ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2621: Request for a Non-Administrative Variance to allow an accessory structure without a principal structure and to reducing the side and rear setback to 10 feet to allow a proposed storage/ carport structure with partial siding for the property located at 601 N Ridgewood Avenue.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
TK Property Enterprises, LLC - Owner / Timothy Kuhnley - Applicant
PROPOSED USE:
Storage / Carport Structure. The applicant proposes to add horizontal siding to the front gable end and back extended gable end of a 30’ X 30' vertical style carport structure with a 12' leg height.
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Per Article III, Section 21-36.02 (b)- to allow an accessory carport with partial siding sized 1500 Sq Ft to be placed on a non-principle structured parcel.
2. Per Article V, Table V-1- to allow a carport to be placed 5-feet from the south side yard setback in lieu of the required 25-feet side, which will place the structure in line with the fence on the E. Knapp Avenue side of parcel based on the requirement in Article III, Section 21-36.02 (h) Requiring the structure to meet the setbacks within Article V, Table V-1.
3. Per Article V, Table V-1- to allow a carport to be placed 10-feet from the front yard setback in lieu of the required 40-feet based on the requirement in Article III, Section 21-36.02 (h) Requiring the structure to meet the setbacks within Article V, Table V-1.
4. Per Article V, Table V-1- to allow a carport to be placed 10-feet from the rear yard setback in lieu of the required 25-feet based on the requirement in Article III, Section 21-36.02 (h) Requiring the structure to meet the setbacks within Article V, Table V-1.
5. Per Article III, Section 21-36.02 (k)- to permit an accessory structure exceeding 60% of the principal structure's gross floor area, on a lot with no existing principal structure.
6. Per Article XX, Section 21-640.04- to remove the façade requirement since structure will be located behind fencing.
7. Per Article XX, Section 21-640.08- to allow a metal panel as the side walls on the partially enclosed carport.
PARCEL ID:
7450-06-00-0020
AREA:
0.33± acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Highway Commercial
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Commercial
ZONING DISTRICT:
B-3, Highway Commercial
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Council Person: Charlotte Hope Gillis
Discussion:
The applicant proposes to construct a 30' x 30' pre-engineered vertical-style carport structure with a 12' leg height on a 0.33± acre lot located at 601 N. Ridgewood Avenue. The proposal includes horizontal siding on the front gable end and rear extended gable end.
Under Article III, Sections 21-36.02(b) and 21-36.02(k), accessory structures must be incidental and subordinate to a primary operating use or principal building, with gross floor area capped at 60% of the principal building. Because the subject lot is vacant, placing a 1,500 sq. ft. accessory footprint bypasses the foundational requirement for a primary commercial building.
In addition, the applicant is seeking substantial setback reductions across three property boundaries: reducing the south side setback by 80% (25' to 5'), the front setback by 75% (40' to 10'), and the rear setback by 60% (25' to 10'). The applicant indicates that aligning the structure 5 feet from the south boundary matches an existing perimeter fence line. Furthermore, exemptions from Article XX facade and material standards are requested, citing existing fence screening along E. Knapp Avenue.
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 Planning and Zoning 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: “Lot size/ set backs.”
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 1.2.9: 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.]
ii. 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: Placing a 1,500 sq. ft. roofed accessory structure with reduced 5-foot to 10-foot setbacks introduces stormwater runoff and spatial incompatibility with surrounding properties.
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.”
b. Staff’s response: No. The property retains reasonable commercial use by constructing a primary building or smaller accessory structure sited within standard Table V-1 setback envelopes.
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.”
b. Staff’s response: The property consists of a standard platted commercial lot displaying physical characteristics similar to adjacent properties. No unique topographical or geological constraints prevent building in code compliance.
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: “No, Lot size/ set backs.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes. The need for variance relief stems from applicant site design preferences to maximize structure area outside allowable building envelopes rather than physical land constraints.
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. Granting setback relief up to 80% and waiving facade standards without land-based hardship impairs Chapter 21 intent to preserve buffers, fire separation, and visual character.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Comments:
Fire Comment: No concerns or comments.
Public Notice:
In strict accordance with Florida Statutes Chapter 166.041 and local municipal ordinances, a physical Public Notice sign was prominently posted on the front of the site facing west on S. Ridgewood Avenue on July, 29th, 2026. In addition, official written Public Notices were compiled and mailed via USPS to all property owners of record located within a 500-foot buffer radius of the project boundary lines.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2621 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. Further the Planning Department is requesting, should the variance be approved, the board add the above-mentioned conditions.