ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2314: Request for a variance from Article V, Table V-4, to allow a Class C landscape buffer with a width of 30 feet without a wall in lieu of a Class C landscape buffer yard with a width of 30 feet with a wall for the property at 2830 Hibiscus Drive.
Body
Parcel ID#: 840201075350
Proposed use: Warehouse
Description of request:
1. To allow a Class C landscape buffer yard of 30 feet without a wall in lieu of a Class C landscape buffer yard of 30 feet with a wall for the property line abutting a single family residential lot as described within Article V, Table V-4, Buffer Yard Classifications.
Explanation of hardship by applicant: Site Design constraints: pond area, buffer, plantings, setbacks, and parking requirements. There is a 15 foot alley way that abuts the rear property line. There will be a total of 50’ separation from the residential property to the proposed building setback line on-site. Proposed development will meet landscape requirements of a 50’ buffer yard.
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. There are existing nearby properties with similar uses such as Anderson performance heat and air and New Shutters and blinds window treatment store.
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.
b. Staff’s response: No, the applicant has demonstrated he can meet the Class C buffer yard requirements, however is requesting a waiver from the wall/screening component of the buffer.
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: Surrounding sites share similar characteristics in which developed sites do not have a masonry wall for screening. The neighboring property to the south has a chain-link fence with plastic slats. The fire department to the north has vinyl fence.
b. Staff’s response: The subject site is considered a conforming lot.
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: No. To comply with the requirements of the Land development code and meet all other site constraints such as parking requirements, drainage act. The omission of a wall would aid in ease of site design and allow the project to meet the landscape requirements under Table V-5, Class C for a 50; buffer yard (30 plants/100 ft. and 1 tree per 1500 SF of buffer yard.).
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is proposing a 30 foot landscape buffer, but is suggesting they would meet the planting requirements of a Class C landscape buffer of a 50 foot buffer yard minimum which is more intensive than the 30 foot buffer yard of the Class C. The applicant could provide a wall for the 30 foot landscape buffer.
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. Upon examining adjacent properties, this proposed development would be consistent in design (omission of masonry wall). Also, there is a 15’ alley way that abuts rear property line. There will be a total of 50’ of separation from the residential property to the proposed building setback line on-site. Proposed development will meet landscape requirements of a 50’ buffer yard.
c. Staff’s response: Granting of the proposed variance will not impact or cause detrimental effects to public welfare. The granting of the proposed variance would negate the intent of the land development code though.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Summary
Staff received the following feedback from City Departments:
Environmental Services:
After reviewing the submittals for the subject variance, I believe the request is reasonable depending on the type of use to be performed in the building. Environmental Services does not object to the requested variance.
Fire:
No comments or concerns.
Economic Development:
No comments or concerns.
Staff does not recommend approval of the Variance for application VA-2314 because all six (6) criteria could be met in accordance with Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance.
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.