ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2322: Request for variances from Article 3, Section 21-36.02, to allow an accessory use without a principle use and to allow an accessory use without a principle structure for the property located at 431 Live Oak Street.
Body
OWNER:
Mark Pernell
APPLICANT:
Dannie Shields III
REQUESTED ACTION:
1. To allow an accessory use without a principle use in lieu of the requirement for a principle use prior to an accessory use according to Article III, Section 21-36.02(a).
2. To allow an accessory use without a principal structure in lieu of the requirement for a principle use with a principal structure prior to allowance of an accessory use according to Article III, Section 21-36.02(b).
LOT SIZE:
86.92 feet in width by 179.69 feet in length = 15,618 square feet.
PROPOSED USE:
Outdoor Truck and Equipment Storage for Tree Trimming Company
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant
FLUM DESIGNATION:
Commercial
ZONING DISTRICT:
B-3, Highway Commercial
VOTING DISTRICT:
District 1, Councilwoman Charlotte Gillis
SURROUNDING AREA:
|
|
Current Land Use |
FLUM Designation |
Zoning District |
|
North |
Vacant |
Commercial |
B-3 |
|
East |
Boat Repair |
Commercial |
B-3 |
|
South |
Vacant |
Commercial |
B-3 |
|
West |
Single-Family Home |
High Density Residential |
R-5 |
Explanation of hardship by applicant: Would like to leave trees and if I was to develop with a small office, I would have to remove trees onsite.
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: With the fence and the property cleaned up, it will help remove homeless people from the property.
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses. The property to the east, has a principle structure for boat repair. The property to the east does not have a fence screening the property and as such the boats create an eyesore. The applicant intends to put slats in the existing 6 foot tall fence for outdoor storage of equipment. The intended use is compatible with this zoning designation.
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: This will clean up the area and make it look nice. Fence will be cleaned up.
b. Staff’s response: The applicant could develop the site to the standards required within the land development code requiring a principle structure.
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, just a normal lot that has been cleared before. Just want to clean up the property.
b. Staff’s response: No, the subject site is considered a conforming lot as the B-3, Highway Commercial zoning district only regulates lot width; the land development code does not regulate the lot depth nor does it establish a minimum lot size for the B-3, Highway Commercial zoning district.
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: Want to use for out door storage. Will provide fence and screening.
b. Staff’s response: The applicant could develop the lot with a principle structure.
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, the variances will not cause a detriment to the public welfare.
c. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not cause detriment to the public welfare, however it will negate the intent of the Land Development Code for establishing setbacks.
This criterion has not been met.
Staff Summary
Staff received the following feedback from City Departments:
Environmental Services:
Environmental Services does not object to the proposed use of the vacant site for outdoor storage of mobile commercial equipment, as this use does not directly impair any of the services provided by Environmental Services Department. However, Applicant should be aware that any development or use of the site will require, at minimum, construction of a concrete driveway apron and shall be graded such that stormwater runoff from all driveways & parking areas will flow into an onsite dry-bottom stormwater pond which discharges into an adjacent publicly-owned right-of-way and not onto adjacent privately owned property. The size of the pond must be sufficient to capture at least 1-inch over the entire property area, which is 15,492 sqft * 1/12 = 1,291 cubic feet of volume. Loading and unloading of equipment should not be performed in a way which would limit access to adjacent properties nor deteriorate the surface of the public roadway.
If the Applicant’s use of the site is found to create nuisance soil tracking or erosion & sedimentation issues, the Applicant will be required to stabilize the internal driveways and parking areas. Note that if such stabilized driveways and parking areas exceed 4,000 sqft in total area, Applicant will be required to obtain a State-level Environmental Resource Permit which requires the services of a licensed professional engineer.
The proposed use of the now-vacant site will also initiate monthly Stormwater Utility Fees to be assessed based on the portion of the area to be cleared and used for driving & parking.
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 request for application VA-2322 because all six (6) criteria could not be met in accordance with Section 21-100.04(d), Non-Administrative Variance.