ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2315: Request to allow a swimming pool and cage within 3.5 feet of the rear property line in lieu of the required 5-foot setback from the rear property line in accordance with Article III, Section 21-36.09(d)(2).
Body
Parcel ID#: 844803000010
Proposed use: Inground Pool
Explanation of hardship by applicant: We are unable to build on the south side of the property as it is considered a front yard. Coming in from the property line will only allow 10 feet of pool space.
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, area backs up to a preserve and does not impose on another house or use.
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. 3.5 feet added on to the pool would provide enough space to accommodate my family’s use and enjoyment.
b. Staff’s response: No, the applicant has reasonable use of the property by conforming to the setbacks of the RPUD. The applicant has 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: Yes. The home is located on the corner of the main entrance and therefore has 2 front yard setbacks which prohibit buildings on the side of the home.
b. Staff’s response: The subject site is considered a conforming lot. 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: Yes, would like to install residential in ground pool with enough space to properly enjoy the pool and spa.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is proposing an inground pool which does not meet the required 5-foot setback within the RPUD agreement.
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?
b. Applicant’s response: No. Home backs up to nature preserve.
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 setback of 3.5ft from the rear property line to the proposed pool deck.
Applicant should be aware of the following related to the construction of the proposed pool:
1. All runoff from the pool deck should be directed toward the street and not toward the conservation area behind their east property line.
2. Due to the slope of the backyard, a short retaining wall may be needed to support the pool deck. No fill is permitted to be placed in the conservation area.
Fire:
No comments or concerns.
Staff does not recommend approval of the Variance for application VA-2315 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.