ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2418: Request for variances from Article III and V of the Land Development Code to allow for a front yard detached garage for the property located at 1890 Old Mission Road.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Owner: Jack and Carolee Lawson
PROPOSED USE:
Building of a detached Garage to provide coverage for additional equipment on the property.
REQUESTED ACTION(S):
1. Per Article III, Section 21-36.02- General Regulations- To allow for a detached accessory structure (garage) to be located in the front yard of the property.
2. Per Article III, Section 21-36.02- General Regulations- To allow an accessory structure (detached garage) to exceed the height of the primary structure.
3. Per Article V, Table V-1 Site Dimensions- To allow for a 11’ 2 ¾” setback from the front property line in lieu of the required setback of 40’ for an R T Zoning.
PARCEL ID:
7344-11-00-0040
AREA:
+2.12 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Home
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Transition with Conservation Overlay
ZONING DISTRICT:
R T, Rural Transitional
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Council Person Charlotte Gillis
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting multiple variances from the Land Development Code for a detached garage for the property located at 1890 Old Mission Road. The request is for a variance to allow a front yard accessory structure, to allow an 11’ 2 ¾” front yard setback line in lieu of the required 40’ for Rural Transitional Zoning, and to allow an accessory structure to be greater in height than the principle structure.
The applicant is proposing the structure in front of the house to preserve the wetlands in the rear of the property. In addition, the front yard was reduced by 0.38 acres due to Eminent Domain for future expansion of Old Mission Road. The applicant previously applied for a variance for a detached garage but was denied by the Planning & Zoning Board in March, 2024. The applicant re-engineered the plans to reduce the overall size of the garage by 482 square feet, for a total of 2,090 square feet. The proposed structure will have an architectural shingle roof and stucco siding to match the color of the primary residence.
Staff Comments:
Staff received a favorable recommendation from Environmental Services:
“After reviewing the submittals for the subject variance, the request does not interfere with the function of traffic, stormwater, or other services within the purview of the Environmental Services Department. Environmental Services does not object to the requested variance.”
Aerial Exhibit:
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:
“No other location on 2.12 Acres of property allows for this structure to be built. This is primarily due to wetland setbacks & property loss of .38 ac due to Eminent Domain Action. The above variance requests are being made in support of curb appeal, Equipment Preservation for existing
equipment. This newly proposed structure would be decorated in the same manner of the existing home to include a matching Shingle roof and stucco siding to ensure a consistent look between the primary residence and the accessory structure.”
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.
ii. Conservation Policy 1.6.2: Upland Buffer Requirement. A minimum 25-foot upland buffer will be required from the wetland boundaries in the city.
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: Yes. “No changes to property”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses. This address has been annexed into the city in a Low-Density Residential area.
This criterion has not been met.
3. Is the proposed action the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property?
a. Applicant’s response: Yes. “Yes, in order to provide coverage for additional existing equipment on the property”
b. Staff’s response: No. The home is adequate with a three car garage already attached to the primary residence.
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. “Wetlands surround the property only provide for a building site as requested.”
b. Staff’s response: No, due to the wetlands continuing through surrounding parcels.
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. “Natural wetland location to the property suggests that this building site be in accordance to Wetland setbacks thus location is only location available”
b. Staff’s response: No, the applicant could place the garage within the wetlands with the correct permits, however they wish to preserve the wetlands. Furthermore, the front property line setback is exacerbated due to previous eminent domain reducing the lot size.
This criterion has 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. “No substantial detriment to the land will be impacted.”
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 and III.
This criterion has not been met.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on August 28, 2024. In addition, Public Notices were mailed to all addresses within 500’ of the proposed project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2418 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.