ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2415: Request for multiple variances from the Land Development Code for a detached garage at 3032 Unity Tree Drive:
1. Construct an accessory building more than 60% of the total square footage of the principal structure
2. Construct an accessory building 5’ from the side setback in lieu of the required 10’
3. Construct an accessory building 10’ from the rear setback in lieu of the required 20’
4. Construct an accessory building 2’ higher than the height of the principle structure
5. Increase the maximum building coverage to 34% in lieu of the required 30% for R-2 Zoning
6. Construct a secondary paved driveway apron adjacent to the primary driveway in lieu of the required 10’ separation.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Brian Stevens
PROPOSED USE:
Applicant is requesting a variance to build a detached garage in the rear of the property.
REQUESTED ACTION(S):
1. Article III, Section 21-36.02(k)- To allow an accessory building to exceed 60% of the total square footage of the principal structure.
2. Article V, Section 21-50.02- To allow a 5’ setback from the side property line in R-2 Zoning.
3. Article V, Section 21-50.02- To allow a 10’ setback from the rear property line in R-2 Zoning.
4. Article III, Section 21-36.02(c)- To allow an accessory building to exceed the height of the principal structure.
5. Article V, Section 21-50.02- To allow a 34% maximum building coverage in R-2 Zoning.
6. Article V, Section 21-52.02- To allow a secondary driveway apron adjacent to the primary driveway.
PARCEL ID:
8402-01-14-5750
AREA:
+0.23 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Home
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 multiple variances from the Land Development Code for a detached garage at 3032 Unity Tree Drive: to construct an accessory building more than 60% of the total square footage of the principal structure, 5’ from the side setback in lieu of the required 10’, 10’ from the rear setback in lieu of the required 20’, and to increase the maximum building coverage to 34% in lieu of the required 30% for R-2 Zoning. The proposed garage is 37’x40’, or 1,480 square feet. The principal structure is 1,829 square feet. The proposed garage would be 81% of the building area of the principle structure.
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: “We need a bigger garage unfortunately the placement of the preexisting house and the current setbacks prevent a direct access to the garage from the street. By reducing the setbacks of the property, it allows a better placement of the garage, easier access to the garage from the street and makes it a more pleasing view from the street. It also will allow more useable green space in the backyard. After walking the neighborhood and looking at the outbuildings of our neighbors, we are not asking for more than has previously been granted. I can provide photographs of other nearby properties with structures within 3 to 5 feet from property lines.”
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.
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 which appear to encroach upon the required setbacks:
1. 3036 Unity Tree Drive
2. 3044 Unity Tree Drive
3. 3027 Unity Tree Drive
4. 3020 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: Yes
b. Staff’s response: No. The home currently has a 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: “There is no side yard room to fit a garage so proposed structure needs to go in the back yard which is why we” (illegible)
b. Staff’s response: No, the lot meets conformance according to a R-2 zoning.
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: Yes. “By increasing the size of the garage we need the extra set back and lot coverage.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The applicant is requesting to get a variance to construct a detached garage when there is currently an attached garage.
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. “We are already able to have a 1200 sqft garage. We would like to increase the size a little to be able to fit everything we need in it.”
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.
Public Notice:
A Public Notice was mailed to all addresses within 500 feet of the project area, and a public notice sign was posted on the site on July 31, 2024. As of August 7, 2024, staff has received no public comments regarding the proposed comprehensive plan amendment or zoning change.
Staff Comments:
The Technical Review Committee had no comments or concerns regarding the variance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2415 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.