ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2311: Request for a variance from the land development code to allow a 20 foot front setback in lieu of the required 25 foot setback for the MH-2 zoning district and a request for a variance to allow a maximum building coverage of 50 percent in lieu of the allowable 30 percent for the MH-2 zoning district for the property at 603 Starboard Avenue.
Body
Parcel ID#: 840101000720
Proposed use: Carport/Patio Cover
Description of request:
a. To allow a front yard setback of 20 feet in lieu of the required 25 foot setback as described within Article V, Table V-1, Site Dimensions, for the MH-2 zoning district.
b. To allow a maximum building coverage of 50 percent in lieu of the allowable maximum building coverage of 30 percent as described within Article V, Table V-1, Site Dimensions, for the MH-2 zoning district.
Explanation of hardship by applicant: Need carport and sidewalk covered for safety reasons.
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. It is the bare minimum. Increase of lot coverage to cover the sidewalk from the carport to the door.
b. Staff’s response: No, the applicant has reasonable use of the property by conforming to the setbacks within the MH-2, Manufactured Home Sub 50 acres zoning district standards established in Section 21-52.02, Table V-1 of the Land Development Code.
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. The parcel meets the minimum lot square footage, the minimum lot width, the minimum lot depth.
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: They are proposed.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is proposing a structure that does not conform to Section 21-59.02, Table V-1 of the City of Edgewater’s land development code.
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.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Summary
Staff received the following feedback from City Departments:
Environmental Services:
The subject property is in Edgewater Landing. The existing home has several additions including an expansion of the concrete driveway apparently to park a golf cart. While it is not clearly stated in the application, Environmental Services understands the Applicant’s intent is to install a new carport covering the golf cart parking portion of the existing driveway. It is not clear from the provided materials what code is not being met thereby requiring this variance. Below is an oblique aerial image of the property dated January 2023 facing northerly.
Analysis:
If the proposal is simply to install a new carport covering over an existing concrete slab, there is no impact from a stormwater or utilities perspective. However, depending on the placement of the carport’s columns, it may impair the ability of the vehicle(s) to enter the carport without an extension of the driveway slab to connect to the street. This possible driveway expansion would create new impervious surface.
Recommendation:
Environmental Services offers no recommendation as the exact nature of the variance request is unclear. Please clarify the requested variance and whether the Applicant intends to further extend the driveway as a result of this construction.
Fire:
No comments or concerns.
Economic Development:
No comments or concerns.
Staff does not recommend approval of the Variance for application VA-2311 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.