ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2408: Request for a variance from Article V to allow for the construction of a single-family home within the 30’ second front yard setback to a 10’ setback on a corner lot at 117 Lamont Street.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Thad Harty
PROPOSED USE:
Single Family Home
The lot is at the corner of Lamont Street and Hubbard Street. Applicant is requesting a variance to have his home setback 10’ within the required 30’ second front yard setback per Article V Table V-1 Site Dimensions for the R-3 Zoning.
REQUESTED ACTION: (Change to current code)
1. Article V, Section 21-50-02 Table V-1: To allow a structure to be located 10 feet from the second front yard setback in lieu of the required 30-foot setback in the R-3 Zoning.
PARCEL ID:
74520000051
AREA:
0.28 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Residential
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-3, Single-Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Councilwoman Charlotte Gillis
Explanation of hardship by applicant:
The existing corner setback from Lamont Street creates a building area for the house that is less wide than many lots in the neighborhood.
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.
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. 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 proposed use is for a single-family home, which is consistent and compatible with the residential neighborhood.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
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, according to the current setbacks the property doesn’t allow for adequate backyard space. Additionally, the request would provide for a buildable lot width that is more compatible and reasonably similar in size with the surrounding homes.
b. Staff’s response: No, there is adequate building space on the lot.
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, the other corner lots in the neighborhood are wider and allow for backyard space. This property was subdivided from a larger parcel, which resulted in a narrower buildable area when the full 30’ Lamont Street setback is applied.
b. Staff’s response: The lot is conforming to the R-3 zoning code for minimum site dimensions.
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, the lot was subdivided by a previous owner and not the applicant.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is looking to increase the width of the house to provide for a larger backyard, which will result in the encroachment of the Lamont Street side setbacks reducing the setback from 30’ to 10’.
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: Yes, the request will not cause any detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes of the Land Development Code. Granting this request will allow a buildable lot area more compatible with what is existing in the neighborhood, rather than a very narrow house. Since Lamont Street, is a short residential street, granting the request would not produce any detrimental effects to the public welfare. All other requirements of the Land Development Code will be met and the new home will blend in better with the existing neighborhood.
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.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval of VA-2408 because all six criteria could not be satisfied in accordance with Article IX, Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance.