ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2323: Request to allow several variances from Article 3, Section 21-36.02 and Article V, Section 21-50.02 for the property located at 1531 Umbrella Tree Drive.
Body
OWNER:
Paul Shephard
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. To allow an accessory structure to be located in the front yard of the property in lieu of the requirement to not allow an accessory structure to be located in any front yard in any zoning district according to Article III, Section 21-36.02(g).
2. To allow a six (6) foot tall fence to be located in the front yard in lieu of the requirement that only allows for a four (4) foot fence to be located in the front yard according to Article III, Section 21-36.02(d).
3. To allow an accessory structure, (shed) less than 200 square feet to be located in the front yard encroaching on the front setback by twenty (20) feet in lieu of the requirements of Article III, Section 21-36.02(h) and Article V, Section 21-50.02, Table V-1 within the R-2 zoning designation.
LOT SIZE:
80 feet in width by 125 feet in depth = 10,000 square feet
PROPOSED USE:
Shed
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Home on Corner Lot
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-2
VOTING DISTRICT:
District 1, Councilwoman Charlotte Gillis
SURROUNDING AREA:
|
|
Current Land Use |
FLUM Designation |
Zoning District |
|
North |
Single-Family |
Low Density Residential |
R-2 |
|
East |
Single-Family |
Low Density Residential |
R-2 |
|
South |
Single-Family |
Low Density Residential |
R-2 |
|
West |
Single-Family |
Low Density Residential |
R-2 |
Explanation of hardship by applicant: Install shed and fence in front yard on a corner lot. Corner lot has two front setbacks and structures are not allowed in front yard.
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: Area has properties with shed and fences in side yards, property will conform with neighborhood.
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses The intended use is compatible with this zoning designation.
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, front yard is only place we have to put a shed because of corner lot
b. Staff’s response: The applicant does have reasonable use of his property through the use of a single-family home.
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: Corner lot with two front yards.
b. Staff’s response: No, the subject site is considered a conforming lot for the R-2 zoning designation.
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, purchased lot did not realize property had two front yard setbacks.
b. Staff’s response: The applicant is proposing to place a six foot fence within the front setback as well as an accessory structure (shed). This is an action by the applicant.
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.
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.
Staff Summary
Staff received the following feedback from City Departments:
• Fire: No comments or concerns.
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-2323 because all six (6) criteria could not be met in accordance with Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance.