ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2310: Request for a variance to allow a Class A rear landscape buffer and a Class A side yard landscape buffer in lieu of a Class C landscape buffer for the property located at 403 S Ridgewood Avenue.
Body
Parcel ID#: 743305000020
Proposed use: 450 square foot Drive through Coffee Shop.
Description of request:
a. To allow a rear Class A landscape buffer of 10 feet in lieu of the required 30, 40, or 50 foot Class C buffer per Section 21-54.04, Table V-3 and Table V-4;
b. To allow a side yard Class A landscape buffer of 15 feet in lieu of the required 30, 40, or 50 foot Class C buffer per Section 21-54.04, Table V-3 and Table V-4;
Explanation of hardship by applicant: This is an infill type project. The reduction of the buffers is needed to provide for a bypass lane and employee parking spaces.
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, the property lies on Ridgewood Avenue, a commercial corridor.
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses. As noted by the applicant, the properties that front along US Highway 1 are predominantly zoned B-3, Highway Commercial. 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: Yes, the lot size requires these buffer reductions to develop this infill type project.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is proposing a 400 square foot building with associated drive aisles. For the operation of a coffee shop. The subject property has single family residences to its west and north creating a hardship to meet the 50 foot setbacks and corresponding 30, 40, or 50 foot landscape buffers.
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, the lot size is particularly small.
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: Yes, undeveloped land proposing to build a new 450 square foot structure that is viable for drive through service.
b. Staff’s response: No, when the City rezoned a significant number of properties along Ridgewood Avenue to Highway Commercial, existing single family homes existed. The landscape buffer requirements are based upon the use of the property, not its zoning designation. The subject property has two adjacent single family homes to the West, denoted by Parcel ID: 743305000011 and 743305000010. These two houses are currently non-conforming because their zoning designation is Highway Commercial, B-3. For the purposes of the landscape buffers, these single-family homes trigger a more intensive buffer for the commercial use. A Class C buffer requires a minimum of 30 feet, 40 feet, or 50 feet landscape buffer. The subject site is also encumbered with immediate single-family homes at the rear property line which also requires the Class C landscape buffer. The two Class C buffers at the minimum buffer yard requirement of 30 feet would reduce the buildable area to roughly 120 in length by 80 feet in width. In addition, a 50 foot building setback further reduces the lots buildable area to 100 feet in length by 60 feet in width. Once the front 10 foot landscape buffer is accounted for, the building could only be 50 feet in width. The applicant is proposing a 450 square foot structure with associated drive aisles, parking, and an emergency bypass lane in accordance with the City’s land development code. The circumstances creating the need for the variance are not the results of actions by the applicant.
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, the variances will still allow space for well-kept landscape buffers and as I understand it, will have little if any impact on land development codes.
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 recommends approval of the requested variance. The requested variance allows this infill development to make use of a long vacant commercial site.
Water service is available in either the Ridgewood Avenue right-of-way and/or the Sutton Place right-of-way. Sanitary Sewer service is available in the Sutton Place right-of-way.
The property contributes storm water runoff into the FDOT’s drainage system along Ridgewood Avenue.
• Fire: No comments or concerns.
Staff does not recommend approval of the Variance for application VA-2310 because all six (6) criteria could not 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.