ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2417: Request for a variance from the Land Development Code to allow for a rear setback of 4.5’ feet in lieu of the 20’ foot for a screen room at 3409 Woodland Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Martin Russell
PROPOSED USE:
Applicant is requesting a variance to build an attached screen room in the rear of the property.
REQUESTED ACTION(S):
1. Article V, Table V-1 Site Dimensions- To allow a 4.5’ setback from the rear property line in R-2 Zoning.
PARCEL ID:
8402-01-15-0792
AREA:
+0.18 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Home
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-2, Single-Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Four - Council Person Jonah Powers
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting multiple variances from the Land Development Code to allow an attached screen room at 3409 Woodland Drive 4.5’ from the rear setback line in lieu of the required 20’for R-2 Zoning. A typical conforming lot in R-2 zoning is 80’x125’, or 10,000 square feet. This lot is 80’x100’, 8,000 square feet, due to a City owned canal running along the rear of the parcel.
Aerial Exhibit:
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: “Rear door/patio access from home is practical location for enclosure.”
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: Yes. “Changing the rear setback to 4.5’.”
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. 3405 Woodland Drive
2. 3404 Woodland Drive
3. 3414 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. “The most practical location for a screen enclosure is off the rear of the house where the existing rear patio is.”
b. Staff’s response: No. The home has adequate room for a screen enclosure on the north side.
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. “All neighboring properties back up to the stormwater easement.”
b. Staff’s response: The lot is considered non-conforming because of the 25’ City owned stormwater canal to the rear of the property. Conforming lots in Florida Shores are 80’x125’.
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: Yes. “Actions proposed by the applicant extend the rear patio with a 4.5’ rear setback.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The applicant is requesting to get a variance to encroach upon the rear setback.
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. “Due to the 25’ drainage easement and concrete wall, there will still be 30’ from any other neighboring property lines.”
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-2417 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.