ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2316: Request to allow the construction of a new home with a larger footprint on a non-conforming lot with a demolished non-conforming structure in lieu of the requirement to build a new home with the existing footprint of the demolished home in accordance with Article VII, Section 21-71.02(e)(1) and Section 21-71.04(g).
Body
Parcel ID#: 745201000063
Proposed use: Construction of New Home beyond original footprint.
Explanation of hardship by applicant: New structure has a larger footprint than existing structure.
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: No, new structure has larger footprint then existing structure.
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.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the prior home was less than 650 square feet for a single-family residence. The lot is non-conforming as well as the house prior to demolition. The applicant is request to expand the base footprint by 150 + square feet.
This criterion has been met.
4. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites?
a. Applicant’s response: No. New residence.
b. Staff’s response: The subject site is considered a non-conforming lot with a non-conforming structure. Parcel does not meet the width requirement nor is it practical to meet the land development code setbacks for the R-3 zoning designation on the non-conforming lot.
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, rebuilding a home instead of a cottage.
b. Staff’s response: No, the lot was platted prior to the adoption of the land development code.
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. Rebuilding existing home.
c. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will negate the intent of the Land Development Code for establishing setbacks, however it will not be a detriment to the public welfare.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Summary
Staff received the following feedback from City Departments:
Environmental Services:
Environmental Services does not object to the requested variance to allow a reduced side setback of 5ft, matching the setback of the recently demolished structure on this lot.
Staff does not recommend approval of the Variance for application VA-2316 because all six (6) criteria could not be met in accordance with Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance.
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.