Loading...
03-26-1997 .....' ,..." " CITY OF EDGEWATER Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 26, 1997 6:30 p.m. Chairman Masso called to order the regular meeting of the Land Development and Regulatory Agency at 6:30 p.m., March 26, 1997 in the Community Center, 102 N. Riverside Drive, Edgewater, Florida. ROLL CALL Members present were Ms. Lichter, Mr. Moncure, Mr. Garthwaite, Ms. Agrusa, Mr. Hildenbrand and Chairman Masso. Also in attendance were Mark P. Karet, Director of Community Development, Krista A. Storey, City Attorney and Sondra M. Pengov, Board Coordinator. Mr. Fazzone was recorded as absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Mr. Moncure to approve the minutes of February 26, 1997 and seconded by Ms. Lichter. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Garthwaite did not vote as he was absent from the February meeting. OLD BUSINESS N one at this time. NEW BUSINESS Public HearingVA-0197 - Donald & Tean Bowles. 3113 Needle Palm Drive. Lots 8189 & 8190 Chairman Masso opened the public hearing and inquired whether any Board members had visited or had conversation relating to the site. Mr. Garthwaite and Mr. Moncure and Ms. Agrusa stated they had driven by the subject property. Mr. Karet was then asked to present staff's comments on the variance. Mr. Karet said the applicants wish to obtain a variance from Section 602.04(d)(2) of the zoning Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 26,1997 1 ... ...., ordinance to retain their home in its present location. Mr. Karet said the applicants own a single- family residence encroaching into the front and south interior side yard setback. Mr. Karet explained the home had been constructed according to the survey. However, after construction of the home it was discovered the survey was in error. The Board was supplied a letter from the surveyor explaining how the error occurred. Mr. Karet said while a survey was made to the adjoining lot the encroachments were discovered. Mr. Karet said the applicant is requesting a variance, but must meet the six criteria in Section 1011.02 when requesting a variance. Mr. Karet concluded saying staff has found the six criteria have been met and recommends the LDRA approve the applciant's request for a variance. Mr. Moncure asked if the variance is granted, what restrictions will there be on future development? Mr. Karet replied a nonconformity does not prohibit the use as it is, as long as future setbacks are met there will be no problems. Ms. Agrusa wanted to go on record stating she felt the letter sent by the City to Mr. and Mrs. Bowles seemed harsh. Mr. Karet explained that the letter was handed to Mr. and Mrs. Bowles after a meeting with them. At that time the process was explained. After brief discussion between the Board and Mr. Karet, Chairman Masso asked the applicant if he had any comments. Mr. Donald Bowles. 3113 Needle Palm Drive - Mr. Bowles said although the City had been great, the stress encountered because of this error has been unbelievable. He also said he has spoken with his neighbors and they have no problem with leaving the home in its present location. There being no comments from the public, Chairman Masso closed the public hearing. Mr. Moncure moved to approve the variance request based on the criteria being met and staff's comments, seconded by Ms. Lichter. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Mr. Fazzone was absent. Public Hearing - CU-9701 - Richard Spangler. authorized a~ent for Tesusa (Sue) Wheeler. 1511 Man~o Tree Drive. Chairman Masso said the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the operation of an Institutional Residential Home for 14 + unrelated residents in the R-4 district. Chairman Masso then opened the public hearing and inquired of the Board whether they had visited or communicated with anyone regarding the site. Ms. Lichter, Mr. Garthwaite and Mr. Moncure said they had driven by the property. Chairman Masso then asked Mr. Karet for staff's Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 26, 1997 2 '-" ...... presentation. Mr. Karet stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in the R-4 district. He said Section 603.01(c)(3) of the zoning ordinance permits institutional residential homes as special exceptions. Such a facility may serve 14 or more residents. Mr. Karet said the term specifically includes congregate care facilities. Mr. Karet said the request is for a .73+ acre parcel with a 3,200 square foot single-family home with a detached garage and shed. He said the applicant wishes to renovate the home to operate an ACLF with 12 residents. Mr. Karet said this size facility is classified as a community residential home and is permitted "by right" in the R-4 district, separated by 1,200 linear feet of another such facility. He said there is another community residential home within the 1,200 linear feet, also owned by the applicant. Mr. Karet said institutional residential homes are permitted in the R-4 district as a special exception without separation restrictions this is why the applicant is applying for a larger use than originally intended. Mr. Karet stated Section 603.01(c)(3) of the Land Development Code establishes standards for review of conditional use permits. He said based on these standards, the Department of Community Development supports the applicant's request to allow the proposed ACLF. However, staff recommends the following conditions be placed on the permit; 1-) the footprint of the existing structures on the site shall not be expanded; 2-) no alterations shall be made to the exterior appearance of the structures or property that are not in keeping with a residential character. Chairman Masso asked for Board comments. Ms. Lichter asked what the normal amount of residents would be in a dwelling this size. Mr. Karet said it depends on the design, probably 12. Mr. Karet explained a community residential home with six residents or less is allowed without an exception. Ms. Lichter questioned how the applicant is allowed to apply for a conditional use permit if it's required to have 14 or more residents, when they want less. Ms. Storey said the intent of the Ordinance is that 14 residents is consistent with State law, but less is also permitted. There being no additional discussion from the Board, Chairman Masso asked the applicant for his comments. Richard Spaneler. 1615 Mission Road - Mr. Spangler explained his interpretation of the effect the request will have on adjacent properties. Mr. Spangler said he is available to answer questions from the Board. Ms. Lichter asked if parking accommodations had been provided for. Mr. Karet replied it is intended to maintain a residential look, but a small parking area could be developed. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 26, 1997 3 '-" ....." Mr. Moncure asked if the facility will be staffed 24 hours a day. Mr. Spangler replied, yes, probably with four employees. Chairman Masso then asked for questions or comments from the public. Ms. Margaret Stanley. 1515 Mango Tree Drive - Ms. Stanley expressed her objections to the facility and questioned hazardous waste on the property. Mr. Loean Williamson. 1304 Regent Street - Mr. Williamson said he feels the facility will hurt the residential property values in the area. Mr. Andrew Sherman. 1211 Regent Street and Ms. Dorothy Rodeers. 1205-07 Bond Street - Mr. Sherman and Ms. Rogers expressed their opposition to the request and were concerned with the possibility of flooding if paved parking was put in. Several other neighbors to the property stated their objections to the request. They stated this would increase the flooding problem if the property had paved parking and cause traffic congestion and noise from emergency vehicles. The possibility of a second floor addition was also mentioned. Mr. Karet responded to the above-mentioned comments. Ms. Storey explained to the public this is a conditional use which means, as of right, this use is permitted, but if the Board finds the criteria are not met it cannot be approved. Chairman Masso stated because the applicant has a right to put this facility in the R-4 district, he felt the Board should table the request until the applicant can provide additional information that will satisfy the neighbors. Ms. Storey explained that under the law this is not a commercial establishment. The State of Florida has made the decision that this is a residential use and for that reason the facility is permitted in a residential district. Ms. Storey reminded the Board that this property could be used for up to six residents without special permission. She said the issue being presented is the amount of residents. Ms. Storey also explained that the surrounding property owners are notified of the request and asked to participate in the meeting because conditions may be imposed by the Board. Margaret Stanley. 1515 Mango Tree Drive - Ms. Stanley asked what is the maximum number of residents that can be placed in an institutional residence? Mr. Karet replied there is a Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 26,1997 4 .... ......, "practical limit" based on the build-out of the properly to its setbacks. He said with expanding the structure and the State's minimum requirements, probably as many as 36 residents. There being no additional comments from the public, Chairman Masso closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Chairman Masso then asked for discussion from the Board and asked the Board if they would like to go through each of the required criteria. The Board agreed to go through the criteria. Chairman Masso called for a recess at 8:35 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:44 p.m. After reviewing items A and B of the criteria the Board found that criteria B had not been met. Chairman Masso then asked for a motion. Ms. Agrusa moved to deny the request based on the fact all the criteria had not been met, factors being; additional noise, traffic, number of staff, emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles and visitors as well as nuisances that would affect adjacent properties. Seconded by Mr. Garthwaite. The motion CARRIED to deny by a 4-2 vote. Mr. Moncure and the Chairman voted no. Mr. Karet then informed Mr. Spangler that his client has 30 days to submit a written appeal of the Boards decision to the City Council. He said if heard by the City Council it will be a hearing de novo. Ms. Storey said that if there is a hearing at Council level, a public notice will be mailed indicating date and time of the meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Community Director's Report Review "Draft" document of the Evaluation Appraisal Report Mr. Karet said the document before the Board is a partial "Draft" of the Cities Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the comprehensive plan. He said th draft identifies changes to the compo plan. Mr. Karet then identified some of the changes. Mr. Karet then asked the Board for their comments and opinions. The Board agreed it would be necessary to schedule a special meeting to review the report. Chairman Masso asked the Board Coordinator to schedule a meeting in April that would be agreeable to all. B. Chairman's Report Chairman Masso had nothing to report at this time. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 26, 1997 5 "-' .""", . c. Agency Members' Report The Board had nothing to report at this time. ADJOURNMENT There being no additional business to come before the Board, a motion was made and approved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Sondra M. Pengov, Board Coordinator Land Development and Regulatory Agency :smp c: \LD RA \millutes\3/26/97 Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 26, 1997 6