Loading...
04-28-1993 .... H F~~~ l2-. ,..., CITY OF EDGEW A TER LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AGENCY REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 1993 Chairman Hellsten called to order a regular meeting of the Land Development and Regulatory Agency at 6:30 p.m., Thursday, April 28, 1993 in the Community Center of City Hall. ROLL CALL: Members present were Mr. Masso, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Fazzone, Mr. Garthwaite, Mr. Klein, Mr. Hildenbrand and Chairman Hellsten. Also present were Mark P. Karet, Director of Community Development, Krista A. Storey, City Attorney and Sondra M. Pengov, Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Garthwaite moved to approve the minutes of March 11, 1993, seconded by Mr. Fazzone. Motion CARRIED 7-0. OLD BUSINESS None at this time. NEW BUSINESS: SE-9301 - Special Exception - Coronado Paint Company Joe D. Martin. P.E.. authorized agent for Coronado Paint Company. requested a special exception to expand an existing structure above the 26 foot height limit. Chairman Hellsten asked Mr. Karet to review the special exception. Mr. Karet stated the applicant is requesting to expand an existing building located at 308 Old County Road by the addition of two stories. The expansion would bring the total height of the building to 30:!: feet. Mr. Karet said this request is in conjunction with site plan (SP-9302). Mr. Karet continued saying based on the five findings that must be made in order for a special exception to be granted, the Department of Community Development supports the applicants request. Mr. Ewing asked why the 26 foot limitation is required in the 1-2 district? Mr. Karet said the height limitations are normally used in conjunction with setbacks and other bulk controls, they are intended to introduce light and the free flow of air into a dense area. Mr. Karet said this is not a common height limitation for industrial use. Mr. Fazzone asked Mr. Karet if the increase in height would apply to all uses in the district. Mr. Karet said no and explained that a special exception is site specific. ~ .."" Mr. Fazzone moved to give the paint company a special exception. Ms. Storey, City Attorney, stated to the Chairman that when approving a special exception the LDRA should specifically address the five criteria which reference that the Board is accepting staffs recommendation. Mr. Fazzone asked, why? Ms. Storey said the ordinance requires that the application meet the five criteria. Mr. Fazzone than amended his previous motion and moved to approve the request based on staffs recommendation of the five criteria, seconded by Mr. Garthwaite. Motion CARRIED 7-0. SP-9302 - Coronado Paint Company Joe D. Martin. P.E.. authorized agent for Coronado Paint Company requested site plan approval for expansion to an existing structure. Mr. Karet was asked by the Chairman to give staffs position on the site plan request. Mr. Karet stated staff reviewed the plan and all requirements have been met and staff supports the site plan. Mr. Fazzone questioned handicap accessibility to the second and third floors. Mr. Martin said (as stated in a letter dated March 24, 1993 from Coronado Paint Company) all floors will be designed to do the same functions; a person on the first floor will be performing the same job functions as a person on the second or third floors; therefore opportunities for the handicapped will not be restricted. Mr. Klein stated the handicap response does not go far enough, as far as he is concerned. He said there is nothing saying how the handicap will not be restricted. Mr. Karet said this concern relates to the interior of the building which is not something within the preview of the LDRA during site plan approval. Mr. Karet further stated that staff contacted DCA regarding the Florida Accessibility Code. Mr. Garthwaite moved to approve the site plan as presented, seconded by Mr. Masso. Motion CARRIED 7-0. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting April 28, 1993 2 ....... ..., Text Amendment to the 1-1. 1-2 and 1-3 District Re2ulations Proposed Amendment to Sections 607.00(f). 607.01(f) and 607.02(f) Chairman Hellsten asked Mr. Karet to explain the intent of the text amendment. Mr. Karet said the proposed amendment will alter the circumstances under which an industrial use is required to establish a 25 foot landscape buffer. Mr. Karet said the Board should decide whether buffers are going to be established between "incompatible" uses or zoning districts. Mr. Karet said that staff recommends a change to the language to state that the buffer is required only if the residential use is conforming, this would ensure that all conforming residences received the same level of protection from incompatible uses. Mr. Ewing moved to leave the language of sections 607.00(f), 607.01(f) and 607.02(f) as is, seconded by Mr. Hildenbrand. Motion FAILED 4-3. Mr. Masso, Mr. Fazzone, Mr. Garthwaite and Chairman Hellsten voted no. After considerable discussion from the Board Mr. Masso suggested that staff should make a more detailed list of options to choose from. Mr. Karet stated, staff will provide this as soon as possible. Mr. Masso moved to have staff research sections 607.00(f), 607.01(f) and 607.02(f) further and provide further recommendations considering the various situations that have occurred in the past due to City rezoning, seconded by Mr. Fazzone. Motion CARRIED 5-2. Mr. Ewing and Mr. Klein voted no. Text Amendment to R-IA District Re2ulations Proposed Amendment to Sections 602.02(a) and 602.02(d)(4) Chairman Hellsten asked Mr. Karet to report on the proposed amendment. Mr. Karet said that amendments to sections 602.02(a) and 602.02(d)(4) are proposed in order to increase the permitted building heights in the R-1A, Single-family Residential District. Mr. Karet said in staffs opinion a one story requirement is unnecessary, if an overall height is established. Mr. Karet said the 22 foot height limit has caused the size of homes to shrink, because F.E.M.A. has raised the base flood elevation. Mr. Karet concluded saying the Department of Community Development recommends an amendment to Section 602.02(a) to delete the words, one story building and amend Section 602.02(d)(4) so that the maximum building height is 25 feet from the base flood elevation. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting April 28, 1993 3 ...... ,.",., Chairman Hellsten asked for citizen comments. Les Haughwout. 204 N. Riverside Drive, stated he felt if someone wishes to build on the east side of Riverside Drive they should be able to build at the higher height due to the raising of the flood elevations. Mort Sprentall. 823 S. Riverside Drive said he thinks the height restrictions are too limiting. Doris Hill. 112 Lincoln Road, said she feels the property owners of Riverside Drive should be notified of this requested change in building height. Discussion followed regarding the original intent of the building height and the restriction of construction of a one story dwelling opposed to a two story, second floor dwelling. Chairman Hellsten stated that if the height limitation is raised due to the F.E.M.A. changes, the issue of 1 versus 2 stories must be addressed if the character of Riverside Drive is to be preserved. Chairman Hellsten said he personally feels some relief is in order for the flood plain changes. Atty. Joe Dudley. 132 Cedar Drive, stated he thinks this needs to go to the City Attorney to look at the issue of preserving the view of residents on the west side of Riverside Drive. He feels there may potentially be a problem of discrimination based on what side of the street you live on. Mr. Dudley said he doesn't see the logic if you can build up 22 feet or 25 feet, what difference does it make whether it is 1 story or 2 stories. Mr. Fazzone suggested sending this back to staff and bring back something pertaining to the square footage. Mr. Klein also requested public notice be made of the next meeting. Mr. Karet asked for more direction from the Board. Chairman Hellsten said he believes the Board wants to see the following items researched and brought back to the Board: 1) to maintain the character of Riverside Drive 2) height limitation 3) tie to F.E.M.A. 4) 1 or 2 story dwelling Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting April 28, 1993 4 ... ..".t Discussion of Reor2anization of Land Development and Re2ulatorv A2encv Chairman Hellsten gave some background of the Boards concern with the reorganization. Chairman Hellsten said the City Council had a workshop meeting a month ago and discussed the reorganization of the LDRA. Chairman Hellsten said the general consensus of the meeting was to split the LDRA into 2 boards each consisting of 5 members, one to handle planning, the other to handle the judicial part of the responsibilities. Mr. Karet said this was based on the recommendation of the City Manager and voted 3-2 by City Council. Mr. Karet further said the basic reason behind the recommendation is that the LDRA, in its current form, deals with matters that require the performance of different rolls. Mr. Karet said it was decided that the rolls would be more effectively performed by distinct bodies. Chairman Hellsten said the discussion of the division of the LDRA was done without the knowledge of any of the Board members and that they where displeased they had not been informed. After discussion between the Board, Mr. Karet and the City Attorney, the Board asked if Mr. Karet would provide the document(s) used by the City Manager at the Council meeting referencing the division of the Board. The Board members planned to attend the next Council meeting that will again discuss the division of the Board. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Community Director's Report None at this time. Chairman's Report None at this time. Agency Member's Report None at this time. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting April 28, 1993 5 "w' ...., ADJOURNMENT: There being no additional business to come before the Board a motion was made and approved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Sondra M. Pengov, Secretary Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting April 28, 1993 c:\ldra\minutes\42893 6