ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2319: Request for a variance from the land development code to allow an accessory structure without a principle structure; to allow an accessory structure to be located within four point eight feet of the rear setback in the R-3 zoning district; to allow an accessory structure to be located within nine point eight feet of the side yard setback in the R-3 zoning district; to allow an accessory structure to not match the façade of the future principle structure for the property located at 115 E. Turgot Avenue.
Body
OWNER:
Jim and Jennifer Fox
LOCATION:
115 E Turgot Avenue
PARCEL ID:
743306010100
PROPOSED USE:
Detached garage, 24’ wide x 54’ length
CURRENT LAND USE:
Detached Garage
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential (LDR)
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-3
VOTING DISTRICT:
Council District 1, Councilwoman Charlotte Gillis
BACKGROUND:
The applicant first filed for a Lot Split on March 13th of 2023. The applicant is still seeking a lot split. The proposed lot split was denied by the Technical Review Committee because the proposed lot did not meet the minimum standards of the R-3 zoning district. Staff errored in judgment noting that the applicant could not apply for a variance. Any standard in the land development code can utilize a variance as a waiver. The applicant demolished the home, and staff subsequently began citing the issues that a lot split was not possible now because an accessory structure cannot exist without a principle structure. Staff has determined at this time, if the board grants the requested variances, a lot split would be able to be processed.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST BY APPLICANT:
To retain the pre-existing 24’ x 54’ garage and the fencing located on the original non-conforming property at 111 East Turgot Avenue to be used for residential purposes. Current setback regulations do not apply to properties developed with structures built prior to the incorporation of the City. These properties and the structures built on them are considered to be non-conforming.
Explanation of hardship by applicant:
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: Yes. Both lots will remain zoned for only residential use thus conforming to the neighboring nonconforming residential lots.
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. These structures are valuable. The cost to replace both the garage and fencing is in excess of $200,000. Again, back to our notes, this situation would have been avoided had the City been forthcoming in our application processes.
b. Staff’s response: No, the applicant has reasonable use of the property by conforming to the setbacks within the R-3 zoning district standards established in Section 21-52.02, Table V-1 of the Land Development Code.
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, similar structures exist on neighboring residential properties.
b. Staff’s response: The subject site is considered a conforming lot with a non-conforming, but once grandfathered structure. The parcel meets the minimum lot square footage, the minimum lot width, the minimum lot depth.
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, had the City been forthcoming in the application processes, the situation would not exist.
b. Staff’s response: The applicant mistakenly took down the principle structure which eliminated the ability by right to keep the accessory structure. Based upon reviewing the files, it appears that staff did not inform the applicant of this process.
This criterion has 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, both properties will remain zoned for residential use and both structures are for residential use.
c. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will negate the intent of the Land Development Code for establishing setbacks.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Summary
Staff received the following feedback from City Departments:
Environmental Services:
After reviewing the submittals for the subject variance, I believe the request is reasonable and does not interfere with the function of stormwater or other services within the purview of the Environmental Services Department. Environmental Services does not object to the requested variance.
It should be noted that if the former-parcel (111 E Turgot Ave) were to be split from the residence parcel (115 E Turgot Ave), the new parcel (111 E Turgot Ave) would be assessed Base Charges for Water & Sewer availability and Stormwater Charges due to the presence of impervious surface related to garage rooftop and driveway slab. Refuse charges and Water/Sewer usage charges may be avoided if no active use occurs on the parcel.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Motion to deny the variances for VA-2319 because all six criteria could not be met in accordance with Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance, City of Edgewater’s Land Development Code.
Should the Board decide to approve the variance, staff suggests the board condition a principle structure be under review by Development Services prior to the expiration of said variance.