The GINORMOUS GARAGE - 17th Avenue North and D Street

If you attended or listened to last Tuesday's (12 04 12) City Commission meeting, you heard concern expressed regarding this new building at the southwest corner of 17th Avenue North and D Street.  Commissioner McVoy echoed a comment raised by the public regarding the size of the building and how it is out of place in a single family neighborhood.  He gave assurances, as did City staff in attendance, that this indeed met all of the city's regulations and that it was all legitimately permitted.  To be fair, Commissioner McVoy seemed miffed at this interpretation. Hearing this, one would think that a building such as this could be built right next door to your quaint and charming single family house in one of our neighborhoods in the city.  As a result, fingers were pointed at the "code" being the problem and that this 'loophole" will be addressed when we finally get around to officially adopting a new set of land development regulations.

This is the existing "single family residence" that pre-dated the large, windowless garage building on the property. It is considered the "principal use" and the "principal structure" in this single family zoning district.

Although difficult to see from this angle, the two buildings are not touching and are separated by a walkway.

Being a certified urban planner for the past 30 years and having been on the Planning, Zoning and Historic Resources Preservation Board (PZHRPB) - when the two boards were in a combined state - right here in Lake Worth for eight years, I questioned the assertion of all who spoke to the issue that this did indeed meet all code requirements and regulations for a single family zoned property.

For those unfamiliar with zoning, some of the concepts may be new or confusing, but I will try to enumerate my findings after looking at the existing zoning code and a bit of information on the property itself.  It is my firm opinion that this building should not have been issued a building permit.

 Below is some basic public information on the property available from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's website:

The above is the current aerial that appears on the Property Appraiser's website showing the property in the state it was before the large garage building was built.  You can see the existing structure in the western part of the property with a large open area to the east.

The above shows additional detail regarding the existing building.  He we find that the existing building was built in 1931 and it has a total square footage of 1,183 square feet and under "Description" at the bottom of the page the letters "SFR" appear - which translates to single family residence.   We also are shown that the property is .1722 acres - and it appears that it is a 50 x 150 lot.  It is also a platted lot of record - meaning that it had its 50 foot with before the code was adopted that required 75 feet of minimum property width.  It is a "buildable lot" for the principal use of a single family residence.

This sheet above shows some additional detail and here we see the "Use Code " as "0100 SINGLE FAMILY and that the zoning district is SF7.  Single Family 7 is the existing zoning for the property and it is a zoning district that is applied to around 2/3 of the property within the city limits.  It is the most restrictive, besides Public Recreation and Open Space, that the city has.  That means it allows the least principal uses by right - meaning that no special approval is required - but the number of permitted uses is the most limited.

Click here for the regulations contained in the city's zoning code for the Single Family 7 zoning district.  If you don't believe these regulations are really the city's regulations, you can go to Municode.com, look for Florida, Lake Worth and click on Chapter 23 - Zoning.  Then find the link to SF7.  It might be helpful to create another window for the regulations so that you can refer to them as you read this.

Before we go much further, this is how "principal structure" and "principal use" are defined in the city's zoning code:

Principal use: The use which constitutes the primary activity function or purpose to which a parcel of land or building is put.
Principal structure: That structure on an individual lot that is dominant in size and which houses the principal use.

Before the new garage was built, the small residential structure was both the principal use and principal structure on the property.  Note that a "principal structure" is one that is "dominant in size" and it houses the "principal use."  It is also part of the planning paradigm that you cannot have more than one principal use on a property, the exception being mixed-use commercial or residential developments. Clue number one why the garage should not be permitted here is that it is actually a permitted accessory structure and use within this zoning district, but this garage DWARFS the principal structure..  Here the the definitions from the zoning code related to "accessory use" and "accessory structure."

Accessory use: A use customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use and located on the same lot with such principal use.
Accessory structure: Any detached structure which houses an accessory use which is customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal structure. All accessory structures erected in residential districts shall be no more than forty (40) percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure excluding prefabricated approved metal storage buildings totaling no more than one hundred forty-four (144) square feet.

So, if you multiply 40% by the square footage of the existing principal building, you end up with the maximum size of an accessory structure on this lot, given the 1,183  square footage of the existing single family structure, of 473 square feet.  THIS IS AS LARGE AS ANOTHER BUILDING ON THIS LOT COULD BE...PERIOD.

Besides the principal uses permitted by right in the SF7 - one (1) single family structure, "essential services" - which is a catch all category for the following:

Essential services: Public and private facilities related to electrical, water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, solid waste, telephone, gas, and cable television selection and distribution systems serving the city, including single pole transmission and distribution lines, underground lines, conduits and pipes, pumps, transformers and other equipment, and appurtenances thereto, and necessary protective enclosures not designed to be occupied by employees; and public safety facilities such as fire, ambulance and/or police stations. In addition, this category shall include the City of Lake Worth or the Lake Worth Community Redevelopment Agency constructing and maintaining publicly owned parking facilities in the PO/MF 20, PO/MF30, MIC-1, MIC-2, HIC-1, HIC-2, and CAC zoning districts or in any districts in which transitional parking facilities are allowed.

No one has represented that this is a "public safety facility" such as the types indicated above.  This would be the only possible "out" that would allow this sort of building within this district.  If it is, then I am wrong and you can quit reading now.  One would assume that public ownership - state, county or city - would be required to meet the definition of "public safety facility."

Also allowed as a principal use are Type 1 Group Homes - which are also subject to their own additional regulations.

Given the gigantic size of the new garage in relation to the existing single family structure, it now the principal use and structure on the property - WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT ALLOWED IN OUR SF-7 ZONING DESIGNATION.

Since many people here fixate on height - the maximum height of an accessory building is 15 feet.  I didn't measure this building, but it may exceed this limitation.  And if it does, someone may have considered it a principal structure or use - which they can't BECAUSE GARAGES ARE NOT ALLOWED AS A PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USE IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT.

Clearly, a mistake was made here and someone is not owning up to it.  Either that or it is a public safety facility - which I highly doubt.

And, lest we have any doubt that this building should not have been permitted, the last line of the SF-7 district says this:  "Location of accessory buildings, pools, etc.: Accessory buildings, pools and similar structures shall not be located between the main structure and a public street."