Loading...
03-25-1998 -- ...,. CITY OF EDGEWATER Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 25, 1998 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 25, 1998 in the Community Center, 102 N. Riverside Drive, Edgewater, Florida. ROLL CALL Members present were Mr. Zeese, Mr. Ridner, Mr. Garthwaite, Ms.Agrusa, Mr. Hildenbrand and Chairman Masso. Mr. Ogram was record absent. Also in attendance were Lynne plaskett, Acting Director of Community Development, Nikki Clayton, City Attorney and Sondra M. Pengov, Board Coordinator. AFFROV AL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Mr. Garthwaite to approve the minutes of January 6, 1998 (re-scheduled December, 1997 meeting) and seconded by Mr. Zeese. Motion CARRIED 6-0. OLD BUSINESS N one at this time. NEW BUSINESS public Hearing - DA-9403 - Raymond L. Anderson. authorized agent for Florence Anderson requested an amendment to their development agreement for property located at 1904 S. Riverside Drive. Chairman Masso opened the public hearing and inquired whether any of the Board members visited the subject area. Chairman Masso said he had driven by the property. Chairman Masso then asked for staff comments. Ms. plaskett brought to the Boards attention Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 1 '-' """" that the background information provided should include information as noted; it has been determined that the construction plans had been submitted in a timely manner, however, they had not been approved. she said the plans were resubmitted in January of 1998 and staff felt it was imperative that the Development Agreement be amended to recognize this. Ms. plaskett said the request is for an extension of time and staff suggests the LDRA recommend approval to the City Council. Mr. Zeese questioned why the applicant needs an extension of time. Ms. plaskett responded that the original agreement was for five years, however, the duration of the agreement is amended to reHect an extension of time for approval of the construction plans. she said there is a stipulation in the Development Agreement that specifies a two year period to supply the construction plans. Ms. plaskett stated since the time has lapsed, staff is requesting the time period be extended as the applicant is ready to move forward. Chairman Masso inquired of the City Attorney whether it was necessary to review all the criteria, because they are only considering an extension of time. Ms. Clayton said the "draft" amendment to the Development Agreement only reflects the duration of agreement and the amendment states that all other aspects of the agreement remain in full force and effect. Chairman Masso then asked the applicant for his response. As the applicant was not present and there were no comments from the public, Chairman Masso closed the public hearing, and asked the Board for a motion. Mr. Zeese moved to grant the extension, seconded by Mr. Garthwaite. The motion CARRIED 6-0. DA-9701 - Luis C. Geil. authorized agent for Tames C. And Rosemary Carder requested an amendment to their Development Agreement for property located at the Southwest corner of Falcon and Ridgewood Avenues. Chairman Masso opened the public hearing and inquired of the Board members whether anyone had visited the subject property. Mr. Zeese, Mr. Garthwaite, Chairman Masso and Mr. Ridner said they had visited or driven by the properly, but had not spoken to anyone. Chairman Masso then asked for staff comments. Ms. plaskett said this is also addressing an extension of time to a Development Agreement. She said initially, the Development Agreement was for a 23 residential lot subdivision and one commercial lot. Mr. Carder submitted, per agreement with the former Director of Community Development, plans for an eight lot Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 2 '-' """'" subdivision on Falcon Avenue as all infrastructure requirements had been met. The amendment states the developer shall apply for approval of the final record plat for eight residential lots within six months of the date of the amendment and shall apply for approval of the preliminary record plat and construction plans for the fifteen additional residential lots within six months of the date of the amendment. Ms. plaskett said in November of 1997, authorization was given to construct one model home. In conclusion, Ms. plaskett stated, staff recommends the original Development Agreement be amended to recognize the change in duration of the agreement, and all other terms and conditions remain the same. Chairman Masso then asked the authorized agent for his comments. Luis C. Geil. 2105 Saxon Drive. New Smyrna Beach - Mr. Geil stated the purpose of construction on the eight lots is to be able to test the market. Mr. Zeese questioned whether any construction had been started. Mr. Geil replied one lot has been started, which will be the model home. There being no further discussion, Chairman Masso closed the public hearing. The City Attorney questioned the applicant as to whether the time frames were adequate. Mr. Geil responded, yes they were acceptable. After brief discussion regarding lot sizes, Chairman Masso asked for a motion. Mr. Garthwaite moved to recommend the amended Development Agreement to the City Council, seconded by Mr. Ridner. The motion CARRIED 6-0. DA-9801 - Luis C. Geil. authorized agent for Tohn and Eugenia Browning requested a Development Agreement for property located at 1904 Hibiscus Drive. Chairman Masso opened the public hearing and asked if any of the Board had visited the subject property. Mr. Zeese had visited, but did not speak with anyone. Chairman Masso then asked staff for their comments. Ms. plaskett passed pictures of the property for those not familiar with it. Ms. plaskett said Mr. Browning has developed a mini- warehouse of which the approved site plan called for three phases, with phases I and II being complete. The phase III slab was poured in contemplation that the area of Hibiscus and Guava Drives were to be rezoned I-I, Light Industrial, which permits lot coverage of up to 42% versus Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 3 '-" ....., 30% in the B-2 district. Ms. plaskett further explained Mr. Browning was informed that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has been the result of the "hold up" to the zoning change. Ms. plaskett said staff is working on the comments received from DCA, however, it is not known when or if the request will be approved. To be consistent with past practices, the previous Director of Community Development requested a Development Agreement be submitted in this case. She concluded saying, staff recommends the LDRA consider a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Development Agreement. Ms. plaskett asked if the Board would hear the City Attorney's issues, as changes to the agreement may be required. Ms. Clayton said her concern has to do with the adjustment to the lot area coverage. This is permissible under I-I zoning, but not under the existing B-2 zoning. Ms. Clayton said she asked Ms. plaskett whether it would be appropriate to ask the developer to wait until the City received approval from DCA or whether to grant the developer appr:oval to proceed with his development and ask the developer to assume the risk in proceeding prior to DCA's approval. Ms. Clayton said her tendency in similar situations is to encourage development where everyone understands the risks involved, opposed to stopping everything. She explained there is already some development to this parcel and the coverage already exists. Ms. Clayton said rather than asking the developer to remove anything, or inconvenience him economically by making him wait, she has tried to find the "middle ground" where the developer can proceed and yet assume the risk if DCA does not approve the City's plan. Chairman Masso asked if DCA does not approve and the Board allows the developer to "go ahead", what are the consequences? Ms. Clayton said the developer could apply for a variance to the lot coverage so the City would permit him to retain the development as constructed with a higher than normal lot coverage permitted under B-2 (30%), or the developer would have to remove the 12% lot coverage that exceeds what is allowed under B-2. She said it is up to the developer as to how he would proceed. Ms. Agrusa questioned why the slab was allowed. Ms. plaskett said, he had a permit for phase II and poured the slab without permits in phase III. However, the slab was inspected because it was all part of one large building. It was later determined a separate permit was required. Ms. Agrusa expressed her dissatisfaction with the fact the slab was allowed to remain. Ms. Clayton replied this was a mistake and it was not an intentional violation of the construction permitting. Ms. plaskett stated that lot coverage has to do with building coverage and there is no building, just a slab. Mr. Garthwaite asked, if DCA doesn't approve the I-I zoning, maybe we are compounding the problem. Ms. Clayton said the City's long range development plan is that this area become Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 4 '-' ....., industrial in nature. Mr. Zeese asked if the developer agrees to the risk involved. Luis Geil. again introduced himself, and said the slab was approved by the department heads and a building permit was pulled with the agreement, if there was no rezoning, the slab would remain as a parking area. He also said the developer is aware of the risks. Chairman Masso asked for comments from the public. Ray Schambora. 1915 Tuniper Drive, expressed his objection to the project as it is near the R-l, Residential district. There being no additional comments Chairman Masso closed the public hearing. Ms. Agrusa suggested the criteria be addressed. Chairman Masso then asked for the criteria to be read into the minutes. Ms. Clayton read the criteria with detailed explanations for each. Ms. Clayton said criteria five states the development will be consistent, provided that the Department of Community Affairs concurs with the City's proposed land use of I-I zoning and asks the developer to acknowledge any development constructed on the property prior to concurrence by the Department of Community Affairs will be at the developers risk; being understood by the developer that the failure to obtain approval could result in the requirement that the developer remove a portion of the construction in order to conform to the allowable lot coverage in B-2 of 30%. This removal would be at the developers sole cost and expense. Ms. Clayton informed the Board, at this time, that she was reading from a new "Draft" agreement she felt necessary based on her review of the documents. she said she felt this was necessary to protect the Board if they wanted a favorable motion. The Consistency of Development criteria was also changed to reflect DCA's concurrence. There was added discussion concerning a written agreement from the developer that he agrees to the risk. Also, discussion was had regarding what can be done to prevent construction without a permit. Chairman Masso asked the Board for a motion. Mr. Zeese moved to accept staffs approval and recommend approval to the City Council, seconded by Mr. Ridner. The motion CARRIED 6-0. Chairman Masso called for a recess at 7:30 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:40 p.m. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 5 '-" ....." Public Hearing - VA-0198 - Attorney Mark R. Hall. authorized agent for Tohn H. Buchanan. et al requested a variance from the dimensional requirements of Section 602.02(d) of the Edgewater Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Masso opened the public hearing and inquired whether any of the Board members had visited or spoken to anyone regarding the subject property. Mr. Garthwaite said he had visited the property. Chairman Masso asked for staffs' presentation. Ms. plaskett said the property located at 206 Parkwood Lane is .50 + acres in size and contains an existing single-family home owned by Edward A. Buchanan, now deceased. She said the applicant represents the estate and is seeking a variance to subdivide a non-conforming parcel into two lots and a variance from the required setbacks to create a separate building parcel. Ms. plaskett said he is seeking the request based on Florida Statutes Section 64. Ms. plaskett also explained the City has no Land Development Code language pertaining to partition of inheritance properties. She concluded saying, if found that the information provided supports the authority to legally subdivide the property, staff would recommend a variance to the front setback of 40 feet to 25 feet and the rear setback of 30 feet to 15 feet to be consistent with the adjacent existing residence. Ms. plaskett explained the request is a unique situation of which the authorized agent is asking to allow the property to be subdivided, based on Florida Statutes. She said the first consideration is whether this is legal and then address the variance as a separate issue. Chairman Masso asked if this is a legal question, shouldn't the attorneys' respond prior to the LDRA receiving it? Ms. Clayton said this has to do with an estate and there are subdivision regulations which govern how an owner of property can divide property. Sometimes a division of property occurs without the choice of the owner, such as when he passes away and leaves testate or intestate property behind. This situation, that the City code fails to take into account, is the death of an owner of property, leaving it to his son that also died and has left it to his children. These children are seeking the ability to partition their divide among the heirs without having to sell it at a "fire sale". Ms. Clayton said the question then becomes, is this covered under our subdivision regulations? The City doesn't have provision as the County does. (A copy of the County regulations was provided to the Board). Ms. Clayton described the contents of the regulations. She said the applicant is requesting that his property partition be determined as an exempt subdivision of that property. Ms. Clayton said this is the legal issue that can be applied against the factual configuration of that issue, and depicted on the drawing provided. She said the question is, if the property is subdivided, what do you have? Is it useable? The subdivision of this half acre parcel would become two quarter acre parcels, which is zoned R-IA. The parcel would be less than the minimum standard for a buildable lot in the R-IA district, but, is it less Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 6 '-' ....., than a buildable standard by more than what could be tolerated for approval in the partition process? Attorney Mark Hall. 415 Canal Street, authorized agent for John Bucannan, Gall Brenner, Barbara Murphy and Ms. Edward A. Buchanan, wife of the deceased. Mr. Hall gave a brief history of the property and explained the location of the area they wish to build on. He said the current dimensional requirements for R-1A is 12,000 sq. ft. and the request is 9,765 sq. ft. Mr. Hall said the variance request will result in a similar lot size and similar minimum yard size as the surrounding properties. Before addressing the criteria for a variance, Mr. Hall stated the variance sought is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land. Chairman Masso asked Mr. Hall if the proposed location of the house would be in line with the existing house to the east. Mr. Hall responded yes. Mr. Zeese asked if the property would be buildable without the variance. Mr. Hall said there would be no buildable area. Mr. Garthwaite questioned when the property was platted of which Mr. Hall responded, approximately 1969. There was additional discussion about creating two non-conforming lots and the elevation of the property that may create flooding problems. Chairman Masso then asked the public for their comments. Tay McKay. 1717 S. Riverside Drive - Mr. McKay said his concerns are the pre-existing conditions in the area. He said he has no problem with the subdivision of the property, but putting a house on the property will result in runoff of water to his yard. Mr. McKay stated the flooding is the biggest issue. Peter Hellsten. 1717 -B S. Riverside Drive - Mr. Hellsten explained he lives behind Mr. McKay and made reference to the five car garage to the south of Mr. McKay's property, saying stormwater is inadequate. He said in the past, creating proper water run-off has been very difficult and intensity was denied for this reason. Mr. Hellsten also said he has no problem with the subdivision, but thought a Development Agreement would be appropriate. Barbara Collins. 1715 S. Riverside Drive - Ms. Collins expressed the same concerns as the two previous gentlemen as her property also abuts the subject property. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 7 ~ ..., Chairman Masso closed the public hearing as there were no additional comments. Chairman Masso inquired of the City Attorney whether the County will consider this a buildable lot? Ms. Clayton stated a partition of the lot will be approved through judicial proceedings. The City doesn't have anything "on the books" one way or another preventing the subdivision. However, Ms. Clayton suggested the Board may want to continue this item until the Board receives additional informaiton. She said the Board can establish conditions to protect the minimum standards, rather than going through a cumbersom Development Agreement. Mr. Garthwaite stated he would like the water problems from the Bucanan property resolved and it was decided this would be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A motion was made by Mr. Garthwaite to continue this request to the next LDRA meeting of April 29, 1998 to bring back recommendations, seconded by Mr. Zeese. Motion CARRIED 6-0. TA-9801 - Charles Becker requested a Text Amendment to Section 606.02(b) of the Edgewater Zoning Ordinance to allow Auto Paint and Body shops as a permitted use in the B-3. Highway Service Business district. Chairman Masso opened the public hearing and asked the Board if anyone had visited or spoken with anybody regarding the above item. Mr. Ridner said he visited the property. Chairman Masso asked Ms. plaskett to give staffs' presentation. Ms. plaskett said the applicant is requesting an amendment to the permitted use section of the B- 3 district to allow auto paint and body shops. She said the applicant owns property located at 1625 S. Ridgewood Avenue and requested it be used as an auto paint and body shop, which is not allowed in the B-3 district. Ms. plaskett stated past discussion determined paint and body shops are not the highest and best use for Highway Commercial properties. Auto paint and body shops are currently allowed along the Florida East Coast railroad tracks, from SR 442 south to 30th Street, and in the 1-1&2, Industrial districts. Ms. plaskett said there are two existing paint and body shops on Ridgewood Avenue, one is zoned B-3, Highway Service Business district, and the other is zoned I-I, Light Industrial. She said, at this time staff does not recommend a pproval of the request. Ms. plaskett concluded, saying in a subsequent conversation with the applicant, the applicant stated his intent was to add to existing auto service type businesses as an accessory use. Not to have auto paint and body shops as stand alones. She said after this discussion she felt there is cause for additional discussion. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 8 '-' ~ Chairman Masso questioned if Ms. plaskett was implying that the applicant should revise his request to define precisely what he wants. Ms. plaskett said it is up to the Board. Ms. plaskett said she would give consideration to approval of the auto paint and body shop as an accessory use. However, she suggested continuing the item until further research could be done based on the information provided by Mr. Becker today. Mr. Zeese said he has seen the property and thinks it is nice looking and being the three bays face the side street he doesn't see a problem. Ms. plaskett responded that the request is not site specific, it will apply to all of the B-3 district. Chairman Masso asked to hear from the applicant to see if he was willing to identify exactly what he wants. The applicant and staff could get together and come back with additional information. Charles Becker. 220 Ranken Drive - Mr. Becker stated his understanding was, to add text to the code book, he had to use the same language as stated in the book. He said his intention was not to open an auto body and paint shop but, if someone wants to lease his property and do complete auto service, which auto painting and body work is an integral part of, he would like this request allowed. Ms. plaskett asked for direction from the Board as how to proceed. Mr. Garthwaite said the Board needs to be bettem educated on this matter. Ms. plaskett said she will come back with additional options if this item is continued. Mr. Becker said he has no problems with this. Mr. Garthwaite moved to continue the item to the next meeting of April 29, 1998, seconded by Ms. Agrusa. Motion CARRIED 6-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Acting Community Director's Report Ms. plaskett reported to the Board that the LDRA will be renamed by ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Board. She also said the EAR and FIND reports are being worked on. B. Chairman's Report Nothing at this time. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 9 ....., ...." C. Agency Member's Report Nothing 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 9:00 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Sandra M. Pengov, Board Coordinator Land Development and Regulatory Agency :smp c: \LD RA \minutes\3/25/98 Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 10