ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2622: Request to allow a front yard metal accessory structure extension with a 5-foot side yard setback for the property located at 1407 36th Street.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Linwood Travis Twyman - Owner/ Applicant
PROPOSED USE:
Carport
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article V, Table V-1- to allow a carport to be placed 5-feet from the east and west side yard setback in lieu of the required 10-feet.
2. Per Article V, Table V-1- to allow an accessory carport to be placed within the front yard.
PARCEL ID:
8402-01-14-8070
AREA:
0.28± acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-2, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Four - Council Person: Eric Rainbird
Discussion:
The applicant proposes to construct a front yard accessory carport on a 0.28± acre lot located at 1407 36th street. The proposal includes a extension to the current carport by adding a lean-to.
Under Article III, Sections 21-36.02(g) and 21-36.02(h), accessory structures must be incidental and subordinate to a primary operating use or principal building, with gross floor area capped at 60% of the principal building. Because the subject lot is at the end of a roadway, placing an extension to an accessory footprint within the front yard bypasses the foundational requirement for the structure.
In addition, the applicant is seeking substantial setback reductions across two property boundaries: reducing the east and west side yard setbacks by 50% (10' to 5'). The applicant indicates that placing a lean-to on the current structure will allow him additional space.
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 Planning and Zoning 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: “Want to add lean-to to existing structure. Present structure was erected by Carolina Carports Inc. They will be adding the lean-to addition using heavy gauge material wind load rated at 150 mph. Structure will be approx. 50 ft from front corner of house.”
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 1.2.9: Stormwater Management. The City shall continue to enforce the stormwater management requirements in the Land Development Code, which provide specific standards for the design of on-site stormwater systems, as well as strategies and measures to minimize runoff into the Indian River Lagoon. [9J-5.006 (3)(c)4., F.A.C.]
ii. 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. [9J-5.006 (3)(c)1. and (3)(c)2., F.A.C.].
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.”
b. Staff’s response: By adding the lean-to accessory structure with reduced 5-foot to 10-foot setbacks introduces stormwater runoff and spatial incompatibility with surrounding properties.
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.”
b. Staff’s response: No. The property retains reasonable residential use by placing and attaching the carport to the primary structure within standard Table V-1 setback envelopes.
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 property consists of a standard platted residential lot displaying physical characteristics similar to adjacent properties. No unique topographical or geological constraints prevent building in code compliance.
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: “Unknown.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The need for variance relief stems from applicant site design preferences to maximize structure area outside allowable building envelopes rather than physical land constraints.
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.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. Granting setback relief up to 50%, allowing a front yard extension, and waiving facade standards without land-based hardship impairs Chapter 21 intent to preserve buffers, fire separation, and visual character.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
Fire Comment: No concerns or comments.
Public Notice:
In strict accordance with Florida Statutes Chapter 166.041 and local municipal ordinances, a physical Public Notice sign was prominently posted on the front of the site facing south on 36th Street on August 26th, 2026. In addition, official written Public Notices were compiled and mailed via USPS to all property owners of record located within a 500-foot buffer radius of the project boundary lines.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2622 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.