ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2406: Request for a variance from Article VI to allow for a second monument sign to be placed on the property at 544 Airpark Road.
Body
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Benjamin Cast
PROPOSED USE:
Entrance Sign
Business currently has one monument entrance sign on the north side of the property and is requesting a variance for a second entrance sign on the south side of the property to guide suppliers, truck haulers, and guests to the correct areas and reduce incorrect traffic flows.
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. Article VI, Section 21-61.04(d): To allow two (2) ground signs per parcel in lieu of the allowance for only one ground sign.
PARCEL ID:
743100000124
AREA:
11.6 acres
CURRENT LAND USE:
Light Industrial (Boat Manufacturing)
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Industrial
ZONING DISTRICT:
Light Industrial
VOTING DISTRICT:
District One - Councilwoman Charlotte Hope Gillis
Explanation of hardship by applicant: Everglades Boats is requesting permission to install a second entrance sign at the location on 544 Air Park Road. The existing entrance sign is very old and needs modernizing. The goal of updating the sign is to improve the look of the sign, to align the sign to their current branding and to communicate more effectively with guests and suppliers.
There are two entrances to the campus at 544 Air Park Road: one at the north end and one at the south end. They currently have a single sign at the north entrance and no sign at the south entrance. The request is to replace the current sign at the northern entrance and add a sign at the southern entrance.
The intent is to label each sign with the name of their business, address and the words “north entrance” or “south entrance”. Having two signs that are labeled as north and south entrances will assist them in guiding suppliers and outbound truck haulers to the optimal entrance to accomplish their tasks. It will also allow them to direct guests who visit for tours to the correct entrance for parking. Today’s current condition of having a single sign result in suppliers, truck haulers and guests entering the wrong entrance which creates awkward traffic flows and confusion.
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 Planning and Zoning 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.
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. Policy 1.5.8: Signage Limitation and Location
The City’s Land Development Regulations shall limit signage which can be viewed from residential property and restrict the location of signs which interfere with traffic flow and sight distance.
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.
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 currently has one sign on the property, which could be redesigned to convey both entrances.
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: Yes.
b. Staff’s response: No. Many properties have multiple points of entry with only one sign.
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.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is requesting to get a variance to construct a second sign in lieu of only one being allowed per the 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?
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.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Notes:
• Fire- No comments
• Environmental Services- After reviewing the submittals for the subject variance, the request does not interfere with the function of traffic or other services within the purview of the Environmental Services Department. The southern sign is proposed in the vicinity of an onsite stormwater treatment pond. It is believed that the Applicant can construct the sign with minimal impact to the function and capacity of the stormwater pond.
Environmental Services does not object to the requested variance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval of VA-2406 because all six criteria could not be met in accordance with Article IX, Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance.