ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2611: Request for a variance to allow a front yard 1,440 sq ft storage building and remove the requirement of matching the façade, roofline, exterior construction materials and color for the property located at 2931 Yule Tree Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Ariel R. Periut, Owner.
PROPOSED USE:
To allow a front yard 1,440 sq. ft. storage building without the requirement for the structure to meet the requirement of matching the primary residence.
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article III, Section 21-36.02 (g), to allow a front yard accessory structure.
2. Per Article III, Section 21-36.02 (m), to allow a 1,440 sq. ft. structure without the requirement to meet the primary structure in architectural design, exterior construction materials or façade treatment, roofline and color.
PARCEL ID:
8402-01-13-1530
AREA:
0.46 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-2, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Three - Council Person: Debbie Dolbow
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 1,440-square-foot front yard accessory storage building. Under Article III of the Land Development Code, accessory structures are prohibited within front yards. Additionally, given its size, the proposed structure must match the primary building's architectural design, exterior materials or façade treatment, roofline, and color palette. Consequently, the requested variance is necessary for the owner to proceed with constructing the storage building as proposed.
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: “N/A”
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. [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, it is a storage building.”
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 neighboring properties have large accessory storage/ garage buildings not meeting design standards:
1. 2811 Yule Tree Drive
2. 2632 Woodland 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: “No.”
b. Staff’s response: No. The storage building could be moved back, as well as, meet the design requirement.
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: No. The lot appears consistent in size and configuration with surrounding residential parcels and the land development code.
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.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The need for the variance is a direct result of the applicant's design preferences and chosen layout, rather than any unique physical constraints or topographical characteristics inherent to the property itself.
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, it is a storage building.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. While granting the proposed variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare, it would impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code, specifically Article III, which establishes minimum standards to implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan and ensure compatibility of development patterns.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
Fire Comment: No concerns or comments.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on, May 27, 2026. In addition, Public Notices were mailed to all addresses within 500’ of the proposed project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2611 because the applicant could not meet all six criteria of Article IX, Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance, Cit