ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2419: Request for variance from Article V of the Land Development Code to allow for a front yard garage and front porch extension for the property located at 821 Navigators Way.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Owner: Dale Martin
PROPOSED USE:
Garage and extended front porch
REQUESTED ACTION(S):
1. Article V, Table V-1 Site Dimensions- To allow for a 7’ setback from the front property line in lieu of the required setback of 25’ for an MH-2 Zoning.
2. Article V, Table V-1 Site Dimensions- To allow for a 36% max build in lieu of the required Max Build Percentage of 30% for an MH-2 Zoning.
PARCEL ID:
8401-02-00-3770
AREA:
+7,561 SQ. FT.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Home
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Medium Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
MH-2, Manufactured Home Subdivision
VOTING DISTRICT:
District Four - Council Person Jonah Powers
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting multiple variances from the Land Development Code for an attached garage and front porch extension at the property located at 821 Navigators Way. The request is for a variance to allow a front yard setback of 7 feet, and to allow a max build percentage of 36% in lieu of the required building max of 30% for an MH-2 Zoning.
Applicant states that “To store items and put car in garage and add a larger front porch. Where I am trying to put the garage there is a carport now. Garage is taken the place of carport. There is a covered porch now for roof but we trying to make the floor come out more and this gonna make it easier for us to get in and out of the house. There is 40 homes I have counted in the community Edgewater Landings here that done the same thing it will be very helpful for approval. Carport is the same size as garage that we are trying to get approval for.”
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: “Need a place for storage and the motorcycle”
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: None.
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 have garages which appear to encroach upon the required setbacks and max build limits:
1. 804 Masthead Lane
2. 812 Masthead Lane
3. 814 Masthead Lane
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.
b. Staff’s response: No. The owner has use of the property with covered parking and a covered front porch.
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.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, while this lot is considered non-conforming to the MH-2 zoning designation within the City of Edgewater, it is not unique for the subdivision. Most of the lots within Edgewater Landing Mobile Home Subdivision do not meet the 60’ X 110’ lot size.
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: None.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is requesting to replace the carport with a garage and extend the front porch with a cover.
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, 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 August 28, 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-2419 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.