Loading...
09-13-1990 . , , ,. o '~ & u CITY OF EDGEWATER LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AGENCY REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 6:30 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER Chairman C. Peter Hellsten the Land Development and Thursday, September 13, 1990, called to order a regular meeting of Regulatory Agency at 6:34 p.m., in the Community Center. ROLL CALL: Members present were Mrs. Blazi, Mr. Fazzone, Mr. Garthwaite, Mr. Hellsten, and Mr. Hildenbrand. Mr. Klein was excused. Mr. Bennington tendered his resignation on September 4th. Also present were Mark P. Karet, Planning and Zoning Director, and Beverly Kinney, Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Garthwaite moved to approve the minutes of July 12, 1990. Mr. Fazzone noted that the correct name of the attorney representing Winston Tomlinson is Alan Watts. (The motion was not seconded.) Mrs. Blazi moved to approve the minutes of July 25, 1990. Mr. Fazzone noted the correction of Mr. Frank Ferguson's name was made by himself, not Mr. Garthwaite. Mr. Fazzone seconded the approval. Motion Carried 5-0. Mr. Fazzone moved to approve the minutes of August 2, 1990, second~d by Mr. Garthwaite. Motion Carried 4-1. Mrs. Blazi voted no as she was not present at that meeting. Mr. Fazzone moved to approve the minutes of August 9, 1990, seconded by Mr. Hildenbrand. Motion Carried 3-2. Mr. Hellsten and Mrs. Blazi voted no as they were not present at that meeting. NEW BUSINESS: AN-0290 Annexation of Part of Lot 2 Located on the West Side of U. S. 1. between 28th Street and Roberts Road: Irene Meinsinger, authorized agent fo\- Lynne Storch, owner, was present to discuss this item. Mr. Karet noted that annexation of this parcel had been heard previously by the Agency, and the original intent was to annex the entire parcel owned by Ms. Storch, but a portion was omitted in error, and the applicant was here to have the error corrected. Mr. Karet stated that the applicant had also requested a waiving of the $300.00 annexation fee. He pointed out that the Council must decide if the fee is to be waived. Mrs. Blazi moved to recommend that Council approve the request for annexation and waive the $300.00 fee. Mr. Hildenbrand seconded the motion. Motion Carried 5-0. SP-9007 CM&G Manufacturinq. Southwest Corner of 20th Street and Guava Drive: Joe Martin, authorized agent for CM&G Manufacturing was present. , Mr. Karet stated that Mr. Martin was coming to the Agency on app~al, because there was disagreement on some of the comments made by the Planning and Zoning Department. Mr. Karet noted that all departments, except Planning and Zoning, have signed off. Mr. Karet referred the members a letter dated August 31, 1990 from the Planning and Zoning Department, and Mr. Martin's response dated September 5, 1990. Mr. Karet stated that items three (3) and fifteen (15) had been resolved, but items two (2) through fourteen (14) were still in dispute. The Planning and Zoning Department's position regarding item two (2) is that a note should be placed on the site plan to insure that the owner agrees that no more than three (3) employees will be working, because the use is based on the parking provided. Mr. Martin stated that there is no such requirement in the code, and the problem needs to be addressed at the time of occupational licensing. He asked if the requirement was for a total of three 1 i o u ~ (3) employees or three (3) employees per shift. Mr. Fazzone noted that the Agency had asked this of other applicants. Mr. Garthwaite stated that if it is stated on the plan then there is evidence that the developer knew of the requirement. Mr. Karet agreed that it gives the city the ability to demonstrate that the developer was informed of the codes. Mr. Hellsten stated that perhaps a statement such as "if the site is used for light manufacturing then only three (3) employees are permitted." Mr. Hellsten added that if there are different shifts the site can only have three (3) employees per shift. Mr. Martin is disputing the Planning and Zoning Department's position on item four (4), the req~red amount and type of landscape buffer. Section 14-77 states~ ~~ndscaped buffer area shall be established and maintained along the entire length of and contiguous to any property line and shall not be less than five (5) feet and landscaped with any combination of materials. The Planning and Zoning Department does not interpret this to mean that grass or gravel can be used as an alternative to shrubs and trees. Mr. Karet stated that Section 14-76 defines landscaping. Mr. Karet stated that if trees ;(and shrubs are not included as a part of the combination of landscape materials, then there will be no buffer between properties. He added that since his tenure with the city began, all other projects brought before the Agency had been required to put in a buffer landscaped with shrubs. Mr. Hellsten and Mr. Garthwaite stated they had researched the code and could not find anything to require a buffer around the entire site. Mr. Hellsten added that the only reference he could find was in the B-2 zoning district which required a buffer along the front of a site and along any area where the site abuts residentially zoned property. Mr. Karet cited Section 715.02(7), Site plan approval, which discusses buffers and landscaped areas and refers the reader to the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance and the Landscape Ordinance (Sections 14-76 and 14-77). Mr. Martin stated that he did not object to buffering around the entire site, but there is no authority to make the developer plant shrubs, and the code is specific in allowing any combination, such as grass, mulch, stones, gravel, and etc. Mr. Martin added that trees would have to be planted to meet the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. After further discussion, the members agreed with Mr. Martin's interpretation. The Planning and Zoning Department's interpretation regarding item seven (7) is that since protected trees were removed from the site, plants which satisfy the technical definition of a tree are to be provided to meet the requirement of one (1) tree for everyone thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of lot area. A tree is defined as having a trunk diameter of at least six (6) inches, four and one half (4 1/2) feet DBH above ground level and fifteen (15) feet high. The site plan shows trees of four (4) inches in caliper or greater measured twelve (12) inches above the soil. Mr. Karet cited Section 14-62(e)..."In connection with new construction of any development requiring site plan approval...If the lot contains an insufficient number of existing trees to meet this requirement, replacement trees shall be installed. Mr. Martin stated that none of the trees on the site are on the protected species list, and there are trees on the site that are larger than required. He added that the large pines and palms on the site are in the way of the proposed building and are not required as per Article IV. Mr. Karet pointed out that trees, other than those specifically listed, are protected, and some of those trees were being removed. Mr. Karet stated the department was asking for eight (8) trees with a six (6) inch Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, September 13, 1990 2 () u caliper and four (4) trees that will meet the definition of a replacement tree. Mr. Martin stated he would accept that if the ordinance is clarified. The Planning and Zoning Department asked that a statement be placed on the site plan that if 20th Street is opened for vehicular traffic the fence would then be within the visibility triangle. Mr. Martin suggested the wording "If the city opens the street, the lot would not meet the requirements of a corner lot. II The Planning and Zoning Department's opinion a proposed forklift maneuvering area and a five percent (5%) grade ramp are encroachments into the rear twenty foot (20') setback. Mr. Karet cited the definition of a setback, as per Section 200.00 of the code, and Section 305.00 regarding setback encroachments. Mr. Martin stated the area will be used as a loading ramp and to off-load raw material. After further discussion the member's agreed that the ramp was actually an extension of the driveway and they did not believe there was any setback encroachment. The Planning and Zoning Department's opinion is that a proposed balcony with stairs is an encroachment into the front setback. Mr. Martin stated the balcony and stairs are intended as a "fire escape" for people occupying the second floor office shown on the site plan. He agreed that this was an encroachment into the setback, but he believed that the code should be amended to allow this type of encroachment. Mr. Karet noted that the fire escape was not required by code. After some discussion it was agreed that the encroachment would not be allowed. There was some discussion about changing the code. Mr. Fazzone moved to approve the site plan as noted below: 1) A notation is to be placed on the site plan that there shall be no more than three (3) employees per shift if the site is used for light manufacturing; 2) The landscape requirements meet city code, and is acceptable; 3) Trees are to be eight (8) trees at six inches (6") DBH, and four (4) trees are to meet the definition of a replacement tree per city code; 4) A notation is to placed on the site plan that the site will be a nonconforming corner lot if 20th is opened. 5) The ramp is a continuation of the driveway and meets code; 6) The balcony is an encroachment into the setback and must be removed from the site plan. The members agreed that the revised plans should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Director for final approval after the revisions noted have been completed. Mrs. Blazi seconded. Motion Carried 5-0. Mrs. Blazi stated that the Planning and Zoning Director is doing and extremely good job. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, September 13, 1990 3 o u . Resiqnation of Don Benninqton: that Mr. Bennington had resigned member would be appointed at meeting. Mr. Karet informed the members from the Agency and that a new the next scheduled City Council Mrs. Blazi believed that the Council should be the Agency wanted professionals appointed, alternate member. made aware that as well as an Election of Vice-Chairman: Mrs. Blazi nominated Mr. Garthwaite. but Mr. Garthwaite declined. Mrs. Blazi nominated Mr. Fazzone. Nominations were then closed. Mr. Fazzone was elected vice- chairman unanimously. CONTINUED BUSINESS: Land Development Requlations: The members agreed not to begin discussion of this item because it was getting late. Mr. Karet reminded the members that the regulations had to be adopted by November. He also informed the members that a t-epresentative from LaRue Planning and Management Services would be at City Hall for a day in the near future to discuss and answer questions the members may have. He added that each member would be notified of the time and date. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Planninq and Zoninq Director's Reports: Mr. Karet informed the members there was someone interested in entering into an agreement with the city to develop a condominium or a motel in the 8-4 zoning district. The developer is asking to build the structure higher than currently allowed by code. He added that the developer wants to know if the Agency would be interested in hearing more about the proposed project. The members stated they would be interested in hearing more about this. Mr. Karet stated that Council will have to create the Ad Hoc sign committee by resolution. Mr. Hellsten reminded the members that a previous meeting they had listed the areas of expertise they wanted for committ~e members ie: a developer, someone in real estate, a member from the Chamber of Commerce, the chairman of the LDRA, the Planning and Zoning Director, the City Attorney, and a private citizen. Mrs. 8lazi moved to direct the Planning and Zoning Department to send a recommendation to Council stating that the LDRA recommends the formation of an Ad Hoc committee as per the Council's previous action regarding the Sign Ordinance. Chairman's Reports: Mr. Hellsten stated that Mr. Klein had undergone a quintuple by-pass and should be able to return as a member in approximately a month. Aqency Member Reports: Mr. Fazzone asked Mr. members regarding the proposed restaurant at La Drive. Mr. Karet stated the applicants Council if an agreement can not be worked out Homeowners Association. Karet to update the U.S. 1 and Shangri- will appeal to the with the Shangri-La There being no further business to come before the Agency, Mr. Fazzone moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Blazi. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:20 p.m.. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, September 13, 1990 4