48-93 ORDINANCE NO. 48-93
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 4, "ZONING
REGULATIONS", SECTION 4.3.4, "BASE DISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS", OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION
4.3.4(H) (5) (e) TO DELETE THE THIRTY-FIVE PERCENT (35%)
SIZE LIMITATION ON SCREEN ENCLOSURES IN ZERO LOT LINE
DEVELOPMENTS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL
REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and
Zoning Board reviewed the subject matter at its meeting of July 19,
1993, and has forwarded the change with a recommendation of approval;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(1) (c), the
Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has
determined that the change is consistent with, and furthers the
objectives and policies of, the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 4, "Zoning Regulations", Article
4.3, "District Regulations, General Provisions", Section 4.3.4, "Base
District Development Standards", Subsection 4.3.4(H) (5) (e), of the
Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:
(e) In zero lot line developments only, screened
enclosures may extend into the interior side
setback areas, ~h~ but shall not be placed less
than five (5) feet from the property line~//~
~~/~/~f//~/~/~~//~/~~//~f
Section 2. That should any section or provision of this
ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence or word be
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a
whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 3. That all o~dinances or parts of ordinances
which are in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective ten
(10) days after its passage on second and final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final
reading on this the 10th day of August , 1993.
ATTEST:
Cit~-C-~-r k
First Reading July 27, 1993
Second Reading August 10, 1993
- 2 - Ord. No. 48-93
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER?
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM ~ /O ~ - MEETING OF AUGUST 10. 1993
ORDINANCE NO. 48-93
DATE: August 6, 1993
This is the second reading of an ordinance amending the Land
Development Regulations by amending Subsection 4.3.4 (H)(5)(e) to
delete the thirty five percent (35%) size limitation on screen
enclosures in zero lot line developments.
We have received a request from the Guardian Companies, developers of
Clearbrook (Hidden Lake) to amend the LDRs based on requests they have
received from several buyers who wish to construct screened enclosures
which exceed the 35% limitation. Under the regulations the 35%
limitation would prevent a moderately sized home of 2,000 square feet
from having a screened-in pool. A 2,000 square foot home would be
allowed a 560 square foot screened enclosure; the minimum enclosure
required for a pool and deck is 600 square feet.
It appears the rationale for imposing the 35% limitation was to
maintain open space. However, this requirement is already covered
under the Development Standards Matrix which requires a minimum of 25%
non-vehicular open space per lot. The PRD zone district was created
to accommodate flexibility in design standards. The 35% limitation is
unnecessarily restrictive and appears to be contradictory to that
extent.
The Planning and Zoning Board at their July 19th meeting recommended
that the text amendment deleting the 35% provision be approved. A
detailed staff report is attached as backup material for this item.
At the July 27th regular meeting, Ordinance No. 48-93 passed on first
reading by a 4-0 vote (Mayor Lynch - absent).
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 48-93 on second and final reading.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER ~'{
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM %/~ - MEETING OF JULy 27. 1993
ORDINANCE NO. 48-93
DATE: July 23, 1993
This is the first reading of an ordinance amending the Land
Development Regulations by amending Subsection 4.3.4 (H)(5)(e) to
delete the thirty five percent (35%) size limitation on screen
enclosures in zero lot line developments.
We have received a request from the Guardian Companies, developers of
Clearbrook (Hidden Lake) to amend the LDRs based on requests they have
received from several buyers who wish to construct screened enclosures
which exceed the 35% limitation. Under the regulations the 35%
limitation would prevent a moderately sized home of 2,000 square feet
from having a screened-in pool. A 2,000 square foot home would be
allowed a 560 square foot screened enclosure; the minimum enclosure
required for a pool and deck is 600 square feet.
It appears the rationale for imposing the 35% limitation was to
maintain open space. However, this requirement is already covered
under the Development Standards Matrix which requires a minimum of 25%
non-vehicular open space per lot. The PRD zone district was created
to accommodate flexibility in design standards. The 35% limitation
is unnecessarily restrictive and appears to be contradictory to that
extent.
The Planning and Zoning Board at their July 19th meeting recommended
that the text amendment deleting the 35% provision be approved. A
detailed staff report is attached as backup material for this item.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 48-93 on first reading. If passed
public hearing August 10, 1993.
O'/TY MAN'4S£'9'S FFIcE
C T T ¥ C O M M I S S I O N' D O C U M ~ N' T A T 'r O N0
TO: ~--B~ID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
SUBJECT: MEETING OF JULY 27, 1993
LDR AMENDMENT DELETING THE 35% SIZE LIMITATION ON
SCREEN ENCLOSURES IN ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENTS
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION:
The action requested of the City Commission is that of
apDroval of an amendment to the Land Development
Regulations which deletes a provision limiting the size of
screen enclosures in zero lot line developments to 35% of
the net living area.
The affected LDR Section is 4.3.4(H)(5)(e), Base District
Development Standards, Setbacks for screen porches, screen
enclosures, and accessory structures.
BACKGROUND:
The LDRs currently permit screen porches and screen enclosures
in zero lot line developments to encroach into interior side
yard setbacks to within five (5) feet of the property line.
However, the size of the enclosure is limited to being no larger
than 35% of the net living area of the house.
The developers of the Clearbrook zero lot line subdivision have
asked that ~he 35% limitation be removed. As they have
explained in their request letter, and as depicted in their
illustrations (copies attached as back-up to staff report), this
limitation precludes the construction of a screen enclosure
around even a basic pool package, when the pool is associated
with one of their smaller homes.
City Commission Documentation
LDR Amendment Re: Screen enclosure size limitation
Page 2
As described in the staff report, the 35% restriction was
originally intended as a means of preserving open space.
However, tying the size of the enclosure to the net living area
of the house is not an effective means of preserving open space.
Open space is more appropriately regulated by the existing
setbacks and by established minimum open space requirements (25%
of the lot size).
For additional explanation and justification of the text
amendment, see the attached staff report and back-up.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDERATION:
The Planning and Zoning Board formally reviewed this item at its
meeting of July 19, 1993. The Board voted 5-0 (Currie absent,
Krall abstaining) to recommend that the text amendment deleting
the 35% provision be approved.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion, approve the following amendment deleting the 35% size
limitation on screen enclosures in zero lot line developments:
Section 4.3.4(H)(5)
(e) In zero lot line developments only, screened
enclosures may extend into the interior side setback
areas, ~ but shall not be placed less than five (5)
feet from the property line~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~f Z~ ~Z
Attachment:
* P&Z Staff Report & Documentation of July 19, 1993
DD\T:35%.doc
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT
FOR
L.D.R. AMENDMENTS
MEETING DATE: JULY 13, 1993
AGENDA ITEM~ III.B.
SUBJECT: LDR MODIFICATION REGARDING SIZE LIMITATIONS ON
SCREENED ENCLOSURES IN ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENTS
LDR REFERENCE: LDR Section 4.3.4(H)(5)(e), Base District
Development Standards, Setbacks for screen
porches, screen enclosures, and accessory
structures
I T EM BEFORE THE BOARD~
The item before the Board is that of making- a
recommendation to the City Commission on a proposed
modification to the City's Land Development Regulations
(LDRs). The affected Section is 4.3.4(H) (5) (e) see
Attachment #1.
Pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, no amendment may be made
until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and
Zoning Board.
Pursuant to F.S. 163.3194(2), the Planning and Zoning Board
is to review the proposed amendment with respect to its
relationship to the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City.
B A C K G R 0 U N D
The PRD zone district was established in 1977, at which time
setbacks for screen enclosures were the same as for the building
setbacks. At its workshop meeting of October 28, 1980 (see
Attachment #2-minutes), at the request of the Rainberry Bay
developer (a zero lot line development) and its residents, the
Planning and Zoning Board considered an amendment to the PRD
zone district to allow screened enclosures in the setback areas.
The Board's main concern regarding the proposed amendment was to
insure that an adequate amount of open space would be provided
on the individual lots.
After discussion, it was suggested that open space could be
maintained by limiting the size of a screen enclosure in
relation to the size of the house to which it would be attached.
This suggestion was accommodated in the proposed amendment by
stipulating that screened enclosures could not exceed 35% of the
net living area.
P&Z Memorandum Staff Report
Screen Enclosure Text Amendment
Page 2
At its meeting of January 13, 1981 upon the second reading of
Ordinance No. 83-80, the City Commission approved an amendment
to the PRD zone district to include a special section regarding
screened enclosures which allowed a side yard encroachment and
limited the size of the enclosure based on net living area.
This same text is currently found in LDR Section 4.3.4(H)(5)(e).
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
On June 10, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Department received a
request from the Guardian Companies, developers of Clearbrook
(FKA Hidden Lake), to amend LDR Section 4.3.4(H)(5)(e) (See
Attachment #3 - Applicant's letter of request and exhibits).
This section states that in zero lot line developments only,
screened enclosures may extend into the interior side setback
areas, and shall not be placed less than five (5') feet from the
property line, or exceed 35% of the net living area exclusive of
garages, balconies, decks, porches, and common areas such as
corridors.
The developer of Clearbrook, a single family zero lot line
development, has received several requests from buyers to
construct screened enclosures which exceed the 35% limitation.
In order to accommodate these buyers, the developer is
requesting that the current threshold of 35% of the net living
area be increased or eliminated.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has submitted a Justification statement and
graphics (attached) to support his argument that there is no
real basis for the limitation of screened area based on the
living area, nor does it create more open space. The
applicant's reasoning is as follows:
"We find no basis for a limitation of screened area based
on the living area of a home. The 35% limitation prevents
even a moderately sized home of 2,000 SF from enjoying
a screen enclosure around a pool and deck of minimal
proportions. A 2,000 SF home would be allowed a screen
enclosure of 560 SF (based on 2,000 SF minus 400 SF garage
yields 1,600 SF of living area; 1,600 SF x .35 ~ 560 SF
allowable screen enclosure). A minimal pool and deck
occupies at least 600 SF (see applicant's exhibits) ...... It
is also noted that the restriction imposed by the 35% rule
is present regardless of lot size .......... Only larger
homes could enjoy a screen enclosure around a small pool
which presents a hardship for the purchaser of small and
moderately sized homes. In addition, our research into
other local municipalities codes shows that the majority
limit screen enclosure sizes via setbacks and not
percentages relating to the associated home or lot."
P&Z Memorandum Staff Report
Screen Enclosure Text Amendment
Page 3
It appears that the applicant's Justification statement includes
several valid reasons for increasing the 35% threshold or
eliminating it all together. The valid reasons include that the
limitation creates a hardship for smaller homes to provide a
screen enclosure around a standard pool package, the requirement
does not take into consideration the lot size, and that
regulations by setbacks alone is an accepted means of ensuring
adequate open space.
Staff noted in its research that some municipalities (City of
Plantation and City of Boca Raton), establish setbacks for
screened enclosures in PUD zoning districts with the approval of
the site plan. It was indicated that these setbacks are
generally less restrictive than setback requirements for other
residential districts (see Attachment #4).
Most zero lot line developments provide for a standard size lot
(i.e. 50' x 100') that can accommodate homes of varying sizes
from 1,000 SF to approximately 2,200 SF. Thus, the open space
for the same size lot varies accordingly with the size of the
house regardless if it has a screen enclosure or not.
In most cases zero lot line developments are located within a
PRD zone district. This district was created to accommodate
flexibility in design standards i.e. smaller lot sizes and less
restrictive setbacks as required in the R-1 zoning districts.
In return for smaller individual lots and closer living
quarters, at least 15%-20% (depending on density) of the gross
area of the PRD site must be placed in common open space. This
common open space is generally utilized for recreational
purposes i.e. pools, clubhouses, tot lots, and passive parks.
Given the above, it appears that the PRD zone district was
written specifically to accommodate for less open space on the
individual lots. In addition, individual lots are required to
provide at least 25% non-vehicular open space.
· ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUS I ONS~
In zero lot line developments only, the LDIi's limit the size of
screened enclosures by their relation to the living area of a
dwelling, as well as by setbacks. As has been discussed tn this
report, in many cases, that threshold does not allow enough
leeway to accommodate a screen enclosure around a standard pool
package. If the intent of the code is to maintain open space,
this requirement is already covered under the Development
Standards Matrix by requiring a minim-m of 25% non-vehicular
open space per lot. It is also noted that the PRD zone district
was created to accommodate flexibility in design standards. The
35% limitation is unnecessarily restrictive and appears to be
contradictory to that intent.
P&Z Memorandum Staff Report
Screen Enclosure Text Amendment
Page 4
The 35% threshold could be increased to 50% or more to allow for
greater flexibility, however, there does not appear to be a
sufficient basis for maintaining a limit that is based on net
living area. Elimination of the 35% threshold will not further
the diminlshment of open space, as there are other regulations
in place which govern open space i.e. setbacks and minimum open
space requirements. The size of the screened enclosures is more
appropriately limited by the setbacks as allowed in the district
and as modified in Section 4.3.4 (H)(5)(e).
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Continue with direction.
2. Recommend denial in that the modification is not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically with regard to
open space.
3. Recommend approval to modify Section 4.3.4(H)(5)(e) for
screened enclosures to increase the 35% threshold to 50% of
net living area based upon a finding that the modification
is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Recommend approval to modify Section 4.3.4(H)(5)(e)
eliminating the restriction that screen enclosures may not
exceed 35% of the net living area based upon a finding that
the modification is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
By Motion:
Recommend approval to eliminate the restriction that screen
enclosures may not exceed 35% of the net living area based
upon a finding that the modification is not inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments:
* LDR Section 4.3.4(H)(5)(e)
* Request from Applicant, including Exhibits A,B and C
* P&Z Minutes of October 28, 1980
Jcm/t:screntxt
.. A~II Section 4.3.4 (H) (5)
(e) In zero lot line developments only, screened
enclosures may extend into the interior side
setback areas, and shall not be placed less
· than five (5) feet from the property line, or
exceed 35% of the net living area exclusive
of garages, balconies, decks, porches, and
common areas such as corridors.
(f) Any conflicts between this subsection (5),
and the regulations as set forth in
individual residential zoning districts shall
be governed by the provisions of this
subsection.
(6) Special Setbacks: Three types of special sgtbacks
are established inXqrder to provide for preservation of ~ea for
expansion of roadwa~ and/or streetscape beautificatio/(. These
are: special buildin~xsetbacks, special landscape se~acks, and
a combination thereof. ~ /
(a) Special% Building Setbacks: / Within the
~ollowin~ special building / setbacks, no
structuregkshall be alterS, erected, or
reconstructed: /
* Along 0c~n Boulevard (State Road A1A),
a twenty',foot (2~% setback shall be
provided f~pm the/%'Brockway Line," as
shown in Plat Book 20, Page 4, Public
Records of P~/Beach County, Florida.
The "Brockway~. Line" shall be the
-"building ll~e'%, for Lots 1 thru 7
inclusive, BL6ck ~, Ocean Park, as shown
· in Plat Boo~5, P~qe 15, Public Records
of Palm B~h Count~x Florida.
* Along ~9~t Atlantlc~Avenue extendlnq
from _~lnton Avenu~ to the I95
' ~nterc~nge, a sixty eight foot (68')
setback shall be provide~ on both sides
of~centerllne.
* Within the residential district along
t~e west side of S.W. 8~h Avenue~
~etween West Atlantic Avenue~and S.W.
/lst Street, a fifty foot (50'k setback
/ shall be Provided from the east ~roperty
~ ' line.
Amd. Ord. 12-91
3/13/91
4336
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OCTOBER 28, 1980
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carey, Blair, Campbell, Plume, Pompey,
Wallin
STAFF PRESENT: Dan Kotulla, Bob Ermovick, Alison MacGregor,
Gerald Church, John Walker, Herb Thiele
The meeting was called to order at 8:05 a.m.
Chairman Carey suggested that item 12 be moved forward on the agenda
due to the large number of people from Rainberry Bay (a PRD development)
who had turned out for the discussion.
(12) The Board discussed Zoning Ordinance amendments relative to
allowing screened enclosures in setback areas in the PRD Planned
Residential Districts. Chairman Carey said that he had a problem
with the definition of a screened enclosure as proposed by the staff,
as he felt it was not specific enough to exclude the use of certain
types of material, such as clear glass. The Chairman gave an explana-
tion of the intent of the PRD Ordinance, noting that it addresses
itself to a variety of housing, including zero lot line housing on
relatively small lots, and that it places certain restraints on such
housing because it is dealing with lots which, under the old Code,
would have been considered substandard, and in many cases with oversize
houses on small lots. As a result, the Board placed very definite
restrictions on what can be done with the balance of open space on
such lots. He further stated that while the Board is amenable to an
amendment to the Ordinance which would allow screen enclosures to
permit some open air living space for homeowners within the privacy
yards of their zero lot line houses, the Board does not want and will
prohibit any fully enclosed structures or anything that would be
detrimental to the aesthetics of an area. (Mr. Blair arrived at the
meeting at this time.) Chairman Carey pointed out that by allowing
the screen enclosures, the Board is allowing a further encroachment
into the setback areas, as well as allowing something that is currently
prohibited within the Ordinance. It w~s the consensus of the Board
that the wording proposed by the staff relative to the definition of
a screened enclosure would have to be refined to be more specific as
to exactly what would be allowed. Mr. Wallin said that he would like
it to be stipulated that the proposed amendments would apply strictly
to zero lot line housing in PRD districts. Upon question from the
audience, a discussion followed on the measurements of the screened
enclosures relative to how far they could encroach into ~he setback
areas. Speaking from the audience was Mr. Dick Siemens~ho said that
because of the varying dimensions of zero lot lines, it would be
October 28, 1980
Page 2
difficult to establish a definite width for the screen enclosures
to extend from the principal building, and that the main concern
should be to not allow the en6roachment of the screen enclosure to
get so close to the zero 'lot line wall as to make it look like a
continuous structure. Mr. Ermovick pointed out that by only requiring
a certain amount of space between the screen enclosure and the zero
lot line, this could result in extremely large enclosures being
constructed, and said that there should be some sort of restriction
imposed to insure that a certain amount of open space would be provided.
The Board felt that this was a technical point and instructed the staff
to find out what the worst possibilities might be, and then develop a
formula for determining a minimum open space requirement. Mr. Siemens
suggested that a limitation be placed on the size of a screen enclosure
in relation to the size of the house to which it would be attached.
Chairman Carey said that the item should be referred to staff in order
for them to (1) refine the definition, (2) put constraints into the
Ordinance, and (3) develop a formula for size as well as for measure-
ment. Several members of the audience asked that the proposed amend-
ments be acted on as quickly as possible. Mrs. Plume suggested .that
the item be dealt with at the regular meeting on November 17, 1980,
at which time the refined ordinance would be reviewed and acted upon.
Mr. Wallin moved that the item be referred to the staff for refinement
of the proposed amendments to the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
and passed unanimously.
(1) Rez ' Conditional Use, Site And Develo Plan Approva! -
The 370 ' Ken Jacobson and John Paulse present to request
rezoning LI Light Industrial District to Special Activities
District, he further conditional use an site and development plan
approval to a governmental office bu 40 feet in height.
The subject is in Section 18-46 and is located on the
West side of , between Avenue and the L-32
Canal. The Board ~d the site Chairman Carey asked if
there was a list of the plann the property. Mr. Kotulla
said that there was no the use would be defined as
"governmental offices." Mrs felt that this would be very
restrictive insofar as the were concerned. Mr. Kotulla
said that if a problem aros the petitioners could
always come back and ask a change n the use. Mr. Kotulla had two
comments on the project 1) to require continuous hedge along the
west parking stalls, (2) he asked ~titioners to review the
landscape ordinance see if additional la islands in the parking
area will be neces . John Walker discus: .s comments for the
project. Mr. Ko £a stated that the staff re, nds that the applica-
tion be advert for public hearing and that ~ns proceed through
the various for review. Mrs. Plume so . The motion
was Upon further discussion, Mr. Blair and '
Carey
ATr.~Ot,~T #3
Cotleur '~a FAX 243,3774 & U,$. Mall
Hearing
~.~,~owx.~,~,. June 25, 1993
City of Delray Beach
100 NW 1st Avenue ,~
Delray Beach, Flodda
A~enti~: Diane ~minguez
Referent: Requ~t f~ Z~ing Te~ Amendment
Dear Diane:
On behalf of The Guardian Companies, developer of the Clearbrook project (formerly known as
Hidden Lake) located on the west side of Homewood Road in Delray Beach, we are forwarding
a request for a Zoning Text Amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas for the City of Delray Beach.
We request a modification to Section 4.3.4(H)(5)(e) of the Zoning Code which states 'In zero lot
line developments only, screened enclosures may extend into the interior side setback areas, and
shall not be placed less than 5 feet from the property line or exceed 35 percent of the net rwing
area exclusive of garage, balconies, decks, porches and common areas such as corridom.'
Specifically, we request a modification to the provision of this paragraph which limits the
maximum allowable screened enclosure to 35 percent of the net living area of the home.
We find no basis for a limitation of screened area based on the living area of a home. The 35
percent limitation prevents even a moderately sized home of 2;000 SF from enjoying a screen
enclosure around a pool and deck of minimal proportions. A 2,000 SF home would be allowed
a screen enclosure of 560 SF (based on 2,000 SF, minus 400 SF for a 2-car garage, yields 1,600
SF of living area; 1,600 SF x .35 = 560 SF allowable screen enclosure) and a minimal poo~ and
deck occupies at least 600 SF. We have prepared a graphic (attached) which shows a minimal
pool of 12' x 24' (standard is 15'x 30') with a 5' separation from the dwelling as required by most
building codes and a 3' deck around the remaining three sides; total pool and deck area is 600
SF.
The accompanying graphic illustrates the various home sizes on this project's standard Io{ of.60'
x 100'. It should be noted that the restriction on screened-in pools imposed by the 35 percent
rule is present regardless of lot size.
Only larger homes could enjoy a screen enclosure around a small pool which presents a
hardship for the purchasers of small and moderately sized homes. In addition, our research into
other local municipalities codes shows that the majority limit screen enclosure sizes via setbacks
and not percentages relating to the associated home or lot. Attached are copies of the
respective sections from sever~al of these codes.
1070 E. lndk~awn Rood
~77~ 63~ F~ ~54,486
Diane Dominquez
City of Delray Beach
June 25, 1993
Page Two
We respectfully request the City's consideration of either elimination or modification of this code
provision. Should it be the de. sim of the City to maintain a maximum screened area threshold
based on living area, we would recommend consideration be given to modifying the current 35
percent threshold to a higher percentage of the net living area of the home exclusive of garages,
balconies, decks and porches.
We respectfully request the City of Delray Beach's consideration of the above matter. Should
there be any questions or any additional support information needed by the Planning staff, please
feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Principal
DEH:cws
DEH#44:cbrook3.deh
cc: Lloyd Hasner, The Guardian Companies
Richard Hasne~, The Guardian Companies
< ~o O0
~ ~0 ~
Ai'iACH~A'f ~4
Setbacks for Screened Enclosures in Other Municipalities:
Palm Beach County~ The code provides for a 0' setback on the
zero lot line side, a 2' side setback on the opposite lot line,
and a 2' setback to the rear.
Boynton Beach: All screen enclosures shall comply with building
side yard setbacks, with a minimum 8' rear yard setback.
City of Greenacres~ Screened enclosures shall not project into
any side or rear yard to a point closer than 5' from any lot
line, one foot to any easement.
City of Boca Raton~ Screened enclosures must maintain a 7' side
and rear yard setback. Screen enclosure setbacks for a PUD
development are set at the time of site plan approval.
City of Plantat~on~ Screened enclosure setbacks for a PUD
development are set at the time of site plan approval.
Zero Lot Line Locations:
Most Zero Lot line developments in the City are found in a PRD
zone district. However, zero lot line developments are allowed
in the RM zone district as a conditional use.
PRD Zero Line Developments:
* Rainberry Lake
* Rainberry Bay
* Sabal Lakes
* Windy Creek
* Clearbrook
* Sherwood Forest
* Pelican Harbor
* Crosswinds
RM Zero Lot Line Developments:
* Griffin Gate
RATON'DELRAY BEACII BP, ACtI' Df".ERFIELD BKACH
Published Daily
Monday through Sunday
Boca Itaton, Palm Beach County, Florida
Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida I
appeared Nancy Smith, Inside Sales Man~ ,~ ,.w. ~ ~,
ager of The. News, daily newspapers pub- ~' ~' ~,
llshed in Boca Raton in Pahn Beach County, ~~,
Florida; that the attached copy of advertise- ~,,~
merit was published In said newspapers in
the issues of: .~c~, p~0.,0~ REZ~ING AND
P~' ~ P~E~NTLY
ZONED R-~ ~ g~ F~ILY
DENTIAL) D~TR~ IN ~E CF
k_ ~ ED ON THE ~T ~ OF N.W.
~H AVEN~, BE~EN AT~
TiC AV~UE AND N.W. 1ST
RTICU~RLY DEKRfiED J'
HERE~Ni AND M~DING
DISTRICT ~p ~y
GENERAL REELER C~USE. A I
~VI~ C~US~ ~D
TiVE ~TL
Affiant further says that The News is a
newspaper published In Boca Rs, ton, I n said ..o~0,~.cE~
M,.~ ~ THE CIW OF
Palm Beach County, Florida, Monday 8E~H, FL~I~,
throuKh Sunday, and has been entered as ~, sEcr~ 4.~
~co~d ~]~S m~ ~t tDe ~o~t o[[~ ~ DAaW, OF THE ~DDEVE~
~ENT ~S~U~TI~S
Boca
Palm
Beach
Florida,
for a period of one year next preceding the ,~..m.~ ~o
first publication of the attached copy of ~,,T~,~l.. ON ~"'""
C~USE, A GENERAL ~EPEALER
rebate, commission or refund for the put- ~,.~'~'~c~ ~
pose of securing this advertisement for pub- ~%
lication in said newspapers. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
THE
8worn ~o ~nd subscribed before me ~hts ,
., ~ dayof~; A..D., ].9~
~y Commission explre~ e~..~)s ~ ,