ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2512: Request for variances from Article III and Article V to allow for a front yard accessory structure carport sized 22-feet by 22-feet for the property at 3015 Queen Palm Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Ava Trimnal and Cheryl Smith, Owner
PROPOSED USE:
Applicant is requesting a variance to build a carport to the existing property to protect cars.
REQUESTED ACTION: (Change to current code)
1. Article III, Section 21-36.02 (g) to allow a front yard accessory structure carport detached 3 feet from the primary structure.
2. Article III, Section 21-36.02 (m) to allow the accessory structure carport to be metal in lieu of the required architectural design, exterior construction materials or façade treatment, roofline and color.
3. Article V, Table V-1 to allow a 9.3-foot side yard setback and a 10-foot front yard setback.
4. Article V, Table V-1 to allow a max building coverage of 32.80%, due to a pool screen room and detached shed currently on the property.
PARCEL ID:
8402-01-10-7270
AREA:
0.23 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residence
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-2, Single-Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Four - Council Person Eric Rainbird
Discussion:
The applicant is asking for a variance from Articles III, and V, to allow for an accessory structure carport located within the front yard setback, 3-feet from the primary residence. The 22-foot by 22-foot metal carport is proposed to have a 10-foot front yard setback and a 9.3-foot side yard setback. By adding this carport, the applicant will require a variance for the front yard accessory structure, front yard setbacks, side yard setbacks, and maximum building coverage.
The articles that will be affected are:
• Article III, Section 21-36.02 (g) and (m)
• Article V, Table V-1
Aerial:
Site Plan:
Staff Review:
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: “Protect my vehicles since garage is not an option.”
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. Future Land Use Policy 1.1.3: Zoning Districts. The City shall maintain an adopted zoning matrix which shall establish zoning districts that correspond to specific land use categories. The matrix shall further define allowable densities and intensities in each zoning district. [9J-5.006 (3)(c)7., F.A.C.]
ii. Future Land Use Policy 1.2.9: Stormwater Management. The City shall continue to enforce the stormwater management requirements in the Land Development Code, which provide specific standards for the design of on-site stormwater systems, as well as strategies and measures to minimize runoff into the Indian River Lagoon. [9J-5.006 (3)(c)4., F.A.C.]
iii. Future Land Use 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. [9J-5.006 (3)(c)1. and (3)(c)2., F.A.C.]
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: Yes, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
i. The property at 3016 Queen Palm Drive has a carport that is complying with the front yard side back.
This criterion has not been met.
3. Is the proposed action the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property?
a. Applicant’s response: “Yes, we do not have the option of a garage.”
b. Staff’s response: No, the carport could be smaller and attached to the primary structure, thus converting it from an accessory to an addition.
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, there are many carports and stand alone garages in the neighborhood.”
b. Staff’s response: No, site conforms to R-2 zoning requirements.
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, the way the home is situated on the property we need to have an exception since the carport is 22’ 4” from the road.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, applicant is asking to have a metal carport added to the lot detached from the house and built within the front yard setback.
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, we do not see any impact to the property or surrounding property.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, though granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare it will impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code Article III and Article V.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
Code Enforcement recommends denial of the variance request seeking a reduction in the required front yard setback for the installation of a metal carport, for the reasons indicated below.
1. Incompatibility with Surrounding Neighborhood Character
The proposed carport design and placement are inconsistent with the prevailing architectural styles, building setbacks, and open-space patterns of the surrounding properties. Approving this variance would negatively impact the uniform character and aesthetic of the neighborhood.
2. No Unique Hardship Demonstrated
Under the Land Development Code, a variance may only be granted when strict application of the code creates an undue hardship related to the unique physical conditions of the property. In this case, there are no exceptional or unique conditions preventing compliance with existing setback and design standards.
3. Potential Negative Impact on Adjacent Properties
The proposed structure may reduce neighborhood cohesion and visual uniformity, potentially affecting property values and the overall appearance of the area.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on September 24th,2025. In addition, Public Notices were mailed to all addresses within 500’ of the proposed project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2512 because the applicant could not meet all six criteria of Article IX, Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance, City of Edgewater’s Land Development Code.