ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2313: Request for a variance to allow a Class A landscape buffer yard of 10 feet in lieu of a Class C landscape buffer yard of 30 feet for the eastern and northern property line abutting single family residential lots as described within Article V, Table V-4, Buffer Yard Classifications for the property at 601 N Ridgewood Avenue.
Body
Parcel ID#: 745006000020
Proposed use: Self Service Ice Machine and Food Truck Court with Outdoor Dining.
Description of request:
1. To allow a Class A landscape buffer yard of 10 feet in lieu of a Class C landscape buffer yard of 30 feet for the eastern and northern property line abutting single family residential lots as described within Article V, Table V-4, Buffer Yard Classifications.
Explanation of hardship by applicant: Lot is L-shaped eastern portion of site is only 50’ wide.
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. Parcel has frontage on Ridgewood Avenue which is commercial.
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. Buffer yard from residential substantially impedes buildability of site.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant does not have reasonable use of his property along the L-shape due to the 50 foot building setback and the required Type C buffer yard which is required to be a 50 foot, 40 foot, or 30 foot landscape buffer on the North and East property boundary.
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. Lot is an L-shape with only 50’ of width.
b. Staff’s response: The subject site is considered a conforming lot, although the lot would be rendered 50 percent unusable if the applicant complied with the land development code.
This criterion has 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. Purchased L-shaped lot, had a pre-application meeting prior, and no buffer yards were mentioned.
b. Staff’s response: Former staff at a pre-application meeting did not indicate the applicant would not be able to utilize the “L” portion of the property. As a result, the applicant proceeded forward with the purchase of the lot and a variance is required to waive the Type C landscape buffer and the 50 foot building setback.
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?
b. Applicant’s response: No. Will not cause a detriment to public welfare.
c. Staff’s response: Granting of the proposed variance will not impact or cause detrimental effects to public welfare. However, granting of the proposed variance will negate the intent of the land development code.
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 to reduce or eliminate the eastern buffer yard, I believe the request is reasonable depending on the type of use to be performed in that portion of the site, which I understand to be food trucks & picnic tables.
Environmental Services does not object to the requested variance. Sufficient room is available to control site stormwater. Water and sewer service are available for the free-standing bathroom structure which will accommodate use by customers.
Fire:
No comments or concerns.
Economic Development:
No comments or concerns.
Staff does not recommend approval of the Variance for application VA-2313 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.