ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2321: Request to allow the construction of a detached garage at 1,380 square feet, 130 square feet greater than the existing single-family home which exceeds the 60 percent maximum allowance for accessory structures in accordance with Article 3, Section 21-36.02(k) for the property located at 2609 Queen Palm Drive.
Body
OWNER:
Toby Clouser
LOT SIZE:
160 feet in width by 125 feet in depth = 20,000 square feet.
Principle Structure is 2,082 square feet.
60% of 2,082 = 1,249 square feet.
PROPOSED USE:
Garage
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family Home with Pool
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT:
R-2
VOTING DISTRICT:
District 3, Councilwoman Debbie Dolbow
SURROUNDING AREA:
|
|
Current Land Use |
FLUM Designation |
Zoning District |
|
North |
Single-Family |
Low Density Residential |
R-2 |
|
East |
Single-Family |
Low Density Residential |
R-2 |
|
South |
Single-Family |
Low Density Residential |
R-2 |
|
West |
Single-Family |
Low Density Residential |
R-2 |
Explanation of hardship by applicant: I have a lot more vehicles than I have space to keep them. To have the plans for the garage redone would cost substantially more than a variance.
According to 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&ZB 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.
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 not result in a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
i. Yes, granting the variance would further Objective 1.4 which is to discourage urban sprawl and encourage redevelopment.
i. Policy 1.4.1: Limiting Development and the Utility Service Area:
1. The City will limit land development activities outside of the adopted Utility Service Area boundary to encourage infill and ensure the availability of services and facilities to accommodate development.
ii. Policy 1.4.3: Reducing Limitations on Infill and Redevelopment
1. If necessary, the City may reduce limitations on infill and redevelopment activities consistent with the land uses and densities indicated in this Plan in situations that will not jeopardize public health, safety or welfare.
This criterion has 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, despite being greater than 60 percent of the structure, the garage will be screened by a 6 foot tall fence.
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
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, variance would allow reasonable use of the property.
b. Staff’s response: No, the applicant has reasonable use of the property by conforming to the setbacks within the R-2 zoning district standards established in Section 21-52.02, Table V-1 of the Land Development Code.
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, it’s a standard lot.
b. Staff’s response: The subject site is considered a conforming lot. The parcel meets the minimum lot square footage, the minimum lot width, the minimum lot depth.
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: Purchased garage.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is proposing a structure that does not conform to Article 3, Section 21-36.02(k) of the City of Edgewater’s 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?
b. Applicant’s response: No, will not impact public welfare.
c. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will negate the intent of the Land Development Code for establishing setbacks, but will not be a detriment to public welfare.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Summary
Staff received the following feedback from City Departments:
City Manager:
Does not demonstrate a hardship.
Environmental Services:
Environmental Services does not object to the requested variance for the garage. However, Applicant will be required to install a concrete driveway from the road to the garage (as is already shown in the submitted materials).
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.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Motion to deny the variance request for application VA-2321 because all six (6) criteria could not be met in accordance with Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance