ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2404: Request for a variance from Article V to allow an attached garage via a breezeway to be located in the front yard for the property at 3404 Yule Tree Drive.
Body
OWNER:
Lisa Wilson
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Article V, Section 21-50.02, Table V-1: To allow a front yard setback on a corner lot of 11.22 feet in lieu of the requirement of having a front yard setback of 30 feet within the R-2 zoning designation.
PARCEL ID:
840201150640
PROPOSED USE:
Attached Garage via Breezeway for the storage of law and gardening equipment, jet skis, and four wheeler.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Home
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-2 - Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District 4 - Councilman Jonah Powers
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:
No garage at this time. Property owner respectfully request a variance to allow a reduction in the North setback from the required 30’ to 11.22’ = 18.78’ Reduction. The Home has no garage on the property. There is no way to fit a garage on the property without a reduction in setback due to the fact that this is a corner lot that contains (2) Fronts. The property owner would like to store lawn equipment and toys to prevent theft and weather issues. The requested variance will NOT be detrimental to the development pattern in the neighborhood.
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.
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, most homes have an attached or detached garage
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 been granted variances for garages within the City limits of Edgewater.
1. 3405 Woodland Drive
2. 3412 Yule Tree Drive
3. 3330 Yule Tree 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, adding garage to property.
b. Staff’s response: No, Building is habitable and room for parking of vehicles on lot.
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, corner lot requires a greater setback.
b. Staff’s response: No, other properties in the area have built garages on their properties without a variance.
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
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is requesting to get a variance to construct a garage outside of the current setbacks from the Land Development Code.
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: Yes, although 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, Table V-1 setbacks for an R-2 Property.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Summary
Staff received the following feedback from City Departments:
• Environmental Services:
After reviewing the submittals for the subject variance, it appears that the Applicant could reconfigure the intended improvements to reduce the requested amount of encroachment into the property’s setback areas. Environmental Services recommends denial under the current configuration.
The property previously had a 2-car garage within the existing house, which the Applicant enclosed in 2020 via permit #20-2108 to create additional living space. The property already has 3 concrete aprons to access the property from various points, including along the southern portion of the property, these aprons were installed by the Applicant in 2019 via permits #19-1495 and #19-1551. The property is at the southwestern quadrant of the intersection of 34th Street and Yule Tree Drive, both of which are paved streets actively used by the public.
I recommend the Applicant schedule a meeting with the Technical Review Committee to discuss alternative placements of the proposed garage on the property.
• Fire: No comments or concerns.
Staff does recommend approval of the Variance for application VA-2404 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.