ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2327 - Request for a variance from Article XX, Section 21-660.03, to allow for the alteration of an existing nonconforming pole sign in lieu of the requirement to install a monument sign for the property at 613 N. Ridgewood Avenue.
Body
OWNER:
Lillian Moore
REQUESTED ACTION:
To allow for the removal of the existing logo and channel lettering on the existing nonconforming pole sign.
PARCEL ID:
745005000290
PROPOSED USE:
Café
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant Commercial Building
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Commercial
ZONING DISTRICT:
Highway Commercial (B-3)
VOTING DISTRICT:
District 1, Councilwoman Charlotte Gillis
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: No other location on the property is better suited for signage. Any other location would take away visibility to potential customers and/or limit parking.
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.
1. Policy 1.6.6: Guidelines for the SR 442 and U.S. 1 Corridors.
The City shall continue to use the Indian River Boulevard-S.R. 442 Corridor Design Regulations (adopted in April 2004) and the Ridgewood Avenue Corridor Design Regulations (adopted in 2012) as a guide to implement regulations for specific streetscape, landscape, architectural design standards and all other applicable requirements for properties developed along the S.R. 442 and U.S. 1 corridors.
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, other businesses utilize similar (and some larger) signage style, shape, and size in the area.
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 currently have pole signs within the City limits of Edgewater on the Ridgewood Corridor.
1. 612 N Ridgewood Avenue
2. 606 N Ridgewood Avenue
3. 600 N Ridgewood Avenue
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, I am asking to use existing sign already on the property.
b. Staff’s response: No, the applicant is allowed to operate the building for the business the applicant intends to run.
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, other sites have similar signs in use.
b. Staff’s response: No, despite the narrow size, the property meets the current Highway Commercial site standards. A monument sign could be placed in lieu of a parking stall.
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, the sign has been there for many years and is in good functional shape.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is requesting to update the current non-conforming sign.
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, It will allow for a small business to grow, bring In new customers and ultimately beautify a property that has been sitting vacant.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare, but it will impair the purposes and intent of the Land Development Code of Article XX.
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, the request does not interfere with the function of stormwater or other services within the purview of the Environmental Services Department. Environmental Services does not object to the requested variance.
It appears that prior owners of this property yielded an easement along the western boundary to support a sidewalk for pedestrian connectivity along US-1. If the pole-mounted sign were to be required to become a monument sign, this would bring it into likely conflict with pedestrians & bicyclists, leading to damage and possible injury.
Staff does not recommend approval of the Variance for application VA-2327 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.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Motion to deny the Variance for VA-2327.