City of Sanibel Planning Department

Transcription

1 City of Sanibel Planning Department STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: October 22, 2013 Planning Commission Agenda Item: 6a (continued from Oct. 8, 2013) Application Numbers: V Applicant: SteMic Marine Construction on behalf of property owners Michael and Joni Kluth RE: Consideration of an application for variances to Land Development Code Sections Waterward extension, and Location from lot lines, to permit the replacement of an existing boat dock located partially within the 15 minimum required setback from the side property line as extended into the adjacent waterway and the addition of a boat lift to extend more than 20% across the width of the adjacent waterway. ISSUES In considering the variance application, the following issues should be addressed: Does the application meet the seven standards, listed in section of the Sanibel Code, and required to be considered for the approval of a variance? If approved, what additional conditions, if any, should be placed on the development? BACKGROUND The subdivision known as Del Sega Unit Four was platted in 1974, and the waterways and other easements were dedicated to the use of the Del Sega Home Owners Association. The City of Sanibel issued a permit for the single-family residence built on the subject property in 1978, and a dock exists on an inlet from Dinkins Bayou located at the rear of the property. Planning and Natural Resources Department staff have reviewed historic aerial photographs and determined that this inlet is a human-made feature that dates from at least 1970 when other canal features in the Del Sega neighborhood are present. A copy of aerial photography from 1944 and 1970 is provided for the Planning Commission with this report as Attachment A. Page 1 of 6

2 PROPOSAL The applicant has proposed removing the existing dock, constructing a new dock using the existing cut through the mangrove shoreline, and installing a boat lift. The replacement dock would be approximately 200 square feet in size and the dock and lift would extend 22 feet into the approximately 60-foot wide inlet. A copy of the variance application is provided as Attachment B, and a copy of the site plan is provided as Attachment C. ANALYSIS Existing Site Conditions The existing dock is located close to the end of an inlet that provides the only direct water access to two parcels the subject property and Lot 1, Block A of the White Heron subdivision. The adjacent parcel to the northeast has an existing dock located directly on Dinkins Bayou, and the property located on Lot 2 in Block A, White Heron (southeast) has an existing dock and boat lift near the mouth of the inlet. A partial copy of the survey is provided as Attachment D. The existing dock encroaches into the 15-foot setback from the southerly lot line as extended into the waterway. A 12-foot wide boat lift installed with the current dock configuration would encroach further into this setback and could extend over the midline of the waterway. Proposed Site Conditions The applicant s proposed site plan places a new boat lift roughly opposite the dock on the other side of the waterway. A new four-foot-wide dock would use the existing opening in the mangrove shoreline and extend to the proposed boat lift location. This replacement dock would also reduce the encroachment into the setback from the extended southerly property line. The dock and lift together would extend approximately 23 feet from mean high water or roughly 38% the width of the waterway as measured between approximate mean high water lines. The City s regulations for docks, boat lifts, and boat davits are set forth in Chapter 126, Article XIV, Division 2, Subdivision II of the Land Development Code (L.D.C.). The distinction between whether a body of water is natural or human-made controls some of the requirements for accessory marine structures that may be constructed therein. A minimum water depth of three feet at mean low tide is required pursuant to Section except in human-made canals. Dock size is limited to 160 square feet on natural waterways that are not landlocked and 320 square feet (including walkways) on human-made bodies of water pursuant to Section As proposed, the dock size is less than the maximum that the Code allows for docks in human-made canals. There is no minimum depth requirement in this location, and water depth measurements have not been provided with the application. Page 2 of 6

3 Other regulations for accessory marine structures are the same regardless of the origin of navigable bodies of water (those with access to state waters) on which they are located. Section of the L.D.C. limits the extension of dock, boat lift, and davit structures waterward from the mean high water line pursuant to subsection (1): (1) No such structure (including mooring pilings) on land having navigable access to state waters (including Clam Bayou and Old Blind Pass) shall be extended waterward more than 30 feet or 20 percent of the width of the waterway, whichever is less, except along shorelines with extensive mangrove vegetation, in which case such structures may extend up to 15 feet waterward past the roots of the mangroves from which the structure projects; provided such structures can be located where the water depth is greater than three feet above the bottom surface at mean low water where such minimum water depth is required, but in no event more than 20 percent of the width of the waterway. The dock and lift structures together are approximately 16 ½ feet in width relative to the width of the inlet. This is greater than 20% of the canal width (approximately 12 feet from mean high water) and would also be more than 15 feet past the mangrove root line if this extension criterion was considered. The dock by itself, however, would meet the waterward extension limit. Approximately 24 feet or 41% of the width of the waterway would remain unobstructed between the boat lift and the dock on the opposite bank as proposed. This is compared to 60% of the waterway width being unobstructed under normal conditions. The applicant has stated, however, that the dock and lift design, and granting the variance, will not adversely affect other properties or boaters because only two properties are served by the inlet. See particularly the applicant s description for variance standards 6 and 7 in Attachment B. The applicant has provided an estimate that six mangrove lateral branches would need to be cut to accommodate the proposed dock, and Natural Resources staff has confirmed this estimate. A copy of an message with comments from Natural Resources Department staff is provided as Attachment E. The proposed boat dock will marginally encroach into the minimum setback from the extended southerly side property line required pursuant to Section The design of the new replacement dock would reduce the degree of encroachment into this setback as compared to the existing dock while still using the existing walkway area through the mangrove shoreline. The boat lift also encroaches into this setback as it extends further down the waterway. The dock and boat lift will meet the required setback from the westerly property boundary, and the dock appears to be located as equal a distance from each side property line as is practical. Variance Standards Section sets standards for the approval of a variance as follows: Page 3 of 6

4 The planning commission may grant variances upon finding all of the following: (1) A literal enforcement of the particular regulation would result in undue and unnecessary hardship to a property owner because the particular shape, size, location or topography of a lot or parcel, or of a structure thereon, would cause practical difficulties that would deprive the owner of reasonable use and enjoyment of such lot or parcel in the same manner as other properties similarly situated. (2) That the special conditions relate to unusual conditions peculiar to the specific lot or parcel or relate to special conditions of the structure involved, and are not generally applicable to other lands or structures similarly situated. (3) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions taken by the applicant or proposed by the applicant, and are not otherwise self-imposed. (4) That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate or eliminate the requested variance by the acquisition of adjacent lands or the relocation or redesign of the structure involved. (5) That the development or use of the subject parcel in some other manner than that proposed, in accordance with the applicable requirements, is not feasible. (6) That the requested variance will not be adverse to the developed neighborhood scheme and will not adversely affect the plan and scheme set forth in this Land Development Code, and will not cause the proposed development to be inconsistent with the Sanibel Plan nor adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. (7) That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to mitigate the hardship demonstrated. The applicant s responses to how the application meets these variance standards have been provided on page two of Attachment B. Planning Department staff has reviewed these descriptions and generally concurs with the applicant s statements with the following notes: The basis of hardship and the potential adverse effects for other users of the inlet appear to depend on two factors the limited rights to part of the waterway and the existing patterns of use. The proposed dock and lift design are unlikely to affect boat access to the dock on the Birkhart property to the south. It is unclear if other boaters would be negatively affected by the approval of the variance or construction of the boat lift due to the apparent private nature of part of the waterway. Reducing the length of the dock would not decrease or eliminate the need for the variances in order to carry out the proposed development. There are several docks in the Del Sega neighborhood greater than 30 feet in length with at least three being approximately 60 feet or longer. Page 4 of 6

5 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION, AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS The Planning Commission should be able to find that the application meets the seven variance standards required for their consideration before a variance to the standards, requirements, or limitations of the Land Development Code is approved. Section of the L.D.C. provides the Planning Commission with the authority to attach additional conditions to the approval of a variance as may be necessary to: [E]nsure that any development... pursuant to such variance is in compliance with the standards specified in sections through and is not detrimental to the public health, welfare, or safety, or to the quiet and peaceful use and enjoyment of adjoining lands and uses. Installation of the proposed boat lift requires approval of a variance to the setback from one side property line as extended waterward from mean high water and a variance to the limitation on the waterward extension of accessory marine structures past the mean high water line. The Planning Department does not object to the approval of the requested variances. Should the Planning Commission find that the application for a variance merits favorable consideration, the following conditions are recommended to be attached to any approval: 1. Prior to the issuance of a development permit to implement the variance, all Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) shall be removed from the subject property, or a scheduled plan for the removal of Brazilian pepper shall be approved by the City s Natural Resources Department. 2. The boat dock and lift shall not encroach more than ten feet into the required setback from the extended southerly side property line in the case of the boat lift or more than the minimum necessary in the case of the dock. 3. The boat lift shall not extend more than 23 feet into the waterway as measured waterward from the mean high water line. 4. The boat lift shall in no case be constructed so that it projects over the southerly side property line as extended (easterly) waterward of the mean high water line. 5. Conical piling caps or other devices that would prevent or interfere with the ability of birds to perch or rest shall not be installed on the dock or lift pilings. 6. The boat dock and boat lift shall otherwise comply with the conditions, limitations, and requirements of Land Development Code Chapter 126, Article XIV, Division Mangrove plants which have branches greater than or equal to one inch in diameter at the point of attachment shall not be subject to further trimming until approval has been granted by the Natural Resources Department. Page 5 of 6

6 INDEX TO STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Aerial photography from 1944 and 1970 (two pages) Attachment B Variance application & responses to standards (two pages) Attachment C Site plan for proposed boat dock and lift (one page) Attachment D Partial copy of survey (one page) Attachment E Memorandum from Natural Resources w/photos (one page) Page 6 of 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14