V-11-063

Comments

Transcription

V-11-063
GROWTH AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITY
123 W. Indiana Avenue, DeLand, FL 32720
(386) 943-7059
PUBLIC HEARING:
December 13, 2011−Planning and Land Development
Regulation Commission (PLDRC)
CASE NO:
V-11-063
SUBJECT:
Variance to minimum project perimeter setback for an accessory
building on Urban Multifamily Residential/Indian River Lagoon
Surface Water Improvements & Management Overlay (R-7W)
zoned property.
LOCATION:
6727 Turtlemound Road, New Smyrna Beach
APPLICANT:
Ty Harris, Attorney at Law
OWNER:
Chadham by the Sea COA c/o Morbitzer Communities, Inc.
STAFF:
John H. Stockham, ASLA, Planner III
I. SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant requests variances to the project perimeter setback from the south and west
lot lines to construct an accessory maintenance/storage building at an existing
condominium complex consisting of 52 units. The size of the proposed shed is 10 ft. by 10
ft. and the location selected is along the southern perimeter of the four-acre oceanfront
property. There have been temporary sheds on the site and now the applicant is
requesting a permanent one. The applicant is also requesting a setback reduction from the
shed to the nearest drive aisle. The applicant requests the following:
Variance 1: A project perimeter (south property line) setback from 45 ft. to 2 ft.
Variance 2: A project perimeter (west property line) setback 45 ft. to 30 ft.
Variance 3: A reduction of the setback from the interior off-street parking area from
10 ft. to 0 ft.
Staff recommendation: Approval of variances 1 and 3 with conditions, but denial of 2.
Page 1 of 5
SITE INFORMATION
1. Location:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The property is located on the east side of Turtlemound Road
at its intersection with Mullet Avenue, in the community of
Bethune Beach, near New Smyrna Beach.
Parcel No(s):
8505-03-00-0001
Property Size:
± 4.20 acres
Council District:
3
Zoning:
R-7W
Future Land Use:
UHI/ULI
ECO Overlay:
No
NRMA Overlay:
No
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
DIRECTION
North:
FUTURE LAND USE
ULI/UHI
CURRENT USE
Vacant lot
East:
ZONING
R-9W and
B-8W
Atlantic Ocean
Atlantic Ocean
Atlantic Ocean
South:
West:
R-7W
R-9W
UHI/ULI
ULI
Vacant lot
CR A1A then
single family
homes
10. Location Maps:
Page 2 of 5
AERIAL MAP
III. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS
ZONING MAP
The condominium building has 52 units and no maintenance building on site. The property
is zoned R-7W and has underlying comprehensive plan designations of UHI and ULI.
The R-7W zoning classification has a perimeter setback requirement of 45 ft. that applies to
all structures on the site, both principal and accessory. Since the property is already
developed, the applicant requests that the proposed 10 ft. by 10 ft. maintenance building be
located close to the south side property line and 30 ft. from the western (front) property line.
The applicant also requests that the shed building abut an internal drive aisle of the offstreet parking area without the required separation distance.
IV. REVIEW CRITERIA AND ANAYLSIS
Section 72-379(1) a.4 Variances of the zoning code contains five applicable criteria by
which the PLDRC may grant a variance. Staff bases its evaluation on the following criteria:
i. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure, sign, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands,
structures, signs, or buildings in the same zoning classification.
The special circumstance involved is that the developer constructed the condominium
buildings without provision for an on-site maintenance building. The layout of the buildings
and the vehicular use area limits the available land area to install the proposed storage
building in a place that meets the perimeter setback requirement. There are now
constraints to where the applicant can place it.
However, the building meets the required perimeter setback from the west lot line per the
applicant’s plan.
The application meets this criterion for the requested variances except for variance 2, since
the west side setback can be met.
ii. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
The layout of the condominium buildings and the vehicular use area on the site were not
the result of actions by the applicant. However, the applicant is able to comply with the
code and eliminate variance 2.
The application meets this criterion for the requested variances except variance 2, since the
west side setback can be met.
Page 3 of 5
iii. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning
classification, under the terms of the ordinance, and would work an unnecessary
and undue hardship on the applicant.
A literal interpretation of the provisions of this article deprives the applicant from
constructing the requested maintenance/storage building. A residential complex of this size
often has its own maintenance personnel and an onsite building to store equipment.
The application meets this criterion for the requested variances except variance 2, which
can be met.
iv. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building, structure, or sign.
The request is the minimum that makes reasonable use of the structure. Any other location
on the property would still require a variance. The property owner, to the south, most
affected by this request is working with the applicant to address all issues. These issues
include views, screening, landscape buffers, heights and materials/colors of the building.
The application meets this criterion for all of the requested variances except for variance 2,
which can be met.
v. The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose
of this ordinance and the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. 90-10,
as amended, and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved.
The owners association (“Chadham”) is required to maintain the landscape plantings per
section 72-284(6) of the zoning code. Having this structure on site enables this to occur
more efficiently. The proposed variances will not be injurious to the surrounding area,
subject to appropriate conditions of approval that include a screen wall and landscape
buffer.
The application meets this criterion for all of the requested variances except for variance 2,
which can be met.
V.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of variance 2 since the west perimeter setback of 45 ft. can be
met on this side. Staff finds that variances 1 and 3 meet the five criteria for the
requested variances and recommends approval, with the following conditions:
1. The maintenance building shall match the colors and materials of the principal
condominium buildings.
2. No expansion of the maintenance building shall occur without seeking an
Page 4 of 5
additional variance.
3. The owner shall obtain a building permit prior to installation or construction.
VI. ATTACHMENTS




Variance site plan
Staff and agency comments
Application
Maps
VII. AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURE
The commission may, except as otherwise provided in Section 72-379 of the zoning code,
authorize, after due public notice upon application on a form prescribed by the zoning
enforcement official, such variance or variances from the terms of this ordinance as will not
be contrary to the public interest when, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of
the provision of this ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship. Said
variance application shall be heard only if it is presented by the person owning 51 percent
or more of the specific area of land involved or upon an administrative application by the
county council. Any new information to be presented at the planning and land development
regulation commission meeting for any application will be grounds to continue an
application to the next planning and land development regulation commission meeting.
Applicants shall inform and provide staff with the new information prior to the planning and
land development regulation commission meeting.
Page 5 of 5
Inter-Office
Memorandum
TO:
John Stockham, Planner II I
DATE: November 23, 2011
FROM:
Danielle Dangleman, Environmental Specialist III
SUBJECT: Planning & Land Development Regulation Commission meeting for
Date:
December 13, 2011
Parcel #:
8505-03-00-0001
Case #:
V-11-063, owner Chadham by the Sea
Environmental Permitting staff has conducted a site visit and reviewed the
variance application for Chadham by the Sea Condominiums. EP has no
objection to this variance.

Similar documents