ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2422: Request for variance from Article V of the Land Development Code to allow for a 34% maximum buildable area in lieu of the required 30%, to allow a second paved driveway to be located 3’ from the existing driveway, and to allow a 10’ rear setback for construction of a 30’x50’x13’9” detached garage at 2109 Juniper Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Applicant: Katherine Rivera
PROPOSED USE:
Storage/Use of Recreational Equipment
REQUESTED ACTION(S):
1. Article V, Table V-1 Site Dimensions- to allow for a maximum buildable limit of 34% in lieu of the 30% maximum for R-2 zoning.
2. Article V, Table V-1 Site Dimensions- to allow for a 10’ setback for a detached garage in lieu of the required 20’ setback for R-2 Zoning.
3. Article V, Section 21-52.02- To allow for a second paved driveway apron to be located 3’ from the existing driveway in lieu of the required 10’.
PARCEL ID:
8402-01-07-2410
AREA:
+10,000 SQ. FT.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residence
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-2, Single Family Residential
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Two - Council Person Gigi Bennington
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting an increase of the maximum buildable area limit from 30% to 34%, to allow for a second paved driveway to be located 3’ from an existing driveway, and to allow for a 10’ rear setback in lieu of the required 20’ rear setback to allow for construction of a 50’x30’ detached garage at 2109 Juniper Drive.
Aerial Exhibit:
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: “Maintain out of weather, store disability devices and equipment required by medical disability. Store jet skis used to calm anxiety from disabilities. 10 feet more for maneuvity of equipment. Equipment as a threadmill, bycicles, pool table”
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 1.5.7: 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. There are other residences that have metal buildings in the neighborhood.”
b. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
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 applicant could decrease the size of the garage to meet the setback and maximum build. In addition, the property currently has a three car attached garage.
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 is not.
b. Staff’s response: No, this lot is considered conforming to the R-2 zoning designation within the City of Edgewater and already has an attached garage.
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: Yes. Veteran with service-connected disabilities.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is requesting to the maximum buildable area to 34% and decrease the rear setbacks from 20’ to 10’.
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. Will enhance Handicap accessible areas.
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 V.
This criterion has not been met.
Public Notice:
In accordance with Florida Statues Chapter 166.041, a Public Notice sign was posted on the site on October 30, 2024. In addition, Public Notices were mailed to all addresses within 500’ of the proposed project.
Staff Comments:
The Technical Review Committee had no comments or concerns regarding the variance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2422 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.