Loading...
09-22-1993 '-r --- CITY OF EDGEW A TER LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AGENCY REGULAR METING SEPTEMBER 22, 1993 Chairman Hellsten called to order a regular meeting of the Land Development and Regulatory Agency at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 22, 1993 in the Community Center of City Hall. ROLL CALL: Members present were Mr. Masso, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Fazzone, Mr. Garthwaite, Ms. Agrusa, Mr. Hildenbrand, and Chairman Hellsten. Also present were Mark P. Karet, Director of Community Development and Elizabeth McBride, Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Masso moved to approve the minutes of August 25, 1993 as presented, seconded by Mr. Garthwaite. Motion PASSED 6-0, Ms. Agrusa abstained as she was absent from the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: V A-0693 - Variance to Allow the Addition of a Screen Room Chairman Hellsten introduced the case then asked Mr. Karet to give the staff report. Mr. Karet said the applicant is requesting relief from Sections 305.00 and 602.01(d)(2) of the zoning ordinance. Mr Karet continued, saying the applicant has contracted with John Phillips to construct a screen room that would encroach into the required side comer yard. Mr. Karet stated that since staff found that the applicant did not meet criteria A,B,C, and E the Department of Community Development does not support the applicant's request. Chairman Hellsten asked the Board if they had any questions for Mr. Karet regarding the staff report. Mr. Hildenbrand asked if the parcel would still be treated as a comer lot if the property were a mile square. Mr. Karet explained if a lot were a mile square and unsubdivided the setbacks would still extend 30 feet from the road. Chairman Hellsten asked Mr. Phillips for his comments. Mr. Phillips stated there are several other residence's on Connecticut Avenue that do not meet the required setbacks. There was considerable discussion on the Connecticut A venue setbacks. Chairman Hellsten stated that 1 '-" ...., the applicant asked the Board to visually look at the property at 510 S. Riverside Drive. Chairman Hellsten said the Board, as a group, can go look at the property. Mr. Phillips described the proposed location of the screen room and explained the reasons why the owners wished to have it constructed in that location. Mr. Fazzone asked about the circumstances on Connecticut Avenue that caused varying setbacks. Mr. Karet said the Board is required, when granting a variance, to find unique circumstances that are peculiar to the individual property. He said that similarities between the parcel before them and other properties tends to weaken the applicants case for a vanance. Joe Langford. 127 E. Connecticut Avenue said he owns the property directly to the west of the property in question. Mr. Langford said his home was built in 1938. Mr. Langford stated some of the front yard properties along E. Connecticut Avenue aren't wide enough to park a car in front of a house. Mr. Langford also said the construction of a screen room at 510 S. Riverside Drive would not obstruct his view as his home sits 10 to 12 feet closer to the road than 510 S. Riverside Drive. Mr. Masso said he feels that one of two things need to be done~ either a personal visit by the entire Board~ or a complete layout of the street with the trees and the houses all along the north side of Connecticut Avenue, to enable him to make a decision. Mr. Garthwaite asked why other properties are being considered when we are talking about a comer lot on Riverside Drive and Connecticut Avenue? He continued to say the other lots are nonconforming and the intent of the ordinance when written was that these nonconforming lots will remain as they are and not be expanded upon. Mr. Garthwaite said the nonconformance of the area will be increased by the addition. Mr. Fazzone agreed with Mr. Garthwaite. After additional discussion Chairman Hellsten asked the Board to vote on the 5 criteria. The Board voted No to criteria A, C, & E and Yes to criteria B & D. Mr. Phillips restated why the applicant wishes to construct the screen room on the southwest side of the residence. Mr Phillips concluded by requesting that all members of the Board visit the site to see what the area looks like. 2 .... ...., Mr. Masso moved to have the Board do a site visit as well as have the applicant agree to an alternate layout, seconded by Mr. Fazzone. The applicant agreed at this time to look at alternate plans. Motion CARRIED 7-0. Mr. Fazzone then moved to table V A-0693 until the special meeting, seconded by Mr. Masso. Motion CARRIED 7-0. The Board agreed to schedule a special meeting with a site visit on October 1, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. MSD-9302 - Minor SubDivision Radnor/Ed2ewater. Inc. (Ed2ewater Landin2) Chairman Hellsten informed the Board that this request was added to the agenda only with the Board's unanimous approval. There being no objections Chairman Hellsten permitted the request go forward. Chairman Hellsten asked Mr. Karet to review the request. Mr. Karet said the applicant is requesting a minor subdivision approval to replat 2 lots within an existing subdivision. Mr. Karet said a "replat" survey of a manufactured home lot under construction at 819 Starboard A venue showed the home encroaches into the required side setback. Mr. Karet stated the applicant owns a vacant lot to the east that will permit the applicant to adjust the lot lines to avoid the encroachment. Mr. Karet concluded saying based on the findings the Department of Community Development supports the applicant's request. Mr. Masso asked if the resulting lots will meet the minimum requirements for the district. Mr. Karet replied, yes. Glen Storch, Attorney for Edgewater Landing stated Edgewater Landing has sold this property and has been unable to get a certificate of occupancy. After brief discussion Mr. Ewing moved to approve the minor sub-division, seconded by Mr. Fazzone. Motion CARRIED 7-0. OLD BUSINESS: None at this time. 3 '-" ...." DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Community Director's Report Mr. Karet stated due to the fact that the City Attorney has recently had a baby will slow down Land Development Regulations, but they are being worked on. Mr. Karet also said the City Council has reemphasized the need to change the variance criteria. Mr. Karet also mentioned a variance issue regarding the construction of a storage shed and the LDRA's denial was overturned 3-2 by the Council. There was considerable discussion between the Board members as to whether Council's approving variances sets a precedent. Mr. Masso stated the property was a normal lot, the house was within all setbacks and the Council granted the variance, giving a special privilege. Chairman Hellsten said that the Council did not judge it based on the law. Chairman Hellsten said we ought to invite the Council to go to one of those sessions to find out what ethics are all about. Chairman Hellsten said he thinks we have a problem with the Council, he said the City Attorney recognizes it, the LDRA recognizes and most of the legal community recognizes it, the Council obviously hasn't recognized it. B. Chairman's Report Chairman Hellsten said his concern with VCARD is that they are working with one venue and we are working in another and he doesn't see the dialog being established between the user groups and the Board. Chairman Hellsten asked Mr. Karet how this will work. Mr. Karet said VCARD wants to meet and come to some decision regarding their comments. Mr. Karet said he will meet with VCARD to explain the drafts. Chairman Hellsten said he would prefer that the Board meet with VCARD. Chairman Hellsten continued saying it is the Board's responsibility to oversee the development of the LDR's and he would like the dialog first hand. Mr. Karet said VCARD has agreed to speak with the Board, but the intent of the meeting was simply to explain the draft chapters and answer any questions they might have. Mr. Karet stated that staff is not trying to hide anything from the Board. Chairman Hellsten said that is not the point of his statement, what he wants is open communications so that all dialog is heard. Mr. Masso said if the meeting between VCARD and Mr. Karet helps to smooth out VCARD's presentation he sees no reason to object to it. Chairman Hellsten said he doesn't want a polished, smooth presentation, he wants a rough presentation so that we can kick it around and see what the alternatives are. He said he doesn't want to see the final result, he wants to see the process. 4 ..... ......, Mr. Karet said staff would object to lengthy discussions. Mr. Karet made reference to the sign ordinance meetings that went on for a very long period of time. Mr. Karet said they would like to put this document together to be presented in a manner that has eliminated some of the inconsistences. Mr. Masso asked Mr. Karet if there would be any objections to taping each and every meeting and have the tapes available to the Board. Mr. Karet said he has no objections and will ask the VCARD members if they feel comfortable being taped. Chairman Hellsten said the ultimate responsibility for the LDR's sits with the LDRA board and he doesn't want to be cut out of the dialog or have the Board denied that dialog. Chairman Hellsten thinks meetings between Mr. Karet and VCARD should be announced to the Board and scheduled at reasonable periods of time so that Board members may attend those meetings or have tapes accessible to them Mr. Karet said staff operates independently of the LDRA Board and if they feel it is appropriate for staff to have meetings during the day with VCARD they will do so, however, Mr. Karet said he will commit to letting members attend these meetings. Chairman Hellsten said if he has to go to Council to demand this, he will. Chairman Hellsten said he is not going to stand still and let Mr. Karet intimidate the Board. Mr. Karet said he has made an offer that any members may attend these meetings if they wish, and he feels this is in the spirit of cooperation. Mr. Masso asked Mr. Karet if they attend these meetings will they be allowed to participate in the dialog? Mr. Karet replied yes. c. Agency Members Report Mr. Masso questioned the appeals process, saying he would like to make the LDRA's decision final, if someone wants to appeal they should go to an appellate court. Mr. Ewing asked Mr. Karet why he said at a Council meeting that it would take months to change the criteria of a variance. Mr. Karet said he said if it was done as part of the LDR's it would take months. Mr. Ewing also mentioned that Mr. Karet said at the same Council meeting that we are going to have basically the same wording in the variance criteria. Mr. Karet replied that he said essentially the intent of the criteria will not change. 5 ~ "-" Mr. Hildenbrand requested that agenda items being represented by attorneys be made the first item(s) on the agenda because of the attorney's charges to the client. Mr. Fazzone suggested that variance appeals go from this Board to the circuit court. Mr. Fazzone said he feels what we are doing is a mockery not only amongst ourselves but also the Council. Mr. Fazzone continued to say he explained at a Council meeting that the LDRA follows the required criteria in judging the granting of variances. Mr. Fazzone said he feels if the LDRA is to take the responsibility as a board, then they should make the final decision, then if the applicant wishes to appeal they should take it to the circuit court. Mr. Fazzone further said the Council didn't take any of the criteria into consideration at the last meeting, what they did is argue among themselves and admitted if they had to grant the variance according to the criteria, they couldn't do it, but a motion was made to approve the variance. Mr. Fazzone restated if the applicant wishes to appeal, take it to the circuit court. Mr. Ewing said he thinks if this ever went to a referendum he thinks it would be defeated by the citizens of the City. He also said the City Attorney said the Council can make a decision regardless of the criteria. Mr. Fazzone said of all the people that have been consistent in the rulings to this Board in the decision making process, Mr. Karet has been the most consistent, the rest of the Board has vacillated, including himself. Chairman Hellsten concluded by suggesting that this is a very good discussion for the meeting with the Council-LDRA workshop. 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 Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting September 22, 1993 c: \ldra \minutes\822 93 6