palm beach county planning, zoning and building … · sunrise fl 33323 owner name & address: l...

ZC July,02, 2015 42

Application No. ZV-2015-00744 BCC District 5

Control No. 2004-00015

Project No. 00905-001

PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

ZONING DIVISION

ZONING COMMISSION VARIANCE

STAFF REPORT July 02, 2015

APPLICATION NO. CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE

ZV-2015- 00744

(V1) Article

3.E.2.D

Property Development

Regulations

Building

Coverage

40%

Building

Coverage

44% for Single

Family units

+10%

(V2) Article

5.B.1.A.2.e Fence

Walls & Hedges -

Residential Districts

Maximum Wall

Height – 6 feet

Maximum Wall

Height – 8 feet

+ 2 Feet

SITUS ADDRESS: Vacant

AGENT NAME &

ADDRESS:

Gladys DiGirolamo

G.L. Homes

1600 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy

Sunrise FL 33323

OWNER NAME &

ADDRESS:

L G

1600 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy

Sunrise FL 33323

PCN: 00-41-47-11-01-039-0000

ZONING DISTRICT: Planned Unit Development (PUD)

BCC DISTRICT: 05

PROJECT

MANAGER:

Diego Penaloza, Site Planner I

LEGAL AD:

ZV-2015-00744 Title: Resolution approving a Type II Variance application

of L G by G.L. Homes, Agent. Request: to increase the maximum lot

coverage requirement from 40% to 44% for Single Family units; to increase

the height of a perimeter wall along the north and west property lines

General Location: Approximately (1,275.234 feet) South of Kimberly Blvd,

west of Coral Ridge Drive. (COLLIER PUD) (2004-00015)

LAND USE:

LR-1 S/T/R: 11-47-41

CONTROL #:

2004-00015

LOT AREA:

40.28 acres +/-

LOT DIMENSIONS:

2,483.513 feet by 676.111 feet.

ZC July,02, 2015 Page 143




CONFORMITY OF

LOT:

Yes CONFORMITY OF

ELEMENT:

N/A

TYPE OF

ELEMENT:

Lot Coverage, Wall height ELEMENT SIZE:

Proposed 8 foot high

wall and 44% SFR

Building Coverage

BUILDING PERMIT

#:

N/A NOTICE OF

VIOLATION:

N/A

CONSTRUCTION

STATUS:

Site has been cleared and retention areas are installed

APPLICANT

REQUEST:

To allow an increase of the maximum lot coverage to be greater than 40%

of the total lot area and to allow an increase in wall height along the north

and west property lines.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request, V1 to increase the lot coverage, Article 3, Chapter E, Section 2.D, Table 3.E.2.D, based upon the following application of the standards enumerated in article 2, Section 2.B.3.E of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), which an Applicant must meet before the Zoning Commission who may authorize a variance. Additionally, there are alternative design options that can comply with Code requirements that will meet the maximum building coverage of 40%. Should the Zoning Commission choose to approve the request staff recommends 8 Conditions of Approval as indicated in Exhibit C-2. Staff recommends approval for the request V2 for to increase the height of a perimeter wall along the north and west property lines, subject to 6 Conditions of Approval as indicated in Exhibit C-1 based upon this request was required by the Zoning Commission as an additional mitigation to the five acre residential lots located to the north and west of the Collier PUD. Recommendation of approval is also based on the application of the standards enumerated in Article 2, Section 2.B.3.E of the ULDC, which an Applicant must meet before the Zoning Commission may authorize a variance. PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY: At the time of publication Staff had received 0 contacts from the public, regarding this project. ________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICATION SUMMARY: Proposed are two Type II Variances for the Collier Planned Unit Development (PUD). The 44.28-acre parcel of land was last approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on March, 26, 2015 to allow a reconfiguration of the Master Plan, add 14 units, and modify and delete Conditions of Approval (Engineering and Planned Unit Development). The Applicant is requesting two Type II Variances; the first is to allow an increase in the maximum allowed lot coverage from 40% to 44% (+4) for one story Single Family units, and the second request is to allow a perimeter wall increase from the maximum allowed height of 6 feet to 8 (+2) feet along the north and west property lines, and adjacent to residential. One (1) access point to the site will remain as previously approved from Coral Ridge Drive. PROJECT HISTORY

Application No. Request Resolution Approval Date

PDD/W-2004-

00015

Rezoning from the Agricultural

Residential (AR) Zoning District to the

Residential Planned Unit Development

(PUD) District, and to allow the deviation

from cul-de-sac restrictions in the PUD

Zoning District

R- 2005-

0151

January 27, 2005

BA-2005-01569 To allow an entrance sign to exceed the

maximum height. (Expired)

R 2005-

1569

December 15, 2005





W/DOA-2014-

02325

To reconfigure the Master Plan, add

units, and modify and delete Conditions

of Approval (Engineering and Planned

Unit Development).

R- 2015-

0370

March 26, 2015

SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: FLU Designation: Low Residential 1 (LR-1) Zoning District: Agricultural Residential District (AR) Supporting: Single Family Residence SOUTH: FLU Designation: Park and Recreation (PARK) Zoning District: Public Ownership (PO) Supporting: Civic (Burt Aaronson South County Regional Park Control No. 1987-00059,)

EAST: FLU Designation: Park and Recreation (PARK) Zoning District: Public Ownership (PO) Supporting: Civic (Burt Aaronson South County Regional Park, Control No. 1987-00059) WEST: FLU Designation: Low Residential 1 (LR-1) Zoning District: Agriculture Residential (AR) Supporting: Single Family Residence ________________________________________________________________________________ Summary of Article 7.F.9.A Maximum Wall Height. At the March 5, 2015 ZC hearing a number of residents that live directly to the north and west of the subject site spoke regarding their concerns with the proposed request for a total of 57 units (+14) on the 44 acre parcel of land. Some of the concerns were in regard to compatibility, and density increase of the previously approved PUD. In response to the Commissioners suggestions the Applicant agreed to place an 8 foot wall along the north and west property lines to protect the adjacent residents. However Article 7 of the ULDC only allows a 6 foot wall in a landscape buffer therefore a Type II Variance for the 8 foot wall is required. The BCC Landscape Condition 5 of Resolution R-2015-0370 requires the 8 foot wall but also allows a 6 foot wall in the event an 8 foot wall was not approved by the ZC as follows:

LANDSCAPE - PERIMETER-LANDSCAPING ALONG THE NORTH, AND WEST PROPERTY LINES (ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL) 5. In addition to the ULDC landscaping requirements, landscaping along the north and west property lines shall be upgraded to include: a. a minimum fifteen (15) foot wide landscape buffer strip; b. a minimum one and a half (1.5) foot high continuous berm;

c. an eight (8) foot high opaque block wall which shall be subject to a Type II Variance approval. In the event the Type II variance is denied, a six (6) foot high opaque block wall would be required. The exterior side of the wall shall be given a finished architectural treatment that is harmonious and compatible with adjacent development. d. one (1) canopy tree planted for each twenty (20) linear feet of the property line, alternating on both sides of the wall; e. one (1) palm or slash pine tree for each thirty (30) linear feet of the property line with a maximum spacing of sixty (60) feet between clusters, alternating on both sides of the wall, where applicable. f. a minimum seventeen (17) foot Drainage Easement (D.E.) located on the exterior (perimeter lot line) side of the minimum fifteen (15) foot wide landscape buffer strip to provide swale drainage for the adjoining lots located on the north and west sides of the development. (BLDGPMT: LANDSCAPE - Zoning).

Summary of Article 3.D.1.A - Building Coverage Code Requirement.

The ULDC Table 3.D.1.A, Property Development Regulations outlines minimum lot dimensions and maximum building coverage for the Residential Single Family zoning district to allow in





increase from 40 % to 44% (+4%) building coverage. The Applicant wishes to have the flexibility to sell certain one story units that would exceed this requirement. The Type 1B Administrative Variance process allows the administrative review of this standard and the exact increase in building coverage requested per lot and on a case by case basis. Staff does not support this request.

FINDINGS: Zoning or Subdivision Variances: The ZC shall consider and find that all seven criteria listed below have been satisfied by the Applicant prior to making a motion for approval, of a Zoning or Subdivision Variance.

ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.B.3.E VARIANCE STANDARDS 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 NO: There are no special circumstances that exists that are peculiar to this development and that are not applicable to other developments within the same Zoning District. The Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) under Ordinance 2003-0067, Article 3 Property Development Regulations was modified to remove the language for flexible regulations. When this development was originally approved in 2005, the development was subject to the 40% thresholds for building coverage for each lot. The ULDC Table 3.D.1.A, Property Development Regulations outlines minimum lot dimensions and maximum building coverage for the Residential Single Family zoning district. These standards are also utilized for a PUD. The Applicant wishes to have the flexibility to sell certain one story units or model styles on lots that are too small to accommodate the lot coverage regulations and exceed this requirement. The Type 1B Administrative Variance process allows the review of this standard and the exact increase in building coverage requested per lot. Staff does not support this request as there are other alternatives that can use the Code and do not require a blanket variance for the entire PUD. V2 YES: Special circumstances exist that is peculiar to the parcel of land is that the request to increase the wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet was requested by the Zoning Commission at March 5, 2015 ZC hearing to increase the maximum height for a perimeter wall along the North and West sides of the overall Collier PUD. The request was to provide additional mitigation to the five acre residential lots located to the north and west of the proposed Collier PUD. 2. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT: V1 NO: The variance request is a direct result of the actions by the Applicant as there are alternative design options that will allow the Applicant to meet Code. The required Building Coverage is 40%, the Applicant is requesting a variance relief from the lot coverage requirement to 44% for single story Single Family units for the entire project. The Applicant states in their justification statement that a precedent has been set with the approval of other variances. Variances are allowed to be sought if the Applicant demonstrates that there is a hardship on the subject property of details why the Code cannot be met as of actions outside from the Applicant. The proposed subdivision was designed by the Applicant, the Applicant is aware of the Code provisions that are applicable to all PUD districts; proposal to increase the lot coverage is a result from the Applicant. V2 YES: Special circumstances and condition is this Variance request is a result of actions at the March 5, 2015 ZC hearing. The Applicant agreed to Landscape Condition 5 to request 8 foot wall along the north and west property lines and subject to a Type II variance. 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, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT:





V1 NO: Granting this variance will confer a special priviledge not allowed by the Code and not avaliable to other parcels of land and, buildings/developers within this same zoning district. There are alternative design options that can comply with Code requirements that will meet the maximum building coverage of 40%. Applicant also noted under their justification statement that under the Workforce Housing Program flexibility provisions of Article 5.G. of the ULDC, similarly approved developments are eligible to request up to 48% lot coverage for single story units. This is only intended as a workforce housing incentive, not as a technique to target a specific market. Additionally, approval in other developments does not cite precedent as all Variances are required to stand on their own merits. V2 YES: Granting this variance would not confer a special priviledge not allowed by the code and not avaliable to other parcels of land and buildings/developers within this same zoning district. Since this is a request of the Applicant by the Zoning Commission as an additional mitigation to the residential lots located to the north and west of the Collier PUD. Pursuant to the condition of approval and the request of the Zoning Commission 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 NO: The literal interpretation of the code would not create an unnecessary and undue hardship on the Applicant as there are alternative site design options. Enforcement of the terms and provisions of this code would not deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels of land in the same zoning district, and would not work an unnecessary and undue hardship. The site can easily be designed to comply with Code since the Applicant could provide a larger lot and therefore a larger single story that meets the 40% maximum building coverage. Conversly, the Applicant can provide a smaller single story unit that meets the 40% maximum lot coverage as the lots are designed presently V2 YES: 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 since the 8 foot wall is in response to the ZC at the March 5, 2015 ZC public hearing to address the adjacent Property Owners and was agreed to by the Applicant by Condition of Approval. 5. GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE: V1 NO: Granting of this variance is not the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the parcel of land. The variance request is as a result of the actions by the Applicant as there are alternative deigns options. The buildings can be designed to comply with the Code requirements as nothing is built and lots have not been platted. V2 YES: Granting of the variance is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the parcel of land. The variance request is not as a result of the actions by the Applicant, this was a request of the petitioner by the Zoning Commission as an additional mitigation to the five acre residential lots located to the north and west of the Collier PUD. 6. GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE: V1 NO: The granting of this Variance will be inconsistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Code as the request is to deviate from Code requirements. V2 YES: The granting of this Variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Code as the request is to deviate from Code requirements.





7. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE: V1 NO: An application for a Development Order shall comply with the ULDC to ensure that all Development Orders approved in unincorporated Palm Beach County are consistent with the Plan and Code. The Code establishes comprehensive and consistent standards and procedures for the review and approval of all proposed development of land. Further, the intent of the Code as relative to this Variance request is to prevent the overcrowding of land, facilitate adequate drainage, and provide consistency in established regulations pursuant to Art. 1.A.1.C. V2 YES: The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Instead it will provide additional privacy to the surrounding residential uses located to the north and west.





ZONING COMMISION CONDITIONS Exhibit C-1 (Wall Conditions Only) Type II Variance - Standalone

ALL PETITIONS 1. The approved Final Master and Subdivision Plans are dated June 11, 2015. Modifications to the Development Order inconsistent with the Conditions of Approval, or changes to the uses or site design beyond the authority of the Development Review Officer as established in the Unified Land Development Code, must be approved by the Zoning Commission. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) VARIANCE 1. The Development Order for this Standalone Variance shall be valid till July 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 Subdivision Plan to vest the Variances approved pursuant to UDLC Table 2.E.3-B-1. (DATE: MONITORING - Zoning)

2. 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 Plan to the Building Division. (BLDGPMT: BUILDING DIVISION - Zoning) COMPLIANCE 1. 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 Board of County Commissioners for review under the compliance Condition of this Approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) 2. 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) DISCLOSURE 1. All applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development authorized by this development permit.





ZONING COMMISION CONDITIONS Exhibit C-2 (Lot Coverage Only) Type II Variance - Standalone

ALL PETITIONS 1. The approved Final Master and Subdivision Plans are dated June 11, 2015. Modifications to the Development Order inconsistent with the Conditions of Approval, or changes to the uses or site design beyond the authority of the Development Review Officer as established in the Unified Land Development Code, must be approved by the Zoning Commission. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) VARIANCE 1. The Development Order for this Standalone Variance shall be valid till July 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 Subdivision Plan to vest the Variances approved pursuant to UDLC Table 2.E.3-B-1. (DATE: MONITORING - Zoning)

2. 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 Plan to the Building Division. (BLDGPMT: BUILDING DIVISION - Zoning) 3. Prior to application for a Building Permit for any Single Family unit with a building coverage greater than 40%, the Final Subdivision Plan shall be amended to include the approved Variance Chart. (BLDGPMT/ONGOING: BUILDING DIVISION - Zoning)

4. The Variance applies to only one (1) story Single Family units. (ONGOING: BUILDING DIVISION - Zoning) COMPLIANCE 1. 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 Board of County Commissioners for review under the compliance Condition of this Approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) 2. 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) DISCLOSURE 1. All applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development authorized by this development permit





Figure 1 Land Use Plan





Figure 2 Zoning Map





Figure 3 Aerial





Figure 4 Approved Site Plan dated March, 26, 2015





Figure 5 Preliminary Regulating Plan dated March, 26, 2015





Figure 6 Variance Exhibit Emailed by the Applicant June 15, 2015.

ZC July,02, 2015 6




Figure 7 Variance Exhibit dated Applicant June 15, 2015.





Exhibit D: Disclosures





Exhibit E: Application Justification Statement dated April, 15, 2015.

palm beach county planning, zoning and building … · sunrise fl 33323 owner name & address: l...

Documents