Loading...
BOA09-22-10Min CITY OF LONGWOOD Board of Adjustment Longwood City Commission Chambers 175 West Warren Avenue Longwood, Florida Minutes September 22, 2010 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE: BOARD: STAFF: Barry Revels, Chair Sheryl Bower, AICP, Director Arthur Heintz, Vice Chair Chris Kintner, AICP, Planner /Stormwater Autumn Dou long, Member Giselle Gonzalez, Recording Secretary Tom DeNegre, Member Aaron Rupp, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chair Revels called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Chair Revels led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR A. Regular Meeting: July 28, 2010. Chair Revels noted that a correction needed to be made in the Adjournment Section of the Minutes for July 28, 2010. He noted that Section stated Member Rupp moved to Adjourn and Member Rupp was not present for the meeting. Chair Revels moved to approve July 28, 2010 Minutes on the condition the Adjournment Section was corrected by the next meeting. Seconded by Member DeNegre and carried by a unanimous voice vote. 3. PUBLIC HEARING. Disclosure of Ex -Parte Communication. None. BOA 09-22-10/1 A. VAR 11 -10 A variance to the standards of Longwood Development Code 5.4.4 Vehicle sales or rental facilities, 9.1.3, 9.1.4, and 9.1.6 related to nonconforming uses, 10.2.0 Site Plan Requirements Address: 129017 -92 (1350) S. Hwy 17 -92 Property ID#: 04 -21 -30 -507 -0100 -0030 Applicant: Khazei Hamid Mr. Kintner stated this Item was a variance to a number of different sections and there was an existing vehicle sales facility on the property of 1290 South Highway 17 -92 (1350). He explained that 1350 was in parentheses due to the two properties being combined onto a single lot. He informed the Board this came to staff because of an additional application for a business tax receipt for a vehicle sales facility at the current location. In review of the business tax receipt, the Applicant ran into the requirement of the supplemental standards of the Longwood Development Code (LDC). He said the requirement stated all applications for a vehicle sales or rental facility did not currently exist on the property and keep three or more vehicles outdoor for sales in display at one time shall require a formal site plan or site plan revision consistent with the requirements of LDC 10.2.0. He stated the main point was the requirement that any vehicle sales facility did not exist require a formal site plan before it can be approved by staff. He also noted the Applicant's request and would like a variance to the requirements to have a site plan. Mr. Kintner explained during the research of the Applicant's request, staff encountered other sections; the Applicant would be affected even if the vehicle sales section did not exist. He said those Sections were 9.1.3, 9.1.4 and 9.1.6, which were all related to non - conforming uses. The property under review had a number of items that were not consistent with the current Code. He said the above mentioned Sections would trigger the Applicant to come into compliance with present standards, even if Section 5.4.4 did not exist. Mr. Kintner informed the Board that all of the mentioned Sections, including 10.2.0 which refers to the Site Plan Requirements, were all the sections the Applicant would be required to have a variance for in order to open a new vehicle sales facility without doing a site plan. Relating to the site itself, Mr. Kintner described the two buildings on the lot. One building was occupied and presently had an automotive business. The second building was vacant and currently for lease, which the Applicant was requesting a variance for. He noted the trigger was Section 5.4.4, which states any vehicle sales facility that does not currently exist requires a formal site plan. He then showed a picture of the site in question and explained there were a number of concerns with the Applicant's request, one of those being safety issues. He pointed out from the picture, there were no clearly delineated drive aisles, no clearly delineated parking spaces, and in addition, some of the Code requirements in Section 5.4.4. require guard rails, all of which were not currently present on the site. BOA 09 -22 -10/2 Mr. Kintner stated Section 5.4.4, which was the Section the Applicant, was requesting a variance from, gets very specific about the standards for vehicle sales. For this reason, it appears evident to staff that it was the Commission's intent to bring into compliance substandard sites. He said substandard sites meaning, the inconsistency with the landscaping, requirements, parking requirements, lighting requirements and other items developments or re- developments that were required to come into compliance. Mr. Kintner explained there was a part in the Code that was currently in process of being corrected. The only Sections of the Code that were currently fully exempt from a variance was Article II, which had to do with land use districts and allowable uses and Article VII, which had to do with concurrency requirements and that Section was exempt because it was a State Requirement. He stated the previous City Attorney felt it should not be allowable to get a variance to Article IX, which had to do with hardship relief and sets up the process for the Board or Article X, which had to do with site plan and administration. He then continued explaining there was a development code amendment before the City Commission that was approved on first reading and was going on the September 27` that would exempt Articles II, VII, IX, and X from variances. Thus, coming on Tuesday it would not be allowed to get a variance to these Sections. However, under the current Code it was allowed to apply for a variance to these Sections and that was why the Board was here tonight reviewing this Item. Mr. Kintner explained the other wide ranging concern was if this decision was property specific or should it be evaluated based on the cumulative effect on what it means to other properties throughout the City. He stated staff had a concern of setting a precedent that would allow anyone to avoid having a site plan process and avoid compliance in a situation in which there were a number of issues on the site that would need to be addressed, for example parking, stormwater management and lighting. He insisted staff was pro_ business, and wanted to see businesses come in the City and succeed. Mr. Kintner noted there were a number of safety concerns with the current site and staff would like to see addressed. Chair Revels requested the Applicant, Mr. Hamid Kahzei to proceed to the podium. He then asked the Applicant the reason why he did not want to do the site plan. Hamid Kahzei stated he was the Owner of the property under review along with his brother, Mr. Mamut Kahzei. He stated his property had been a car dealership for many years and previously, had a car dealership next to his property. However, due to the current economic situation, he had been losing tenants constantly. He noted that he was told his property needed to be undividable in order for him to be able to rent it. In other words, if 1290 and 1350 become a single property, he would be able rent the property for a car dealership. For that reason, he explained that was why he went to the County to make sure the tax nu nber was one for both properties. He explained that as soon as he rented the property to the car dealership, the City told him he had to go through a site plan process. He then informed the Board that he had almost lost the property several BOA 09 -22 -10/3 times due to the difficult economic situation but has been able to work with several banks in order to keep his property. He stated he really needs to rent the property or else he will lose it. He insisted the property was mainly for car dealerships because other businesses were not interested in renting an old building. He pointed out the property had two driveways and a very large paved area. He indicated the paved area was big enough to display forty (40) cars, each car having an area of 300 square feet. He then informed the Board that he sells approximately four cars per month and for that reason, he did not feel it was necessary to have any additional parking areas for customers. He said he just renovated the inside of the building in order to rent it out and showed pictures of the property to the Board Members. He informed the Board that a traffic light was just placed in front of his property and therefore, he felt there would not be any safety issues regarding the traffic. He stated the property had plenty of parking area for both the customers and the vehicles on display. Chair Revels asked the Applicant about the lighting on the property. Mr. Kahzei stated there was a City light right next to the property and the property had its own adequate lighting. He pointed out that at night time there was no one at the properties, so therefore he did not understand why lighting was an issue. Chair Revels indicated there were codes and ordinances that had to be followed for safety reasons. He said when people drive into the property, there had to be designated areas to go either left or right. Mr. Kahzei explained before the Department of Transportation (DOT) placed the traffic light, they made sure the property had an in and out area. He said coming from US Highway 17 -92 there was no entrance and coming from the north, people would have to go through the traffic light and make a u -turn. He said they have an adequate in and out designated area. Member DeNegre asked the Applicant about the lighting on the additional property where there was already a car dealership. Mr. Kahzei described in the middle of both properties there was a big pole with two lights placed by Florida Power and the building had its own lighting. He said he can put more lights onto the property if needed. Chair Revels asked staff if the Applicant were to cone into compliance with the safety issues like the designated in and out areas, would that help with his request Ms. Bower stated Mr. Kahzei would be required to go through the site plan process. She stated staff would work with the Applicant in a reasonable way but staff would require the Applicant to go through a site plan process. Chair Revels asked the Applicant if he would be willing to do a site plan. BOA 09 -22 -10/4 Mr. Kahzei stated he was willing to work with staff but was concerned about the economy being so bad. Mr. Kintner noted that if it was the will of the Board to have the Applicant go through the site plan process, it would mean the Board was denying the variance. He pointed out that if the Applicant goes through the site plan process as written, the property would need to have clearly delineated parking spaces, drive aisles to Code, landscaping to Code, lighting to Code and stormwater management to Code. He also noted having Fairy Lake behind the property, the stormwater might be running off the paved areas and into the lake. Therefore, staff would have to look into this matter and have the Applicant do some kind of water retention. He said all of these items would add up in the cost since everything would need to meet Code. He said there would be a dramatic change to the site. Vice Chair Heintz asked if the property the Applicant presently had on that land was up to Code. Mr. Kintner stated the property as its currently being used was considered as legally non - conforming. He said he could continue to use the property with the business that was currently present as long as the Applicant does not expand it and as long as the property did not go vacant for 365 days or more. Chair Revels asked staff if it was correct at what the Applicant stated earlier about both addresses were on one piece of property. Mr. Kintner explained there were two addresses on the property, one building was 1350 and the other building was 1290. He pointed out Section 5.4.4 talked about any vehicle sales or rental facility that does not currently exist on the property, in other words it was very specific for any new facility that comes in triggers a site plan. He said if the Applicant comes in with a new tax receipt for a new business that would trigger a site plan under Section 5.4.4. Vice Chair Heintz asked staff if the property was one or two under the Seminole County property records. Mr. Kintner informed the property was one parcel under Seminole County property records. Member DeNegre asked staff if both locations were on the same property, why one was legal and the other location would not be. Mr. Kintner explained it was because of Section 5.4.4. refers to any vehicle sales or rental facility that did not currently exist on the property. In other words, the addition of the new facility triggered a site plan. Member DeNegre asked staff if the addition could not be seen as an expansion of what the Applicant currently had. BOA 09 -22 -10/5 Mr. Kintner explained that if the Applicant was trying to expand his own business, it would still be non - conforming under Sections 9.1.3, 9.1.4 and 9.1.6. He said that was the main reason staff included all those Sections in the report. Member DeNegre stated it was necessary to protect the lake. Mr. Kahzei informed the Board that the bottom of the property had washed out cement, which absorbed the runoff water. He said the water would not really go into the lake. Member DeNegre asked the Applicant if the property was not going downhill towards the lake. Mr. Kahzei explained the property did go downhill towards the, lake. He said the water goes into the ground and does not go into the lake. He stated he would make sure the tenants would not do any mechanical washes on the property. He informed the Board that protecting the environment was a big issue for him. Member DeNegre asked staff if the Commission was going to add new laws or. regulations. Mr. Kintner stated that related to the current topic, the Commission would most likely adopt at their next meeting, Code changes exempting Articles IX and X from the LDC to prevent anyone from being able to get a variance. He said that would prevent someone from coming in and did not want to do a site plan. He said if the Comiission approved the exemptions on final reading, then it would not be possible to apply for a variance on a site plan process. Member DeNegre expressed his concern about the running of the water into the lake. Vice Chair Heintz asked staff when these two locations became a single property on records. Mr. Kintner explained that it became a single property within the last year. Member DeNegre asked staff if any type of business who would rent the property would have to go through a site plan process. Mr. Kintner said Section 5.4.4 was specifically related to vehicle sales facilities. Ms. Bower stated the Commission put specific requirements for car sales facilities. Member DeNegre stated the City and the Board encourages new businesses. He said there were several aspects of this specific Item that had him concerned and especially protecting the lake. BOA 09 -22 -10/6 Chair Revels closed the public hearing for discussion amongst the Board Members. Member DeNegre stated the City needed and would like to have new businesses, . but did not feel comfortable with the request because he is concerned about the lake. Member Rupp stated he had a big concern with the lake. He was looking at the two sides; on the one hand, he had a lot of concerns about granting a variance because he was thinking about the lake and the Commission was considering passing the new requirement, which if the requirement would have been in place a month ago this Item would not have been an issue right now. He said on the other side; if the variance was not granted, he was thinking the Applicant would be coming to the. Board meetings several times during the site plan process. Member Doulong stated she feels bad because she likes new businesses coming into the City, but there were too many problems. • Chair Revels reopened the public hearing. Member DeNegre moved to have the Applicant have a site plan and deny the variance. Seconded by Member Rupp and motion failed to pass by a four -to -one (4 -1) roll call vote with Member Doulong voting aye. NOTE: Because the discussion on the item was inconsistent with the votes cast by Board members, .stcff has placed an item on the October 27, 2010 Board of Adjustment meeting agenda to clarify the intent of these votes. 4. OLD BUSINESS. None. 5. NEW BUSINESS. None. 6. DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Scheduled Meeting: October 27, 2010. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. BOA 09-22-10/7 8. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Heintz moved to adjourn. Seconded by Member Rupp and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Chair Revels adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Barry eve hair ATTEST: Gcxia I 'c CD. Giselle Gonzalez, Recording Secretary BOA 09 -22 -10/8