ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2413: Request for variances from Article III and Article V of the Land Development Code to allow for the construction of a detached garage totaling 788 square feet in the 40’ front yard setback of the property at 1719 South Riverside Drive.
Body
OWNER:
David J and Loren H Conlan
PROPOSED USE:
Applicant is requesting a variance to build additional protected parking and storage garage on the west side of the property in the front yard.
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Article III, Section 21-36.02 (g) To allow an accessory structure to be located in the front yard.
2. Article III, Section 21-36.02 (j) To allow the applicant to have three accessory structures on the parcel.
3. Article V, Table V-1 To allow the reduced setback of 25’ in lieu of the 40’ required for an R-1 Property.
PARCEL ID:
8402-28-02-0048
AREA:
0.57 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Home
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential with Conservation Overlay
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-1, Single-Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Two - Council Person Gigi Bennington
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance from Article III, Section 21-36.02, (g) which states no accessory structure will be allowed in the front yard of any zoning district, (j) which states accessory buildings shall be limited to 2 per parcel, and Article V, Table V-
1, which states the front yard setback should be 40 feet. In order for the applicant to build a detached garage at the residence located at 1719 South Riverside Drive, each of the above articles and tables would need to be approved by the Planning and Zoning board to allow a front yard accessory structure (garage) with a setback of 25 feet and allow for 3 accessory structures on this parcel.
Site Plan:
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: “Current parking is not adequate for my family and our storage needs. Many other properties in area have detached garages located in front yards.”
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: “No, the structure would be located within designated setbacks and not affect adjacent properties.”
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 have accessory buildings in the front yard:
1. 1819 S Riverside Drive
2. 2019 S Riverside Drive
3. 2105 S Riverside Drive
4. 1605 S 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: Yes.
b. Staff’s response: No. The applicant has an existing garage.
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: Yes.
b. Staff’s response: The subject site is considered conforming and meets the minimum lot square footage, width, and 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: “No. Our property resides on the river front side of Riverside Dr. unlike most riverfront property on Riverside Dr., our property does not abut Riverside Dr., and is not even visible from Riverside Dr. Access to our property is via a common, right-of-way easement. Our front yard boarders the rear yards of two different properties. “
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The applicant is requesting to get a variance to construct a secondary detached garage in the front yard.
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. Structure would be located entirely within our property boundary and setbacks. The structure will be built to resemble the same exterior appearance as the principal structure.
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 III and Article V.
This criterion has not been met.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted and a letter was mailed to all addresses within 500 feet of the proposed variance area on July 31 ,2024. As of August 7, 2024, staff has received no requests regarding general information regarding the proposed detached garage.
Staff Comments:
The Technical Review Committee had no comments or concerns regarding the variance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2413 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.