ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2317: Request to allow the construction of a detached garage (greater than 250 square feet) with a rear yard setback of 6’ in lieu of the required setback of 20 feet within the R-2 zoning designation in accordance with Article V, Table V-1.
Body
Parcel ID#: 840201116080
Proposed use: 2 Car Garage
Explanation of hardship by applicant: Transition to drive too steep at 20-foot setback, need 6 feet.
According to Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance, City of Edgewater’s Land Development Code; In order to grant a non-administrative variance, the P&ZB shall make the following findings of fact:
1. That granting of the proposed variance is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan;
2. That granting of the proposed variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area;
3. That granting of the proposed variance is the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property;
4. That the physical characteristics of the subject site are unique and not present on adjacent sites; and
5. That the circumstances creating the need for the variance are not the result of actions by the applicant, actions proposed by the applicant or actions by the previous property owner(s).
6. That granting of the proposed variance(s) will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code.
1. Will granting the proposed variance result in a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan?
a. Staff’s response: After review, Staff has determined that granting the variance would not result in a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
i. Yes, granting the variance would further Objective 1.4 which is to discourage urban sprawl and encourage redevelopment.
i. Policy 1.4.1: Limiting Development and the Utility Service Area:
1. The City will limit land development activities outside of the adopted Utility Service Area boundary to encourage infill and ensure the availability of services and facilities to accommodate development.
ii. Policy 1.4.3: Reducing Limitations on Infill and Redevelopment
1. If necessary, the City may reduce limitations on infill and redevelopment activities consistent with the land uses and densities indicated in this Plan in situations that will not jeopardize public health, safety or welfare.
This criterion has been met.
2. Will the granting of the proposed variance result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area?
a. Applicant’s Response: No.
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
This criterion has been met.
3. Is the proposed action the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property?
a. Applicant’s response: Yes.
b. Staff’s response: No, the applicant has use of a single-family home, covered patio, and pool
This criterion has not been met.
4. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites?
a. Applicant’s response: No.
b. Staff’s response: The subject site is considered a conforming lot within the R-2 zoning designation.
This criterion has not been met.
5. Are the circumstances creating the need for the variance the result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant?
a. Applicant’s response: Yes.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is proposing an accessory structure that does not conform to setbacks.
This criterion has not been met.
6. Will the granting of the proposed variance cause substantial detriment to public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code?
b. Applicant’s response: No.
c. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will negate the intent of the Land Development Code for establishing setbacks, however it will not be a detriment to the public welfare.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Summary
Staff received the following feedback from City Departments:
Environmental Services:
Environmental Services does not object to the requested variance to reduce the rear setback from 20ft to 6ft for the construction of a garage.
Background:
The Applicant obtained building permit #23-2346 (issued 8/15/2023) to place a 30’ (deep) x 26’ (wide) metal garage connecting to the existing concrete driveway apron on the north side of the property which extends to the unpaved / unopened 24th Street right-of-way. The submitted plans showed the free-standing garage building to be attached to a new concrete slab and meeting required setbacks of 10ft from the north property line and 20ft from the eastern (rear) property line.
Clearing and grade stakes have been set at the property for the garage slab. The Applicant now asserts that there is insufficient room to place the garage such that the incline from the existing driveway apron to the top of proposed slab would be shallow enough in slope to allow vehicular use without scraping the bottom of their vehicles.
On 10/2/2023 at 1:00pm, I met with Applicants on their property to review the existing stormwater runoff patterns. The rear setback is already encumbered with the construction of a pool deck, with its fill slope and filtration equipment in close proximity to the fence line. There did not appear to be a concern regarding impounding of rear-yard runoff with the requested variance, as any stormwater collected in the backyard appears to flow either east or west to Tamarind or Unity along the depressed side yards at the southern property line.
Fire:
No comments or concerns.
Staff does not recommend approval of the Variance for application VA-2317 because all six (6) criteria could not be met in accordance with Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance.
Variance general requirement for the Board’s consideration:
Economic, personal, or any other hardship that is self-imposed shall not be sufficient justification to grant a variance. Hardship for the purpose of this section is defined as a restriction on property so unreasonable that it results in an arbitrary and/or capricious interference with basic property rights. Hardship relates to the physical characteristics of the property, not the personal circumstances of the owner or user, and the property is rendered unusable without the granting of a variance.