Loading...
02-14-2001 .., ...., CITY OF EDGEWATER Plauing and ZGning Board Regular Meeting Wednesday, February 14,2001 6:30 p.m. Chairman Garthwaite called to order the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board at 630 p.m., February 14, 2001 in the Community Center, 102 N. Riverside Drive, Edgewater, Florida. ROLLCALL Members present were Mr. Masso, Mr. Hellste~ Mr. Mulle~ Mr. V opelak, Chairman Garthwaite, and Mrs. Zeese; Mr. Youkon arrived at 6:40 p.m. prior to the first order of new business. Also present were Lynne Plaskett, Planning Director; Bonnie Wenzel, Planning Secretary; APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Masso made a motion to approve the minutes of Janwuy 10, 2001 as read. Mr. Hellsten seconded. Chairman Garthwaite stated that Mr. Y oukon was late for that meeting and it should be noted in the minutes. Motion PASSED 6-0. OLD BUSINESS V A-0005; V A-0006; V A-0007 - Friendly Shores Home Owner's Association,. seeking a variance for lots 3, 17, and 33, 2201 S. Ridgewood Avenue, Friendly Shores Mobile Home Park. This was a continuation from the December 13, 2000 meeting. The applicant requested a continuation to the March 14,2001 meeting. Chairman Garthwaite opened the Public Hearing and asked if there were any questions of staff As there were no questions and the applicant was not in attendal:1ce Chairman Garthwaite closed the public hearing. Mr. Masso made a motion to continue this case to the March 14, 2001 meeting. Mr. Vopelak seconded. The MOTION PASSED 6-0. NEW BUSINESS CU-OIOt - Glenn Storch Esquire, authorized agent, requesting a conditional use for property located on S.R. 442 for excavation of stormwater retention ponds. Chairman Garthwaite opened the Public Hearing and asked Ms. Plaskett for a briefing on the case. Ms. Plaskett read the background information from the staff report and explained that any excavation requires a conditional use from the Board. Chairman Garthwaite asked if they were required to give a recommendation for the conditional use. Ms. Plaskett stated they have full authority for a conditional use; it does not go before the Council. Chairman Garthwaite felt it was hard to determine if this met the Concurrency Management requirements. Ms. Plaskett stated this was true, because at this time they will only be excavating ponds for future development, and the City was in the process of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this C:\My Documents\PIamring and Zoning Board\Minutes\2001\02-14-01.doc Page I of6 ...... .""" parcel. The proposal was to develop 20 acres abutting S.R. 442 for commercial use and a residential subdivision on the remainder. Ms. Plaskett explained the applicant will be required to have a site plan and apply for a mining/excavation permit. She stated the Board could make a condition that this is brought back to them at that time. Chairman Garthwaite asked if the Board would see the plans for the 2O:f: acres. Ms. Plaskett stated they would, and also for the subdivision. Mr. Glenn Storch noted that the Board would see this three (3) times for; comprehensive plan amendment, zoning, and site plan. Mr. Vopelak why the developer was going to dig 12 feet below the water table. Mr. Storch stated that a permit from St. John's River Water Management District will be required and 12 feet is the deepest they could dig or it would be considered a borrow pit. Mr. Vopelak asked why they needed such a deep retention pond. Mr. Storch responded they would have a l2-foot deep lake and would utilize some oithe fill for the site and improvements. Mr. Hellsten felt the amount of information presented to them was incomplete and asked for more background as to what was going to be done on this site. Mr. Storch e~lained that conditional use is the same as a permitted use with conditions that may be required. He stated this type of excavation was fairly common in the County, although he believed this was a first for the City. Mr. Storch recommended the Board place a condition as to a timetable and when the excavation would be permitted to operate, such as daylight hours (7a.m. to 7 p.m.). Ms. Madelyn Cope, owner of five (5) acres behind this site addressed the Board. Ms. Cope wondered if this project would change the zoning of her property now or in the future, and if the conditional use meant that Mr. Storch would have to meet the current City requirements and future requirements. Chairman Garthwaite replied that he would have to meet the requirements of City Ordinances and permitting through SJRWNID. Ms. Cope then noted that her property was located in the County, not the City. Ms. Cope asked if having horses would be a problem when they built a house on the property. Ms. Plaskett noted that the zoning would not be changed by the City of Edgewater unless they annexed; and suggested they check with the County for their regulations. Chairman. Garthwaite asked Ms. Plaskett about the decision criteria of the conditional use, particularly. meeting the concurrency management system requirements. Ms. Plaskett explained what concurrency management was. She further explained that at this time there will be no development other than the excavation itself: and the only concurrency management requirements would be traffic, FDOT may require a deceleration lane or median cut. Chairman Garthwaite further asked about the lighting on site. Mr. Storch felt that would not be an issue due to only working daylight hours. Ms. Plaskett reminded the Board that the applicant will have to apply for an excavation permit, SJRWMD permits and FDOT permits, and they will also have to prove that they will not impact the City's wellfield. She further noted the Board could make a condition that the application comes before them before the permit is issued. Mr. Mullen was concerned about trucks on 442 during rush hour. Mr. Storch stated ifFDOT felt a deceleration lane was needed one would be put in. He suggested the Board could require that during rush hours truck traffic be slowed as a condition. Further discussion ensued concerning the excavation and future development of the property. A:\02-14-01.doc Page 2 of6 ...... ...,., Chairman Garthwaite closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Masso made a motion to approve the conditional use with the following conditions: 1. Site plan must include a development timetable, hours of operation, actual overall coverage, depth of excavation, amount of fill being removed, driveway details as required by FDOT, and drainage impacts; 2. A 50-foot vegetative buffer be maintained during the excavation process; 3. No impact to wetlands in the NE comer of property or surface water/ditches, and these items will be addressed during the commercial I residential development review process; 4. SJRWMD requires that roads shall be stabilized, all trucks shall use tarps, a gravel area be provided before exiting the paved driveway to help remove dirt and dust from the trucks before they enter the roadway; 5. Surety Bond be posted; 6. No pumping on site; 7. Excavation permitted on no more than 19 acres and centrally located on the property. 8. Truck thru traffic considered during peak: rush hours be considered by DOT and proper resolution for the safety of travelers on 442; 9. Mining;IExcavation permit be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board; 10. No lighting; 11. Operation during daylight hours only Mr. Mullen seconded the motion. The MOTION PASSED 6-1, Mr. Hellsten voted no. RZ-0001- Louis Sage, authorized agent, requesting rezoning for property located at 108 Thomas Avenue; 1403 4th Street; and 1409 4d1 Street from R-3 single family residential to RP, residential professional office. Chairman Garthwaite opened the Public Hearing and asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Y oukon asked if. there were any restrictions on the hours of operation for residential professional. Ms. Plaskett replied there were not, but this zoning classification was for conversion of a single family home that would have to accommodate the parking and landscaping requirements. An example would be a real estate office, or dentist office and there is no limit to the number of hours for office type uses. Mr. V opelak asked if a beauty parlor was permitted. Ms. Plaskett answered if they could accommodate the parking and landscaping requirements, but RP was typically for professional office type uses. Mr. Y oukon' asked if there were restrictions in terms of the use, as opposed to the parking and landscaping requirements. Ms. Plaskett answered that the use is restricted to the number of parking spaces they can accommodate, and that this is pretty limited based on the size of the lots. Mr. Y oukon asked if they could knock down one of the houses and use that for parking spaces for the adjoining house. Ms. Plaskett stated this was possible if it was needed. Mr. Y onkon understood this to be that they had to already be in compliance, they could not add parking, or repave. Ms. Plaskett stated the residential professional office is to allow the conversion of a single-family home to professional office. Mr. Y oukon asked if a restaurant was permitted. Ms. Plaskett stated that a restaurant was not pennitted, as it was not a professional office. Further discussion ensued as to what a professional office meant. Ms. Plaskett then read the conditions of residential professional office from the C:\MyDocuments\Planning and Zoning Board\Minutes\200I\02-14-OI.doc Page 3 of6 ..... .."", LDC and explained that the residential house would have to meet commercial codes to become a residential professional offICe. Ms. Plaskett then went through the permitted uses in the RP classification and explained that each was a conditional use, and would have to come back before the Board before it would be permitted. She further noted that restaurants were not permitted in the RP zone. Mr. Y oukon asked what was to prevent it under the definition~ it does not say it has , to be an office. Ms. Plaskett stated for a professional office, she again stated that a restaurant was not a professional office. Mr. Youkon noted that nothing was permitted in that zone other than a residential house without a conditional use. Ms. Plaskett said that was correct Ms. Plaskett further stated that the house had to be there first and under the RP zoning you could convert the house into a professional office as a conditional use if you could meet the criteria. Mr. Youkon then asked if anyone had a problem with rezoning an area with only three (3) homes, he felt it should be a little broader than block by block. Ms. Plaskett noted to the board that these homes face the back of a strip center that has restaurants, and this is a really unusual situation. They are requesting the rezoning because of the conditions in their neighborhood There was discussion regarding the strip center and the residential area. Ms; Plaskett further noted that the initial request was to rezone these properties to commercial and staff felt RP would be a better solution. The Board members mentioned that they would like to see what was going to be done with the property if it was rezoned. Chairman Garthwaite asked the authorized agent what the intentions were for the property and if he would be able to have a site plan for next months meeting. Louis Sage, authorized agent, stated there were no plans at this time for utilization other than residential. Mr. Sage further explained the situation at the residences regarding the strip mall to the west of them. He also stated that the property is hard to sell and is a buffer for the properties east of them. Mr. Y oukon mentioned to the Board that he received a phone call from a member of the public, who lives behind this property, and is a client of his while not an active client. This resident was concerned about the problem, essentially as Mr. Sage described it, although the impression that he got was that they were against the proposed zone. Mr. Youkon was unsure if they understood that the RP was actually a buffer and might alleviate some of the problem for them. Mr. Y oukon wanted the Board to be aware that there was some input from the public. Ms. Plaskett also noted that the Planning Department received a call from a resident opposed to the rezoning. She said staff spoke with the gentleman and explained the situation and was unsure at this time if he was still opposed. Mr. Hellsten asked what the buffer would be on Mr. Sage's property. Ms. Plaskett stated that when they were initially talking about the rezoning they were looking into B-3 and that would require a 25-foot buffer. Mr. Hellsten asked what the buffer requirements would be for the RP zone, or if they would be required through site-plan approval. Ms. Plaskett stated that would be required through site plan approval, typically it would be a 6 foot high buffer, trees planted at the rear, the City prefers trees as well as an opaque fence. Mr. Y oukon remarked to Mr. Sage that he felt the rezoning may not get him to where he wants to be. He continued saying that he wouldn't want his front yard facing the back of Good Time Chalie's, but he understands where he is coming from. Mr. Hellsten asked Mr. Sage what street C:\My Documents\Planning and Zoning Board\Minutes\2001\02-14-01.doc Page 4 of6 ........ ....." his house faced. Mr. Sage stated it faced 4th Street. Mr. Sage further stated that another problem they face is that the mall has insufficient parking and they get overflow parking. He has gone to the police department and has been told that the street is zoned commercial. He faces a commercial street and patrons ofCbalie's park in front ofhis driveway and sometimes cannot get out. Mr. Sage also stated that the Karaoke plays until 2 a.m. and is quite loud, he has asked them to close the door and they have not cooperated, it is a terrible situation. The residential street they live on is the service street for the mall. Huge semi's pull in and park there and they stir up the sand from the road. He would just like some alleviation from the situation. Mr. Youkon disclosed to the Board that he represented Good Time Chalies in the past. He further stated that he did not feel it disqualified him from the decision, and he did not want anyone not to know that. Chairman Garthwaite closed the public hearing. Mr. Hellsten asked if the other two (2) property owners were seeking the same relief as Mr. Sage. Ms Plaskett informed him that Mr. Sage is the authorized agent for all three (3) property owners. Chairman Garthwaite asked if everyone wanted to rezone. Ms. Plaskett stated that the Planning Department has all the authorizations for the rezoning. Discussion ensued about rezoning the other blocks in the area that face the same situation. Mr. Y oukon stated that he did not think: they could rezone the other. block without notice going out. Ms. Plaskett stated they could not arbitrarily rezone someone that hasn't made an application. Mr. Youkon asked if there was any opposition from anyone in the mall. Ms. Plaskett stated the only opposition was from the resident who called the Planning Department. Mr. Sage stated that he spoke with Mr. Hellanski and does not think he is opposed to this anymore. Ms. Plaskett suggested that this be tabled to the next meeting, so the Board's and Mr. Sage's concerns could be addressed and a possible solution be found that would be more conducive. Mr. Hellsten made a motion to table this case to the next meeting. Mr. Masso seconded. The MOTION PASSED 6-0. Chairman Garthwaite called a recess at 7:50 p.rn. The meeting resumed at 8:00 p.rn. AN-OIOl- Edgewater Lakes, Partners, LLC, owner, requesting annexation of 445 :I:: acres for a proposed residential golf course community. Chairman Garthwaite opened the public hearing and asked Ms. Plaskett to give an overview of this case. Ms. Plaskett read the staff report into the record. Mr. Y oukon asked why the development would be provided sewer by the County. Ms. Plaskett stated that the City has an agreement with the County to provide sewer to this area. Mr. Hellsten asked if reclaimed water would come from the City. Ms. Plaskett replied it would when it becomes available. Chairman Garthwaite questioned how the golf course would be irrigated. Ms. Plaskett responded that the retention ponds and low wells could be used for irrigation. A;\02-14-Ol.doc Page 5 of6 ... ...., Ms. Plaskett reminded the Board that the case before them was only for the annexation of the property and not the development itself. Mr. Masso asked about the progress made regarding the enclave. Ms. Plaskett stated that staff was just beginning to work on contacting those owners. Mr. Youkon noted for the record the letter from resident Michael Thompson, who is against the golf course community. Ms. Plaskett also noted for the record a letter from Robert Baldanza in support ofthe proposed community. There being no further discussion Chairman Garthwaite closed the public hearing. Chairman Garthwaite asked the applicant if he had anything further to add. Mr. Tim Howard stated he felt things were heading in the right direction and would let the Board make their recommendation. Mr. Masso made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to City Council for annexation. Mr. Hellsten seconded the motion. The MOTION PASSED 7-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman Mr. Masso nominated Chairman Garthwaite as Chairman, seconded by Mr. Vopelak nomination PASSED 7-0. Mr. Mullen nominated Mr. Masso as Vice-Chairman, seconded by Mr. Youkon nomination PASSED 7-0. 2. Planning Director' Report Ms. Plaskett explained to the Board the process the City was going through regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. She informed them they would be getting a copy of all elements for review and recommendation to the City Council. 3. Chairman's Report None at this time. Chairman Garthwaite asked Ms. Plaskett what the situation was at Royal Oaks Mobile Home Park. Ms. Plaskett explained what she knew of the situation. Mr. Vopelak mentioned that he was unclear of the definition ofa POO. His concept seemed to be different. Ms. Plaskett explained the City's definition of a POO and that all POO's are heard by the Board. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Bonnie A. Wenzel Board Secretary. :baw A:\02-14-0l.doc Page 6 of6