BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM
Memo Date: May 3, 2024
Agenda Date: May 15, 2024
Prepared By: Lucilene Ribeiro - Planner
Through: Stockton Whitten, City Manager
Requested Action:
title
A variance request from Appendix A, Zoning, Article XI, Section 19(F) (2) to allow for a 10-foot reduction to the required 25-foot front yard setback.End
body
BACKGROUND:
|
Date: |
May 6, 2024 |
|
Project No.: |
PZ# 24-08000003 |
|
Meeting Date: |
May 15, 2024 |
|
Project Planner: |
Lucilene Ribeiro, Planner |
|
Subject Property: |
3071 Oxbow Circle |
|
Applicant: |
TSC Construction, LLC 130 Cleveland Ave Cocoa Beach, FL 32931 |
|
Owner: |
Greystone Debt Acquisitions, LLC Jeff Wells 1415 N. Atlantic Ave |
|
Notice Provided: |
Notice of the public hearing was provided by publishing in the newspaper on April 30, 2024, posting the property and mailers to property owners within 500 feet. |
|
|
Requested Action: |
Consideration of a variance request pursuant to Appendix A, Zoning, Article XI, Section 19(F) (2) to allow for a 10-foot reduction to the required 25-foot front yard setback. The property is identified as 3071 Oxbow Circle. Tax Parcel ID: 24-35-12-25-*-8 |
I. Project Information
The subject property is located at the Grissom Ridge Subdivision on Oxbow Circle, identified as lot number 7, with approximately 0.56 acres (or 24,394 sq. ft.) platted in 2005. The property is off Grissom Blvd on the north side of Oxbow Circle. The interior lot (Exhibit “A”) is approximately 100 feet in width along its northern property line, 234 feet in length along its western property line, 234 feet in width along its eastern property line, and 100 feet in length along its southern property line.
The proposed development includes two buildings, which are intended to serve as contractor storage bays,with approximately 2, 348 sqft constructed in between two parcels, identified as lot 7 and 8 previously approved as part of the Grissom Ridge subdivision
The applicant is seeking a variance for a 10-foot reduction from the required 25-foot front setback to a 15-foot front setback, as per Appendix A, Zoning, Article XI, Sec. 19 of the City of Cocoa code to accommodate the construction of one building consisting of 9 total work bays on the property. The required 25-foot setback could be met with the elimination of one (1) storage bay from the building.
|
Future Land Use Designation: |
Industrial |
|
Zoning District: |
M-2 (Manufacturing and Industrial District) |
|
Existing Land Use: |
Vacant lot |
|
Council District: |
District- Councilmember Barringer |
|
Overview of Surrounding Area: |
|
|
Future Land Use Designation |
Zoning District |
Land Use |
|
North |
Industrial |
M-2 |
Industrial |
|
South |
Industrial |
M-2 |
Industrial |
|
East |
Industrial |
M-2 |
Industrial |
|
West |
Industrial |
M-2 |
Industrial |
II. Staff Analysis
In accordance with Article XVI, Sec. 3, in order to obtain a variance, the Board of Adjustment shall make findings that the following have been demonstrated by the applicant:
A. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same district.
Staff Finding: The request identifies no significant special circumstance related to the condition of the land that imposes hardship on the applicant. Neighboring structures such as two buildings located on parcels directly west of the subject property which consist of similar lot boundaries, have front setbacks of approximately 26 feet and 50 feet, consistent with the other structures within the Grissom subdivision.
B. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.
Staff Finding: The applicant has enough acreage to meet yard setbacks with the modification of his development plan to reduce the total storage bays by one bay or by modifying the building footprint and creating smaller bays to keep the total number of units the same. Other property owners on similar parcels in the subdivision have complied with the setback required.
C. That special conditions and circumstances referred to in "A" above do not result from the actions of the applicant.
Staff Finding: The conditions and circumstances described in item ‘A’ are a direct result of the applicant's desire to construct two buildings with a total of 18 units of the specified dimensions (Exhibit E). There are no unique or special conditions associated with the land that would suggest additional buildable area is required through a reduction of setbacks.
D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or dwellings in the same district.
Staff Finding: Staff’s position is that this variance should not be granted. The granting of this variance to this property owner will confer a special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other property owners within the same district, even those with similar lots and acreages.
E. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance; and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure.
Staff Finding: Staff believes the applicant has failed to justify the need for a variance as there is space on the property for the buildings to be constructed meeting the front setback in compliance with Appendix A, Zoning, Article XI, Sec. 19. Moreover, the applicant has not demonstrated that a 10’ reduction is the minimum reduction needed to made reasonable use of the property. The requested 10’ reduction is solely related to the development footprint desired by the applicant.
F. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff Finding: Staff’s finding is that the granting of this variance will be not be in harmony with the existing neighborhood in both form and function and will have a detrimental effect on the public welfare. Currently, there are no other properties in Grissom Parkway subdivision for which variances were granted changing the required yard
setback.
BUDGETARY IMPACT:
N/A
PREVIOUS ACTION:
During the initial site plan review process for the Grissom Ridge Subdivision, staff indicated through a comment letter the desired implementation of the setbacks as required by City code, including the 25-foot front setback. Planning and Zoning sent a final approval notice out for the Grissom Ridge subdivision on February 25, 2004, following the discussion of these comments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Recommendation
Based on a review of the application according to the stringent evaluation criteria contained within the City Code, staff recommends Denial of a variance request from Appendix A, Zoning, Article XI, Section 19(F) (2) of the City of Cocoa Code to reduce the required 25-foot front yard setback by 10 feet