1632 Beach Avenue 16-ZVAR-281 Staff ReportAGENDA ITEM 4.B
CASE NO 16-ZVAR-281
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable projection of open porches into the rear yard from 48 inches as required by Section 24-83(b) to 6 feet
to allow an open porch at Ocean Grove Unit No 1 Part of Lot 89 Block 1 (aka 1632 Beach Avenue).
LOCATION 1632 Beach Avenue
APPLICANT Henry Osborne and Rena Coughlin
DATE January 9, 2017
STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicants are Henry Osborne and Rena Coughlin, the owners of 1632 Beach Avenue. The property is located on the west side of Beach Avenue, one lot south of Dewees Avenue, in the
Residential General-Multi-Family (RG-M) zoning district. There is an existing 3 story single family home on the property. The applicants recently constructed a covered deck extension
off an existing first story deck at the rear of the property that is 14 feet off the rear property line.
A variance is required by Section 24-108(e)(2) in conjunction with Section 24-83(b). Section 24-108(e)(2) requires a 20 foot rear yard setback, while Section 24-83(b) allows open porches
to project 4 feet into rear yards. This effectively allows open porches to be no closer than 16 feet from the rear property line. With the new deck 14 feet from the rear property line,
a variance is needed. The requested variance is to increase the allowed 4 foot projection into the rear yard of Section 24-83(b) to 6 feet. If approved, this will allow the rear porch
extension, but prevent the future enclosure of any space within the 20 foot setback required by Section 24-108(e)(2).
The survey provided in the application shows that the property has an irregular shape with one side property line 120 feet long and the other side property line 98 feet long where both
the front and rear property lines are angled. This results in no 90 degree angles in the corners of the property. The survey also shows the new portion of the deck at the southwest
corner of the property. Though a measurement is not shown, staff confirmed with the surveyor that portion depicted is the base of the porch and it is 14.3 feet from the rear property
line. The proposed variance would allow for the existing slight extension of the roof too. Due to the angles of the lot, it is a triangular area that is in violation of setbacks and
only a point will be 14 feet from the rear property line. So much so that the northern corner of the new porch is in compliance with the code.
ANALYSIS
Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent
with the definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall mean relief granted from certain
terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a relaxation
of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such
relief may be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.”
Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance:
Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area.
Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property.
Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
The applicants stated in their application that their lot has an irregular shape that does not allow the extension of the rear of the building.
Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property.
The applicants stated in their application that the minimum lot size in the RG-M zoning district is 7,500 square feet, but their lot is only 5,749 square feet.
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve 16-ZVAR-281, request to increase the allowable projection of open porches into the rear yard from 48 inches as required
by Section 24-83(b) to 6 feet to allow an open porch at Ocean Grove Unit No. 1 Part of Lot 89 Block 1 (aka 1632 Beach Avenue), upon finding this request is consistent with the definition
of a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as described below.
A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the community development board, for the following reasons:
Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area.
Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property.
Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property.
Or,
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to deny 16-ZVAR-281, request to increase the allowable projection of open porches into the rear yard from 48 inches as required
by Section 24-83(b) to 6 feet to allow an open porch at Ocean Grove Unit No. 1 Part of Lot 89 Block 1 (aka 1632 Beach Avenue), upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with
the definition of a variance, or it is not in accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24-64(d), or it is consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial
of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described below.
No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon
one (1) or more of the following:
Light and air to adjacent properties.
Congestion of streets.
Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
Established property values.
The aesthetic environment of the community.
The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.