ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2427: Request for variances from Article V - Site Design Criteria to allow for a 20’ second-front yard setback in lieu of the required 40’ setback for the residential property located at 218 North Riverside Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Michael Rosentrater
PROPOSED USE:
Applicant is requesting a variance to build a new Single-Family residence within the 40’ second front yard setback along the south side of the property.
REQUESTED ACTION: (Change to current code)
1. Article V, Section 21-50.02 to allow a structure to be built with a 20’ setback in lieu of the required 40’.
PARCEL ID:
7452-21-00-0380
AREA:
0.48 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant (Cleared single-family home)
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-1, Single-Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Council Person Charlotte Hope Gillis
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance from Article V of the Land Development Code to allow for a 20’ setback in lieu of the required 40’ for the single family home located at 218 North Riverside Drive. The lot is located on a side corner, and the Land Development Code states that side corner setbacks shall have 2 front yard setbacks and 2 side yard setbacks. Given the narrow nature of the lot, two 40’ setbacks would be limiting for the construction of a home. The previous home that existed on the property had an existing approximate 20’ setback along Plaza Lane, however the new owner demolished the home and proposed to expand the footprint without expanding the setback encroachment.
Aerial:
Site Plan:
Previous structure:
Staff Review:
According to Article IX, 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. & Z. Board 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.
Explanation of hardship by applicant: Footprint of home will be restricted and not aesthetically pleasing to surrounding homes and neighbors.
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 result in a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
i. Future Land Use Policy 1.5.7: Maintaining Site Design Requirements and Subdivision Regulations. The City shall maintain site design requirements and subdivision regulations in the Land Development Code, which adequately address the impacts of new development on adjacent properties in all land use categories and zoning districts.
This criterion has not 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: Multiple homes in the area with less than 40’ setback.
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
i. The following neighborhood properties currently have Single Family corner lots with less than the required setback:
1. 216 N Riverside Drive
2. 200 N Riverside Drive
3. 124 N Riverside Drive
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: Any less of a variance would adversely affect house footprint and design.
b. Staff’s response: The applicant could meet setbacks by building a smaller single-family home.
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: Multiple homes with a variety of setbacks in surrounding area.
b. Staff’s response: The subject property is a conforming lot meeting the minimum lot size, width, and depth, however the surrounding neighborhood pre-dates the current setbacks within the Land Development Code, not making this encroachment unique.
This criterion has 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: Proposal to build utilizing 20’ setback on Plaza Lane.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is looking to increase the size of the residence which will encroach into the 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?
a. Applicant’s response: No, the structure that was razed was 19.5’ from property line.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, though granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare it will impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code Article V.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments: Staff received no comments from other Departments.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on January 28th, 2025. In addition, Public Notices were mailed to all addresses within 500’ of the proposed project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2427 because the applicant could not meet all six criteria of Article IX, Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance, City of Edgewater’s Land Development Code.