Loading...
03-07-1991 Special u o ~~ LAND CITY OF EDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1991 6:30 P.M. EDGEWATER PUBLIC LIBRARY AGENCY Chairman C. Peter Hellsten called to order a special meeting of the Land Development and Regulatory Agency at 6:31 p.m., Thursday, March 7, 1991, in the Edgewater Public Library. ROLL CALL: Members present were Fazzone, Mr. Garthwaite, Mr. Hellsten, Klein was excused. Also present were Attorney, Mark P. Karet, Planning Beverly Kinney, Recording Secretary. Mr. Masso, Mrs. Blazi, Mr. and Mr. Hildenbrand. Mr. Nikki Clayton, Acting City and Zoning Director, and NEW BUSINESS: Discussion of Rules Governinq the LDRA's Actions Especially Concerninq Reconsideration: Ms. Clayton discussed Robert's Rules of Order. She stated that Robert's Rules governs procedures for meetings, but a persons rights are guaranteed under the constitution, and the LDRA is a part of the process of guaranteeing that a person will have due process of his constitutional rights. The Agency can either act, continue, or table any item before them. If the Agency moves to reconsider a motion, they have affected that persons rights. The Agency is obligated to give an opinion, and they are not permitted to withhold an opinion, and if they do, they are denying due process. Ms. Clayton discussed the Agency's recent action to reconsider the annexation of 455 acres. She stated that since the Agency had previously taken action, the applicant has a constitutionally protected expectation and can appeal to a higher authority if he does not agree with the city's decision. By acting and then reconsidering, the Agency has begun to take the applicant's rights away, and the Agency has made things unpredictable for the applicant. Ms. Clayton stated that the Agency is to provide input as members of the community when an application is received. The Agency then forwards their input to the City Council along with staff comments. She added that the Agency must give an honest opinion to Council so they can do what is appropriate for the standards in the community. Mr. Fazzone stated that he made the motion for reconsideration, because he wanted the Agency to be able to furnish more information to the Council. He cited a portion of Article VI, Some main and unclassified motions, Section 36, Reconsideration, of Robert's Rules of Order. He added that the motion was not made with the intent of stopping the applicant, it merely proposes that the original question be reopened. Ms. Clayton stated that Robert's Rules of Order does allow reconsideration, but the constitution overrules Robert's Rules of Order. Mr. Fazzone stated that the Agency is unfamiliar with Development and Annexation Agreements, and he has questions regarding some of the items included in the Annexation Agreement. He added that the Agency did not have legal council regarding the agreement. Ms. Clayton stated that if the members are not satisfied with an agreement, they can raise the issues of concern to the City Council and let them decide. Mr. Hellsten stated that addressed every issue so look at those issues. saying that the Agency's the members believed the LDRA felt they He reiterated Mr. intent was not they might not have should go back and Fazzones statement, to change their 1 (.) o decision, they only wanted to review the item further. Ms. Clayton stated the Agency's action was similar to putting a defendant through "double jeopardy" (trying a person twice for the same crime). She stated that once tried, a person cannot be retried. Ms. Clayton stated any new information can be forwarded to the Council, or an Agency member acting as a private citizen can go before the Council. She added that bias regarding an item before the Agency is the same as having a conflict of interest. Mr. Fazzone stated the Agency questions whether or not the city will be subsidizing the project, and how much money will come into the city. He stated he would like the Finance Department to provide figures regarding the cost breakdown of all services that are to be provided for the proposed development. Mr. Fazzone stated that the proposed development will have homes that are not taxed like a traditionally built home, and only a tag fee is paid, but he added that the golf course is a plus. Ms. Clayton stated that the recent withdrawal, and there is this project will move forward. applicant wishes to retract the a letter forthcoming, as long as Discussion and Possible Action reqardinq a Moratorium in the 8-4. Tourist Commercial District: Mr. Hellsten stated that the applicant came before the Agency with a Development Agreement and the Agency began to look at development on Riverside Drive. He added that Mr. Fazzone raised the question of the applicability of Section 304.00 (a-d), Uses by Right, when discussing the development in the 8-4 zoning district. Mr. Karet explained that the section refers to new uses and does not apply in this particular case. Ms. Clayton stated there are three miles of shoreline and this is the only parcel on the river that is zoned for what they are requesting. She added that the applicant meets the requirements of the comprehensive plan and the land use map. Ms. Clayton stated that done for the health, community. a moratorium is extreme welfare, etc. of the and is usually citizens of the Ms. Clayton stated that the applicant revised the original plans for a condominium to a hotel, because a condominium requires a special exception. She stated that a moratorium can be placed on the 8-4 district for valid reasons such as adverse traffic or environmental impacts, lack of water and sewer, etc., but someone in the "pipeline" is not affected. She added that the Agency's finding of fact must show that the plan does not meet the code, or is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in order to deny it, and if the Agency denies site plan approval, the applicant can appeal to the City Council. Mr. Fazzone cited Florida Statute 163.3184 which states that all development actions must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. He stated that the property is located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The current comprehensive plan states that all development in the 100 year flood plain shall be discouraged, and the proposed comprehensive plan directs the city to designate the CHHA to limited development. Ms. Clayton stated that if those requirements are taken alone then the Agency might deny the site plan, however, the Comprehensive Plan must be viewed as a whole. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Special Meeting Thursday, March 7, 1991 2 . . (J '-J. . . Mr. Hellsten stated he was under the impression that only low density development will be permitted east of Ridgewood Avenue. Ms. Clayton stated the Agency must determine which policies are inconsistent. Mr. Garthwaite stated that the B-4 district consists of approximately four acres, and the proposed hotel is approximately one acre. He asked how the city can stop the same type of development on the remaining three acres. Ms. Clayton suggested that new performance standards be developed to make the area attractive, and the type of development the city wants. Mr. Storch stated that he has been involved in two moratoriums and he stated it is a very lengthy process. Mr. Storch stated that the city should be able to solve any problems in the B-4 district without a moratorium. Dorothv Montqomerv. 1901 S. Riverside Drive stated that she thinks the site plan is a condominium disguised as a hotel. She also discussed stormwater retention and the fact that the nearby property owners are concerned about the value of the homes dec l-eas i ng . Rav Anderson. 1905 S. Riverside Drive discussed possible noise levels, because of the proposed pool. Mr. Hellsten stated that the city has a noise ordinance. Mr. Anderson asked what will happen if the CIP does not come into fruition. Mr. Karet stated that the Utilities Department has stated there is enough capacity to handle the proposed hotel. Mr. Garthwaite stated that although he didn't foresee calling for a moratorium on the advise that we received from our City Attorney at this time, he doesn't want to go on record as saying that he would not want a moratorium. Mrs. Blazi moved that the Agency forget the idea of a moratorium based on the advise of the Acting City Attorney, and proceed along the lines she has recommended for the next agenda. Mr. Fazzone seconded. C. E. Clark. be zoned B-4. 1818 Fern Palm Drive asked how the property came to Mr. Hellsten stated he did not know. Bill Hathawav. 500 Canal Street. New Smyrna Beach (Attorney for Ray Anderson) stated that a moratorium would prevent other applicants from developing high density/intensity projects while the city is considering changes. He stated that the city should look at developing new performance standards such as height requirements, maximum lot coverage, intensity, landscaping, etc, and a moratorium will put development on hold while the B-4 district is being redefined. Mr. Hathaway stated that in his opinion the applicant was not in the "pipeline" and does not have vested rights, because the Agency had discussed an administrative amendment to the city's future land use map for properties on S. Riverside Drive which are currently zoned commercial, at their December 13, 1990 meeting. Vote on the Motion failed 2-4 with Mr. Hellsten, Mr. Hildenbrand, Mr. Fazzone and Mr. Garthwaite voting no. Mr. Hellsten stated that he voted no, because a moratorium is not the only alternative. Mr. Hathaway stated the next issue is to follow the recommendation of Ms. Clayton to explore and redefine the B-4 district and he suggested that a text amendment may be the correct action to take rather than a moratorium. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Special Meeting Thursday, March 7, 1991 3 o o Mr. Montqomery. 1901 S. Riverside Drive stated that his taxes go up annually, and if the hotel goes in he will have his taxes lowered, because he will no longer have a view of the river. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Planninq and Zoninq Director's Reports: None. Chairman's Reports: Mr. Hellsten reported that the draft sign ordinance, being developed by the Sign Ad Hoc Committee, is near completion. He added that there are a couple of issues that need to be resolved at a joint meeting of the Agency and the Committee. Mr. Hellsten stated that a meeting with the Council should be scheduled at the Councils availability. Aqency Member Reports: Mr. Garthwaite stated that he would like to see staff start looking at performance standards for the B-4 district. Mr. Hellsten agreed. Mr. Fazzone stated he would like to see more information regarding the proposed golf course. There being no further business to come before the Agency, Mrs. Blazi moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Fazzone. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:40 p.m.. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Special Meeting Thursday, March 7, 1991 Minutes Respectfully Submitted by: Beverly Kinney, Recording Secretary 4