ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2326: Request for a variance to allow a front setback of 14.6 feet in lieu of the requirement of 25 feet and to allow a maximum building coverage of 43 percent in lieu of the requirement of 30 percent within the MH-2 zoning district according to Article V, Section 21-50.02, Table V-1 for the property at 711 Charter Lane.
Body
OWNER:
Ronald Grathnol
REQUESTED ACTION:
To build a new 360 square foot carport, (20’ x 18’).
Existing Building Coverage is 2,489 square feet on a 6,600 square foot lot. The existing building coverage is 37 percent.
LOCATION:
711 Charter Lane
PARCEL ID:
840102003960
HOA APPROVAL:
Received
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Home
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Medium Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
MH-2
VOTING DISTRICT:
District 4, Councilman Jonah Powers
Explanation of hardship by applicant: “Existing Carport is unusable due to handicap ramp constructed with current carport extension. They are trying to enlarge the carport because of not being able to use the existing carport due to a handclapped ramp. The survey map shows the problem. They wanted to build the 18’ wide by 20’ long carport attached to the existing house. The driveway is 18’ wide and the 20’ length is within the required 25’ setback from the street. There is no concrete needed.”
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. & 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.
1. 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.
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 currently have non-permeable structures in the City of Edgewater.
1. 703 Charter Lane- Structure within 20 feet of front setback.
2. 709 Charter Lane- Structure within 20 feet of front setback.
3. 712 Charter Lane- Structure within 20 feet of front setback.
4. 714 Charter Lane- Structure within 20 feet of front setback.
5. 717 Charter Lane- Structure within 20 feet of front setback.
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: No, the applicant has use of the house on property.
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 homes have carports.
b. Staff’s response: No, the lot is considered conforming to the zoning designation within the City of Edgewater.
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, because of handicapped ramp the existing carport is unusable.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is requesting to place the carport structure within the setbacks and over max build limits.
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.
b. Staff’s response: No, while the structure will impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development code, granting the structure 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 install an 18x20 carport in front of the dwelling with associated widening of the concrete driveway.
• Fire: No comments or concerns.
Staff does not recommend approval of the Variances for application VA-2326 because all six (6) criteria could 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.