ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Title
VA-2309: Request for a variance to allow a 20 foot rear setback in lieu of the required 50 foot setback; eliminate the fifteen foot vehicle backup area requirement; eliminate the dumpster enclosure requirement for the property located at 2611 Guava Drive.
Body
Parcel ID#: 840201066770
Proposed use: 50’ x 46’, 2,300 square foot Steel Building/Warehouse
Description of request:
a. To allow rear setback of 20 feet in lieu of the required 50 foot setback from residential/zoning use per Section 21-50.02, Table V-1;
b. Eliminate the fifteen foot vehicle backup area and maneuver radius requirement per Section 21-56.02(d);
c. Eliminate the requirement that dumpster shall be enclosed from view with a six-foot high stockade fence or masonry wall and gate per Section 21-34.05; and
Explanation of hardship by applicant: The Variance request before you is the exact same that was granted in 2020 for Project #VA-2018.
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, all adjoin property match what I am proposing.
b. Staff’s response: No, granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing a use which is not compatible with adjacent uses.
i. The Planning and Zoning Board has approved the following compatible variances along Guava Drive:
1. 2611 Guava Drive, No. 22-01900001
a. Allow a building to be constructed twenty feet (20’) from the rear property line in lieu of the required fifty (50’) feet and allow a rear landscape buffer of twenty feet (20’) in lieu of the required thirty (30’) feet.
2. 2218 Guava Drive, No. 22-019000011
a. Allow a building to be constructed ten (10’) feet from the rear property line in lieu of the required twenty (20”) feet.
3. 2507 Guava Drive, No. 22-01900025
a. Allow a building to be constructed twenty (20’) feet from the rear property line in lieu of the required fifty (50’) feet.
4. 1909 Guava Drive, No. 22-01900032
a. Allow a building to be constructed thirty-five (35’) feet from the rear property line in lieu of the required fifty (50’) feet.
5. 2743 Guava Drive, No.20-01900019
a. Allow rear setback of 20 feet in lieu of the required 50 feet from residential/zoning use, per Section 21-50.02, Table V-1;
b. Eliminate the fifteen foot (15’) vehicle backup area and maneuver radius requirement per Section 21-56.02(d);
c. Eliminate the requirement that dumspters shall be enclosed from view with a six-foot (6’) high stockae fence or masonry wall and gate per Section 21-34.05; and
d. Allow a maximum building coverage of 31% in lieu of the maximum 30% permitted, per Section 21-59.02, Table V-1.
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 has reasonable use of the property by conforming to the setbacks within the B-2, Neighborhood Business zoning district standards established in Section 21-52.02, Table V-1 of the Land Development Code.
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, all adjacent properties are similar.
b. Staff’s response: The subject site is considered a conforming lot. The parcel meets the minimum lot square footage, the minimum lot width, the minimum lot depth.
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, need variance to fit proposed building lot.
b. Staff’s response: Yes, the applicant is proposing a structure does not conform to Section 21-59.02, Table V-1 of the City of Edgewater’s 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?
b. Applicant’s response: No.
c. Staff’s response: Yes, granting the variance 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:
Below is an oblique aerial image of the property dated January 2023 facing northeasterly.
Recommendation:
Environmental Services recommends approval of the requested variance. The requested variance allows this infill development to be consistent with neighboring properties.
• Fire: No comments or concerns.
Staff does not recommend approval of the Variance for application VA-2309 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.