.2.e 6 feet 8 feet + 2 feet

As shown below, in red, a 6 foot fence currently exists on the property line of the subject site that is located adjacent to a residential development. Locating an 8 foot fence on the property line (where it exists today), maximizes security, enhances maintenance efficiency and reduces impact to adjacent homeowners. Offsetting the fence from the property line would create an issue with lawn maintenance, as a result of having to access the yards of private residences in order to maintain it. By placing the fence on the property line, it would allow 100% the landscape to be internal to the property, eliminating any intrusion into the adjacent homeowner’s private property. Additionally, the 8 foot fence height maximizes security for the Campus, which is of upmost importance, given the sensitive nature of many of the uses on the site.

The request is in compliance with the seven (7) criteria outlined in the ULDC relating to variance approvals, as outlined on the following page.

CURRENT FENCE


TYPE II VARIANCE STANDARDS Article 2.B.3.E requires that seven (7) criteria related to variances are addressed prior to approval by the Zoning Commission. The Applicant is in compliance with all seven (7) criteria standards, as provided below. 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the parcel of land, building or structure, that are

not applicable to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same district. Variances #1 & #2 Currently, the fence is located on the property line between the southern boundary of Pod D and the residents on the north side of Rainberry Park. The variance is necessary in order to maintain the fence location on the property line. These variance requests represent a special circumstance as the site functions as part of a campus and directly abuts residential units. Additionally, the fence is currently located in the proposed location, and the zoning approval is necessary in order to upgrade the existing fence material. If the fence were to be in compliance with the ULDC, 25% of the landscape would be located directly adjacent to the backyards of residential units. This creates conflict between uses when lawn maintenance needs to be completed, as entrance onto private property would be required. Thus, the existing uses, nature of the campus, need for maximum security and the need to minimize impact on adjacent homeowners, create a special circumstance. Variance #3 Special circumstances exist that are peculiar to the parcel of land. Pod D functions as a non-residential Civic Pod. Non-residential districts are permitted an 8 foot high fence by right. Given the non-residential nature of Pod D, the intent of the ULDC has been met. Additionally, the increase in height enhances campus security, which is of the upmost importance to the Federation.

2. Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant.

Variances #1 & #2 Special circumstances and conditions exist for the project which is not a result of the actions of the Applicant. As stated, the fence is being replaced and is proposed to be on the property line (where it is currently located). The location of the fence on the property line allows for efficient maintenance, maximum security and minimal impacts on adjacent property. Variance #3 Special circumstances and conditions exist for the project which is not a result of the actions of the Applicant. As stated, non-residential districts are permitted an 8 foot high fence by right, and given the non-residential nature of Pod D, the intent of the ULDC has been met. The proposal includes replacing the existing 6 foot high fence, which is located on the property line, with an 8 foot fence. The increase in fence height will add security to the campus, which functions as a civic parcel, and is necessary considering the sensitivity of the uses. The ULDC allows non-residential districts to have an 8 foot fence by right and the fence height meets the intent of the ULDC for non-residential.

3. Granting the variance shall not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Plan and this Code to other parcels of land, buildings, or structures, in the same district. Variances #1 & #2 Granting of this variance will not confer any special privilege upon the Applicant. As previously stated, the fence is proposed to be on the property line (where is currently exists). The location of the fence on the property line will continue to allow for the efficient maintenance, maximum security and minimal impacts on adjacent property. Variance #3 Granting of this variance will not confer any special privilege upon the Applicant. As previously stated, Pod D is non-residential in nature. Other non-residential uses are permitted an 8 foot fence by right. However, Pod D’s location in a residential district necessitates the need for a variance, regardless of the existing non-residential uses.

4. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of

rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels of land in the same district, and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship. Variances #1 & #2 Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of the ULDC will be detrimental to this development and will work an unnecessary and undue hardship on the Applicant. Literal interpretation of the ULDC would require that 25% of the landscape be places directly adjacent to the backyards of neighboring residences. This creates a conflict when necessary maintenance needs to be completed, as access would occur near private


property. Locating the fence directly on the property line (where is currently exists) eliminates this conflict and increases security. The increase in security is important on their site, due to the sensitive nature of the uses on the campus, as it maintaining privacy between the campus and adjacent private property. Variance #3 Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of the ULDC will be detrimental to this development and will work an unnecessary and undue hardship on the Applicant. As stated before, Pod D is zoned as residential but is considered non-residential in nature. Other non-residential uses are allowed to have an 8 foot fence by right. The increase in fence height will add security to the campus, which is necessary considering the uses on the property and will allow the Applicant the same right granted to other non-residential uses throughout the County.

5. Granting the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel of land,

building or structure. Variances #1, #2 & #3 The granting of these variances is the minimum variance necessary to maintain reasonable use of the land, building or structure.

6. Granting the variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan and this Code. Variances #1 & #2 The granting of this variance is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of both the County’s Comprehensive Plan and ULDC. The purpose of the fence is to create a buffer between the residential development adjacent to the subject property and Pod D. Granting of this variance will allow the fence to maintain its current location and act as a buffer, while maximizing security and minimizing impact on adjacent property. Variance #3 The granting of this variance is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of both the County’s Comprehensive Plan and ULDC. As stated previously, the proposal includes replacing the existing 6 foot fence with an 8 foot fence. Pod D is located in residential zoning, but is considered non-residential by nature. The ULDC allows non-residential districts to have an 8 foot fence by right and the fence height meets the intent of the ULDC for non-residential.

7. Granting the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Variances #1, #2 & #3 Granting of this variance request will not be injurious to the area involved or detrimental to the public welfare. To the contrary, granting this variance will increase security, aesthetics and minimize impacts on adjacent homeowners.

BASED ON THE ABOVE JUSTIFICATION AND ATTACHED INFORMATION, THE PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

palm beach county planning, zoning and ...2015/04/05 · zc april 02, 2015 page 118 application no....

Documents