Loading...
04-30-1990 Reconvened 05-09-1990 & Regular 05-09-1990 CITY OF EDGEWATER LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AGENCY RECONVENING OF APRIL 30, 1990 MEETING REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1990 5:45 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER Chairman C. Peter Hellsten reconvened the April 30, 1990 meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan at 5:50 p.m. Members present were Mr. Bennington, Mrs. Blazi , Mr . Fazzone, Mr . Garthwaite, Mr . Hellsten, Mr . Klein, and Mr . Hildenbrandt . Also present were Mark P. Karet , Planning and Zoning Director, Jose ' Alvarez , City Attorney, and Beverly Kinney, Secretary. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - O.R.C. Report (Recessed 4-30-90) : Mr . Garthwaite asked about Policy 8. 1 of the Housing Element regarding windshield survey's and voluntary inspections of dwelling units. Mrs. Blazi stated that rental units being inspected with each vacancy prior to re-rental did not seem realistic . Mr . Fazzone asked if the dates for implementation of the policies in the report were realistic. Mr . Karet stated that state law set the dates for compliance, and that the deadlines were not negotiable. Mr. Karet added that adoption of the Land Development Regulations must bee`'completed by November 1 , 1990 Mr . Bennington stated the city was trying to adopt this very quickly, and we will have to live with it once it is adopted . He stated that he did not like the low, medium, and high density residential land uses, and that the current land development codes would be superceded by the Comprehensive plan. Mr . Karet stated the overall density of a project will be limited by the developer 's ability to meet all applicable requirements. In order to satisfy the requirements a developer may have to accept a lower density than the permitted density depicted on the map . Mr . Bennington stated that he had a problem with the medium residential designation shown on the Future Land Use Map for the Mango Tree Drive property owned by the School Board. He added there is a hardwood hammock in the area and the property lies within the one hundred ( 100) year floodplain. He also noted that the property is within an aquifer recharge area. Mr . Karet explained that the Future Land Use Map originally submitted to D.C.A. showed the School Board property and the adjacent county property as conservation. The county filed a complaint with the state, and the School Board expressed their concerns directly to the city. D.C.A. objected to this designation in the O.R.C. report . Therefore, staff has recommended that the county 's property be designated public/semi public and the School Boards property be designated medium density. Mr . Karet added that developers of the property will be required to protect the hardwood hammock area and meet all applicable requirements for development within the one hundred ( 100) year floodplain. He added that the area is not a recharge area for the Floridan Aquifer , but rather the surficial aquifer. Mr . Karet reminded the members that at the last meeting they had discussed wording for the adoption ordinance to include "whichever is more stringent" in regards to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances, however , D.C.A. will not accept this language. 1 Mr . Fazzone noted there was a statement in the Capital Improvements section about the city's intent to repeal that section of the Charter with respect to the general debt associated with the General Fund, which states that bonds shall not be issued which exceed ten ( 10) percent of the assessed value of the taxable real estate of the city at the time of issue. Mrs. Blazi moved to recess this section of the meeting and go into the regular meeting, seconded by Mr . Fazzone at 6:30 p .m. . Motion Carried 7-0. Chairman Hellsten called the regular meeting of the Land Development and Regulatory Agency to order at 6:30 p .m. Members present were Mrs. Blazi , Mr . Fazzone, Mr . Garthwaite, Mr . Hellsten, Mr . Klein, and Mr . Hildebrandt . Also present were Mark P. Karet , Planning and Zoning Director , Jose ' Alvarez , City Attorney, and Beverly Kinney, Secretary. NEW BUSINESS: ZTA-0190 Airport Taxi & Limousine Service: Mr . Robert Hartland , owner of Airport Taxi & Limousine, was present. Mr. Karet stated that the Planning and Zoning Department recommended approval of "Transportation Services" in the I-1 ( light Industrial ) district . He noted that there is no use listed in the district ' s regulations under which this type of business can be classified . Mr. Bennington that the use is permitted in the 8-2 and B-3 (business) districts. Mr . Karet stated the business is not really a highway service oriented use in that it does not require exposure, and it is not compatible with the intent of the 8-2 district. Mr. Hartland stated he wanted to store his vehicles (near his mechanic) and answer incoming telephone calls. Mr . Karet stated the use requested was more consistent with the I-i and I-2 ( industrial ) districts. Mr. Bennington stated that "transportation services" is a rather broad classification. Mr . Karet stated that this broadness is intentional in order to avoid constant requests for zoning text amendments and "squeezing" businesses into very specific categories. He also stated that the new land development regulations will contain more general categories. Mr . Fazzone recommended that transportation services be added to the list of permitted uses in the I-1 district , seconded by Mrs . Blazi . Motion. Carried 7-0. . Request for Site Plan Extension: William Hathaway, Attorney, requests an extension of site plan approval on SP-8901 (strip center ) , on behalf of Perry Barrett , property owner of lot 7 located on the southwest corner of U.S. 1 and Roberts Road . Mr . Karet stated the Planning and Zoning Department was recommending denial of this request , because it was not made within the required time period, as per Section 715.06 of the Code. Mr . Hathaway stated the site plan was approved on March 23, 1989,a letter had been sent to Mr . Barrett from the Building Department stating that a building permit number had been issued , and a tree removal permit was issued on January 24, 1990, by the Building Department . Mr . Hathaway stated the Section 715.06 (3) which states "The developer submits, in writing, reason(s) for request to the Planning Department at least thirty days in advance" was unclear . Mr . Hathaway questioned if the code meant Land Development and Regulatory Agency Reconvened Meeting of April 23, 1990 Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 9, 1990 2 30 days prior to the expiration of the site plan, as indicated by Mr . Karet, or did it mean 30 days prior to the LDRA hearing date? Mr . Alvarez stated the correct interpretation of the Section in question was 30 days prior to the expiration date. Mr . Hathaway stated that there were extenuating circumstances and that it took time to get the road impact fee amount from the county (from 12/89 to 3/90) . Mr . Karet stated that the county was undergoing some changes in their impact fees at that time. Mr . Karet stated that a permit number had been assigned to the project , but no actual permit had been paid for or pulled by the applicant . Mr . Klein moved to deny the request , seconded by Mr . Fazzone. Mr . Hathaway stated that Mr . Barrett was given a tree removal permit prior to the expiration date. Mr . Hathaway also stated that there was an ambiguity because the Ordinance was not clear . Mr . Hellsten stated if the request was denied, Mr . Barrett would have to come back for site plan approval . Mr. Karet pointed out that the maintenance of Roberts Road had been turned over to the city, which may require changes to the site plan. Mr . Bennington stated that Mr . Karet was enforcing the code, which was the correct thing to do, because development codes change, and that 's why there is an expiration date. Motion Carried 7-0. Sketch 9001 Surrey Ridge Subdivision: Luis Geil , authorized agent, was present. Mr. Karet stated that the applicant had requested to bring the sketch plan before the agency to get all the issues on the table, so that everyone would be aware of the applicant ' s intent. Mr . Fazzone noted there was only one means of access, and he hoped that there would be adequate stormwater retention. Mr . Bennington questioned the zero lined lot sizes. Mr . Karet stated that the lots were smaller in size, but the setbacks were the same as those for single family homes. It was noted that the proposed subdivision will have a variety of single family and multi family dwellings, and the green areas will be maintained by the homeowners, and there will be sidewalks on both sides of the street in the multifamily section of this project . Mr . Bennington noted that there were no lot depths shown on the sketch plan. There was discussion regarding the number of dwelling units per acre. Mrs. Blazi moved to accept the sketch plan, making note of the comments brought up by the agency members and the department head comments. Mr . Fazzone seconded. Motion Carried 7-0 SD-89-4 Minor Subdivision: Glenn Storch, Attorney, was present to represent Mr . and Mrs. Kane, owners of the property located at 2031 South Riverside Drive. Mr . Starch stated the Kanes had purchased a 20 foot strip of land creating 100 feet of frontage on South Riverside Drive. Prior to the purchase the property had been 80 feet wide. He stated that the owners wanted to subdivide the property into two lots, a back lot on the river , which is shaped like a flag on a flag pole, and a front lot on Riverside Drive, Mr. Storch suggested three ways to subdivide the land: 1 ) a back lot that is flag shaped with a 20 foot access on South Riverside Drive, abutting an 80 foot by 237 foot front lot ; 2) the same flag shaped lot , but have the first 237 feet of the 20 foot portion of the flag lot held in a tenency in common with the front lot; or 3) another solution would be to have the front 100 foot wide x 237 foot deep lot with a 20 foot wide easement to the back lot . Mr . Karet stated the Planning and Zoning Department recommended approval due to extenuating circumstances. Mr. Karet added that Land Development and Regulatory Agency Reconvened Meeting of April 23, 1990 Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 9, 1990 3 • the 20 foot strip should be deeded as a "tenency in common" , and each lot would hold 50% of the 20 foot strip . Mr . Fazzone stated that the requirements for the R-1A zoning district could not be met if the property was subdivided. It was noted that there was a petition and two letters from the public against subdividing the property. Mr . Garthwaite stated that from the letters and the memo from the Planning and Zoning Department , it was apparent that an error was made by a city employee, and money was expended upon that recommendation. He believed that rather than approve the creation of a nonconforming lot , the city should reimburse the property owners for the money they had spent to purchase the 20 foot strip. Mr. Bennington stated the city could not allow the creation of a nonconforming lot . Mr. Klein agreed. Mrs. Blazi stated that the extenuating circumstances should not be a factor in making a decision. James Montgomery stated that similar situations could arise and more homes would be built along the river . Nancy Montgomery stated that sharing driveways could cause problems in the future if either property is sold . She added that if this was approved property values would go down, and there would be more people on Riverside Drive. Jose ' Alvarez , City Attorney stated the lot had been a non- conforming lot of record because of its width of BO feet . The current house has a driveway within the 80 foot lot width , the back lot is conforming because it has a width of 100 feet , and both lots meet the minimum requirement for lot depth. Division of the parcels does not increase the nonconformity. Mr . Storch cited several cases in which the courts had ruled in favor of the applicant , not the city involved. A decision based on extenuating circumstances would not set a precedent . Mr . Storch stated the back lot that would be created would be conforming, and both parcels would have the required square footage. He added that the 20 foot strip would not be shared , it would be access for the back lot . Mr . Bennington stated the city employee was not a department head and he didn' t believe the city employee had authority to interpret the zoning ordinance. Mr . Alvarez stated that Mr . Storch had cited cases which illustrate the doctrine of equitable estoppel . Mr . Alvarez stated that the question was whether the city employee, in fact , had such authority, or appeared to have authority at the time, or conducted themself as if they had the authority. Mr . Alvarez stated the doctrine of equitable estoppel precludes a municipality from exercising its police power to prohibit a particular use of land where it is found that the property owner : 1 . in good faith; 2. who from some act or omission of the government ; 3. has made such a substantial change in position, or has incurred such extensive expenses that it will be highly negligible and unjust to destroy the required acquired . Further , the doctrine of equitable estoppel requires the LDRA to determine if the applicant has reasonable grounds for complaint , and did the applicant have reason to rely on the representation Land Development and Regulatory Agency Reconvened Meeting of April 23, 1990 Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 9, 1990 4 made. The Board members need to weigh the evidence, the principles, and apply it to the facts as known to come to a conclusion. Mr . Alvarez also stated that all three requirements listed for minor subdivisions must be met. So the question is whether both lots front an existing street , and whether the property is a nonconforming lot of record as per Section 401 .01 of the Code of Ordinances. Mr . Storch stated the lots had separate parcel numbers, and the 20 foot strip was purchased on the representation of the city. Mr . Alvarez pointed out that the front lot had always been 830 feet wide. Mr . Bennington stated when the additional 20 feet was purchased it made the nonconforming lot conforming, and the land should be considered one parcel , not to be sold or divided . Mr . Karet stated the lot does not meet minimum requirements, but the 20 foot strip was purchased solely for the purposes of subdividing the land. Mr . Klein stated that if this was approved it would be setting a precedent . Mr . Karet stated the recommendation was based on extenuating circumstances and therefore there would be no precedent . Mr . Fazzone stated that two wrongs don' t make a right , and moved to deny the application, seconded by Mr . Klein. There was discussion regarding the legal ramifications. Mr . Alvarez stated there was no easy way out . Mr . Bennington stated the applicants may sue, and he was tired of doing things because of city employees making mistakes. Mr . Fazzone asked if they were trying to protect an individual or the city as a whole. Mr . Hellsten stated there were conflicting opinions as far as the law is concerned, and there are also environmental concerns along the river . Motion Carried 7-0. Chairman Hellsten called for a recess at 8:35 p.m. . The meeting was called back to order at 8:45 p .m. . AN-1090 Annexation 10 Acres Carol-Ann Drive: Luis Geil was the authorized agent for the Hood ' s. Mr . Karet stated the Planning and Zoning Department recommended approval . There was discussion regarding possible drainage problems. Mr . Karet stated that would be addressed when the property was under development. Mr . Karet stated the annexation was under consideration at this time, not the rezoning of the property. Carry Coskin 303 Carol-Ann Drive: stated he purchased his home because of the current zoning. He discussed the stormwater retention problems on the Hood 's property, and showed the Agency members pictures from a heavy rain last year . He added that Mr . Hood had put a pond on the property because of the drainage problems. Mrs. Blazi asked those in the assembly if they wanted to come into the city. The majority stated the did not . Christine Wheeler Carol-Ann Drive: stated when there is a heavy rain she has to park her car and walk past two, two acre lots to get to her home. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Reconvened Meeting of April 23, 1990 Regular Meeting of Wednesday, May 9, 1990 5 Mr . Karet stated that if the land is left in its natural state there will be continual drainage problems. He added that because of todays stormwater regulations (being more stringent ) , developing the property would help take care of the drainage problems. George Bickerd 299 Carol-Ann Drive: stated he wants to stay in the county. He believed the drainage problems would not allow for the number of homes planned for the site. He added that the shell road and the park in the area would be impacted by the proposed development. Mr . Hellsten stated that the city was becoming more professional in order to prevent some of the problems the city faced in the past . Mr . Karet agreed that there had been errors in the past , particularly in regards to drainage,but added that the city has taken on the responsibility of correcting them. Mr . Karet had to remind the audience that the discussion was to consider annexation only, not rezoning. Mr . Geil stated the property owners were aware of that fact , and he assured the audience that no one had promised any type of zoning . Mr . Garthwaite asked if the Hood 's could rezone the property if it is not annexed . Mr . Karet stated they could apply for a rezoning from the county. Mr . Bennington moved to recommend approval of the annexation request with its current county R-4 zoning . Mrs. Blazi seconded. Motion Carried 4-3. Mr . Fazzone, Mr . Garthwaite and Mr . Hildenbrandt voted no. The Comprehensive Plan, O.R.C. Report section of the meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p .m. . After general comments and discussion among the members regarding the states requirements, Mr . Klein stated the Agency could not accept the report the way it is, and a letter should be sent to Council that states that the Agency strongly disagrees with the document . Mr . Bennington seconded. Mrs. Blazi pointed out that while many of the states requirements were objectionable, the city did not have a choice. Mr . Bennington believed the Agency should send a letter to the Council stating their displeasure and objections. Mr . Fazzone agreed that the Agency could not put a stamp of approval on the document to forward to the Council . The members agreed to hold a number of meetings at later dates to separately consider each element of the response document. Mr . Klein reworded his motion stating that the Agency shall send a memo to Council stating that at this point the Agency does not intend to recommend approval of the O.R.C. Report because the members have serious concerns regarding the contents of the response document . Mr . Bennington agreed with the rewording . Motion Carried 7-0. Mrs. Blazi moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr . Fazzone. The Comprehensive Plan meeting adjourned at approximately 9:55 p .m. . Land Development and Regulatory Agency Reconvened Meeting of April 23, 1990 Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 9, 1990 Minutes respectfully submitted by: Beverly Kinney, Secretary 6