ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2425: Request for variances from Article V to allow for additional parking of commercial vehicles on an unimproved parking lot and on an adjacent parcel for the property at 301 Mango Tree Drive.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Timothy Loomis
PROPOSED USE:
Additional overflow parking for commercial vehicles.
REQUESTED ACTION: (Change to current code)
1. Article V, Section 21-56.02 (a) to allow parking on an adjacent parcel than which they are intended to serve.
2. Article V, Section 21-56.02 (k) to allow parking on an unimproved surface.
PARCEL ID:
7452-01-00-0440
AREA:
0.88 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Industrial Building
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Industrial
ZONING DISTRICT:
I-1 Light Industrial
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Council Person Charlotte Hope Gillis
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting two variances from Article V of the Land Development Code, Section 21-56 Parking and Loading Requirements, to allow for additional overflow parking on an unimproved parking lot on an adjacent parcel. The adjacent parcel is under the same ownership. The parking lot would be contiguous to the existing parking lot to the north of the parcel and has direct ingress/egress access to Mango Tree Drive.
Proposed 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: Not currently enough parking on the unfinished yard area.
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, other industrial locations in the area have outside parking.
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses. Aerial imagery suggest that the following surrounding properties do not have improved parking areas:
1. 109 Mango Tree Drive
2. 220 Mango Tree Drive
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: N/A
b. Staff’s response: The applicant could meet the land development code by paving an additional parking area, however the applicant has concurrently submitted a Conditional Use application to construct improved, secure parking to the West of the current structure. The unimproved area of the parking lot will be used for overflow parking.
This criterion has been met.
4. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites?
a. Applicant’s response: Yes, Site is limited on parking for a typical company who would occupy 20,000 SF.
b. Staff’s response: The subject property had adequate parking for the size of the structure.
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. Owner is working diligently to submit a site plan and properly improve the yard for outside parking.
c. Staff’s response: The applicant has concurrently submitted a Conditional Use application to construct improved, secure parking to the West of the current structure. The unimproved area of the parking lot will be used for overflow parking.
This criterion has 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, the public welfare would not be effected and this would be a temporary solution until site work could be completed.
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 November 28, 2024. In addition, Public Notices were mailed to all addresses within 500’ of the proposed project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval for VA-2425 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. Should the Planning & Zoning Board approve, staff recommends a time limit of 1 year.