ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2320: Request for a variance for multiple provisions from Article 7, Section 21-71.02 and Article 5, Section 21-50.02 for the property located at 104 N Park Place.
Body
OWNER:
Jessica and Vincent Briscoe
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. To allow the construction of a single-family home that exceeds the footprint where a once existing non-conforming single-family home stood on a non-conforming lot in lieu of the requirement to build the same footprint in accordance with Article 7, Section 21-72.02(e)(1).
2. To allow a front setback of 19 feet in lieu of the required setback of 30 feet within the R-3 zoning designation for the encroachment of a second story deck in accordance with Article 5, Section 21-50.02, Table V-1.
3. To allow a northside setback of 5 feet in lieu of the required 10 foot side setback within the R-3 zoning designation in accordance with Article 5, Section 21-50.02, Table V-1.
4. To allow a southside setback of 7 feet in lieu of the required 10 foot side setback within the R-3 zoning designation in accordance with Article 5, Section 21-50.02, Table V-1.
5. To allow a maximum building coverage of 45 percent in lieu of the required 30 percent maximum building coverage within the R-3 zoning designation in accordance with Article 5, Section 21-50.02, Table V-1.
6. To allow a maximum building height of 35 feet in lieu of the required 26 feet within the R-3 zoning designation in accordance with Article 5, Section 21-50.02, Table V-1.
LOT SIZE:
58 feet in width x 75 feet in depth = 4,350 square feet
PROPOSED USE:
Single-Family
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Home
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-3
VOTING DISTRICT:
District 1, Councilwoman Charlotte Gillis
SURROUNDING AREA:
|
|
Current Land Use |
FLUM Designation |
Zoning District |
|
North |
Single-Family |
Low Density Residential |
R-3 |
|
East |
City Hall |
Public/Semi-Public |
Public/Semi-Public |
|
South |
Police Parking |
Public/Semi-Public |
Public/Semi-Public |
|
West |
Marina Overflow Parking |
Public/Semi-Public |
Public/Semi-Public |
Explanation of hardship by applicant: This is an infill type project. Intend to demolish dilapidated single-family home and build a new single-family home that is larger, but will have more equally distributed setbacks than the existing home.
According to 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&ZB 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 not result in a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
i. Yes, granting the variance would further Objective 1.4 which is to discourage urban sprawl and encourage redevelopment.
i. Policy 1.4.1: Limiting Development and the Utility Service Area:
1. The City will limit land development activities outside of the adopted Utility Service Area boundary to encourage infill and ensure the availability of services and facilities to accommodate development.
ii. Policy 1.4.3: Reducing Limitations on Infill and Redevelopment
1. If necessary, the City may reduce limitations on infill and redevelopment activities consistent with the land uses and densities indicated in this Plan in situations that will not jeopardize public health, safety or welfare.
This criterion has 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: The granting of the variances will allow the building to blend in with the area and look less of an eye sore.
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses
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, the lot size is non-conforming.
b. Staff’s response: No, the applicant could rebuild a new home within the existing foot print for 1,314 square feet. The applicant is proposing to increase the base area of the house by approximately 648 square feet.
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, lot is non-conforming.
b. Staff’s response: The subject site is much smaller than the standards dictated for the R-3 zoning district.
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: No, non-conforming lot size and currently non-conforming setbacks.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant could rebuild the home to the existing footprint. The desire is to readjust setbacks to more equally distribute the home on the small lot and expand the size of the home.
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?
b. Applicant’s response: No, granting of variances will allow for beautification of area and will bring up property values. It will help eliminate a dilapidated building.
c. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not cause detriment to the public welfare, however it will negate the intent of the Land Development Code for establishing setbacks.
This criterion has not been met.
Variance general requirement for the Board’s consideration:
Economic, personal, or any other hardship that is self-imposed shall not be sufficient justification to grant a variance. Hardship for the purpose of this section is defined as a restriction on property so unreasonable that it results in an arbitrary and/or capricious interference with basic property rights. Hardship relates to the physical characteristics of the property, not the personal circumstances of the owner or user, and the property is rendered unusable without the granting of a variance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Motion to deny the variance requests for VA-2320 for the property at 104 N Park Place because all six criteria could not be met in accordance with Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance.