Loading...
LPA04-13-16MinBOARD ATTENDANCE: Bruce E. Noyes, Chair Robin Thorn, Vice -Chair Alesia Carringer, Member Michelle Dowda, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER CITY OF LONGWOOD Land Planning Agency Minutes CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS April 13, 2016 - 7:00 P.M. 175 W. Warren Avenue Longwood, FL 32750 STAFF: Sheryl Bower, AICP, Director Chris Kintner, AICP, Senior Planner Kristin Zack -Bowen, Recording Secretary Chair Bruce Noyes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS None 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR A. Regular Meeting January 13, 2016 Chair Bruce Noyes moved to approve minutes. Seconded by Alesia Carringer and carried by a unanimous vote. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comment. 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. ORDINANCE NO.16-2088 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LONGWOOD, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LONGWOOD DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE II LAND USE DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS, ARTICLE III DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS, ARTICLE V SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS, ARTICLE VI SIGNS, ARTICLE VIH BOARDS AND AGENCIES, ARTICLE IX HARDSHIP RELIEF AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, ARICLE X ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE XII HERITAGE VILLAGE URBAN CODE, TO PROMOTE 1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY NODE OVERLAY DISTRICT, ENHANCING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO PROMOTE QUALITY DEVELOPMENT, CHANGING THE START TIME OF LAND PLANNING AGENCY MEETINGS TO 6:00 P.M., AND PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Chris Kintner presented the staff report and read the ordinance by title. Mr. Kintner explained that ordinance 16-2088 would be familiar because the LPA saw Ordinance 15-2074 in November of last year and was directly related to the 17-92 area study and included recommendations that came from that study. Mr. Kintner noted that Ordinance 15-2074 had a lot of citywide language and language specific to 17-92, because of efforts with Winter Springs, this ordinance doesn't have 17-92 specific language but it does have a lot of the citywide changes that staff feels are valuable and are included in this ordinance to move forward. Chris Kintner explained that the focus is the overlay zones, which takes areas identified in the Gibbs retail study as areas to focus on and establishes incentive packages for those areas when they meet certain standards. Mr. Kintner pointed out a number of changes related to the Complete Streets Policy that the city passed last year including requirements for shading pedestrian ways. Mr. Kintner noted something included in this ordinance that was not in 15-2074 was a discussion that came up at the first City Commission meeting where the ordinance was approved but there was discussion related to some property owners who were concerned about the city's stance on windfeather signs. The city does not allow that type of signage under current code, and the ordinance provided language that would allow windfeather signs in more situations, which is only with a temporary use permit for an event. Chris Kintner explained that the City Commission recently approved a change to go to 6:00pm start times for meetings, so consistent with that they proposed a change to go to 6:00pm start times for Land Planning Agency and Board of Adjustment meetings. Mr. Kintner addressed that there is discussion relating to the restriction on garages in the Historic District for single family homes related to a recent Commission decision. Sheryl Bower explained that there is a special request to allow for garages in the front of houses in the Historic District. Staff researched and found that garages were never put in the front of houses in Historic Districts. Ordinances were looked at from other Historic Districts and none allow garages because they aren't part of the social fabric. Ms. Bower noted that they did have a request to put a garage in front as a Special Exception and the Commission allowed it and as part of that decided to change the code to allow it. Ms. Bower added that since that time, Smart Growth America has come in and stated that the Historic District was an asset and something that makes Longwood unique. Ms. Bower commented that staff is proposing they allow garages in the front, and reluctantly because they still believe that as a Historic District that new development should be consistent with the character of the Historic District. 2 Ms. Bower explained that they would like start engaging people in the Historic District, residents and businesses in the city, to talk about what we want in the Historic District and see for the future. Staff feels that it is a real asset and something that sets Longwood apart from other places especially considering Sunrail is right here. Ms. Bower requested from the LPA discussion on how they feel about it since they recommend to the City Commission. Alesia Carringer responded that she didn't think it should be allowed, and that it is not that big of an area, so garages would definitely take away from it. Sheryl Bower continued by saying they have a few, and they were allowed because when the historic district code book was developed it had verbiage like "should" and was more of a guideline as opposed to a code where if it says "shall" then you have to do it. Ms. Bower recommended that if you really want to protect your resource you need to find the standards that you want to have and make them requirements. Ms. Bower explained that part of the.reason we are seeing more of these is because of the lot sizes. The one done most recently split the lot and because the lot is much smaller, it was easier to put the garage in the front than try to accommodate it in the back. Ms. Bower stated that they were going to take it forward, but after talking with staff and the City Manager are thinking instead of opening it up to look at the whole district and see as a community what we want to do with it. Chair Bruce Noyes invited Scott Banta from the public up to speak. Scott Banta stated his name and that he lives at 97 Hickory Tree Court in Longwood. Mr. Banta explained that he is representing William Nemeh who owns a building on 17-92. Mr. Banta presented documents and renderings on the property on the overhead projector. Mr. Banta stated they just got a copy of Ordinance 16-2088 and have some exceptions to it, and had a Pre -Application meeting and are proposing to expand the existing facility. Mr. Banta explained that the owners bought the property a little over a year ago and primarily has a wholesale car operation where majority of the activity is handled inside the building. Mr. Banta noted that he was bringing this up because he thought that many other facilities up and down 434 and/or along 17-92 are going to have issues because they were existing buildings. Mr. Banta pointed out that by going through an expansion to the property they have to now comply with supplemental standards where it states that the expansion of legally conforming vehicle sales or rental facilities where additional lands are taken shall require a site plan consistence with all requirements of the LDC. Mr. Banta stated that the LDC is requiring that they have a 20 ft setback around the side of the property, and on the North side of the property there is 10 feet. Mr. Banta explained that if they were to go ahead with an expansion and submit a site plan which complied with the requirements of the Land Development Code, they would have to take off 10 feet of the building. He also noted that on the South side they are supposed to have a landscape buffer, and share a co -access driveway with Sloan Furniture so there's no way they could put in any kind of landscape for a good part of it. Mr. Banta ran through some of the other issues: general landscape requirements along 17-92 the easterly side of the property 3 would need a 10 foot landscape buffer, which would take them almost to the parking place in front of the building. Alesia Carringer asked if they are trying to expand and make the building bigger. Mr. Banta replied no, they are trying to reface the building to conform with the study done on 17-92. Mr. Banta showed the existing facility and explained that the landscape barrier of grass is mostly DOT right of way, and pointed out that it was a metal building with metal roof. Mr. Banta next showed the rendering of what they are proposing to do to the building by re -facing it, and pointed out that the new front would cover the existing metal roof so that driving along 17- 92 it could not be seen that the building is metal. He noted that they would also voluntarily eliminate and relocate the pole sign. Mr. Banta explained that going through the ordinance that the 10 foot cannot be done. Mr. Banta added that the expansion of existing use requires additional parking, so they want to pave a parking area behind the building for parking and have vehicle storage and would be happy to screen it. One of the things they want to do for retention in the back is exfiltration trenches. Mr. Banta explained that they understand the impervious surface requirements, but had asked the city if they could put turf blocks where they could have some of the parking be stabilized, and allowing for green area and water to penetrate down and be stored in the trenches. Mr. Banta referred to the parking lot requirements in the LDC and in their particular case if it goes to strict compliance with the code, they won't be able to match it. Mr. Banta addressed the minimum lot size of 1 net acre for the sale of cars or trucks, which they meet, and that at least 75 vehicles must be for sale at any time, which would be impossible for them to meet. Mr. Banta explained that they would have to have a 15,000 square foot building, and their building is about 10,000 sq ft. They were proposing to potentially add an additional small building in the back where some service work could occur indoors, but that would have to comply. In terms of this they can't make the 15,000 ft requirement. Mr. Banta stated that in regards to repairs conducted in an enclosed building, they would like to do some of that behind the building that would be screened off and no one would be able to see it. The building takes up nearly the entire frontage of the property which is only about 120 feet wide and approximately 500 feet deep. Mr. Banta asked that they consider some sort of relief for existing facilities, specifically in cases of the 75 cars and the 15,000 ft building. Mr. Banta stated that their main concern is when they had the Pre -Application meeting, members of the staff indicated there weren't a lot of avenues available for existing facilities to have relief. Mr. Banta explained that there's no way of conforming with everything in the under the guise of the existing property. The owners are willing to spend considerable dollars to enhance the property, but just need some relief because the existing facilities can't be altered. Mr. Banta stated that they want to be able to pave some areas in the back to get some car storage, and that behind them is wooded wetland area so there's no issue with neighbors. Chair Bruce Noyes opened the floor to any questions. C! Sheryl Bower stated that staff had a few things to say about Mr. Banta's concerns. Chair Bruce Noyes asked if Mr. Banta's concerns were based on a Pre - Application meeting with the staff. Mr. Banta replied it was partly because of that and also because of the moratorium in effect. They would like to move forward and enhance the building. Mr. Banta said they are stuck by the moratorium and the Land Development Code issues that they cannot comply with. Chris Kintner spoke on behalf of staff by stating the project first came to the city about a year ago and the applicant wanted to put in a vehicle sales operation. The code as it stands today, allows vehicle sales when it's entirely indoors because at that point it is a retail operation. Any new vehicle sales operation must come in with a site plan and has to meet all standards of the code and has to be treated as new construction and meet all design standards. Mr. Kintner explained that because this is part of the supplemental standards and has to meet all the rules and regulations, typical waivers and special exceptions don't apply in this case. Standards must be met because it's part of the supplemental standard to even allow the use. Sheryl Bower added that the reason it was made so restrictive was direction from the Commission because they were seeing a proliferation of used car lots all up and down 434 and 17-92. Chair Bruce Noyes clarified that they were specifically talking about vehicle sales and about the strictness of the code. Chris Kintner replied that it was specific to this section. In the code we have uses that are allowable and are able to do them as long as you meet the codes but you are still eligible for special exception waivers. Some uses are subject to certain supplemental standards and you have to meet those standards as a condition of being able to do the use. Mr. Kintner explained that in this particular case, they have to meet those standards without exception. Mr. Kintner noted that the applicant had come in and staff explained that one of two paths was available to them prior to the moratorium: one was that they could do a site plan and meet the standards, and upon meeting the standards be allowed to do a vehicle sales operation without outdoor sales. The applicant told staff they would be storing the cars indoors and be pursuing a showroom operation which does not require a site plan. At a certain point cars were seen for sale outdoors and other activities that resulted in code enforcement action on the property, after which the applicant came in for a couple of informal meetings and then the Pre -Application meeting with Mr. Banta and his team. The discussion took place a number of months ago and the applicant was provided the language from Ordinance 15-2074 then. The language in this ordinance was carried over from 15-2074 except for the language that relates to towing companies which does not effect this proposal. The language about vehicle sales indoors is generally how the code has been interpreted, but is now 5 just being spelled out for clarification sake. Mr. Kintner noted that had the applicant kept the cars indoors and not had signage outside indicating there were cars outside for sale, they could have continued operating under that. Mr. Kintner pointed out that was actually what the Business Tax Receipt for the property was conditioned upon at the time. Mr. Kintner explained that under the current language the property would still have to meet current standards and one of the primary issues is the area on the property that are wetlands which connect to a larger system. For a number of reasons, the comprehensive plan has a lot of protections based on wetlands. The applicant would have to deal with St. John's River Water Management. The applicant has said they plan to mitigate the land which is very costly, but even before getting to that point, there is a comprehensive plan amendment that says the removal of wetlands has to be a last resort. Mr. Kintner expressed that he was not doing a review, but could see that placing buildings in the rear and talk of paving a large section of the property will be difficult to square with the comprehensive plan. Based on what is proposed in the ordinance, the setback is not as much the issue as is the talk of outdoor storage and repair in the rear of the building outside. Mr. Kintner stated that it is not a setback issue, but a landscape, buffering and screening issue. Chair Bruce Noyes asked if that would have to happen down the property line or just the area of the outdoor storage. Chair Noyes also asked when Mr. Banta said 10 feet of the building would have to be removed, if that would actually have to happen. Sheryl Bower stated that there was not an allowance in the current or proposed code that would allow him to do it. Ms. Bower mentioned the area study on 17- 92 and the 23 million dollars the city is looking to put into piping the ditch and making a trail on both sides, and making it more pedestrian and bicycle friendly as well as improving the aesthetic along 17-92, they wanted to make sure they weren't putting all this investment into the roadway and still have a proliferation of auto -oriented uses. Ms. Bower stated that they got very specific about what would be allowed there. She added that the applicant can continue to do indoor sales and be legal as long as he is doing what he said he was going to do originally, and he would not be able to expand under either of the codes. Alesia Carringer asked if he was aware of this prior to purchasing the land and knew what he could and could not do. Chris Kintner replied that the first meeting staff had with the applicant was about a year or year and a half ago, and could not speak to whether or not the applicant owned or had a contract on the property. At the first interaction with the applicant they were informed they needed to do a Site Plan. Mr. Kintner stated that he had a meeting with the owner and a lot of their discussion was around the wetlands and difficulties. Alesia Carringer asked if there was a way for a business like this to make the building look better. 0 Sheryl Bower replied that there was nothing stopping him from doing improvements to the facade of the building, and came in under the guise that it was going to be inside sales. Alesia Carringer added that the property is not large enough to house 75 cars. Chair Bruce Noyes responded that it is their statement that under the current provisions and under this that the use is a conditional use, and in order to get it approved for the conditional use that you need to abide by all things. Chair Noyes noted that they have seen property before them when the parking is up against the right of way line you can't do the 10 foot strip or you're going to lose half the parking in the front. Chair Noyes added that down the south property line you can't put a landscape strip because they are sharing a drive isle with the neighbor. Sheryl Bower added that it is the desire to expand that is causing the problem. They can do his facade improvement under indoor sales, but wanting to do outdoor is triggering these things. Scott Banta stated that yes, there is a small wetland in the back, but St. Johns River Water Management District specifically has an exemption for wetlands that are less than one half of an acre. When there's no positive outfall, 100% of the water is stored on site. Mr. Banta explained that he has done 2 projects in the City of Longwood, the warehouse behind the old bowling alley and Rangeline Woods Cove, and are experienced at dealing with these types of items. Mr. Banta stated that that they can't even go paint the building without a permit, and can't get a permit because of the moratorium. Mr. Banta explained that they are trying to comply and go along with the spirit of the 17-92 corridor and don't feel like we are getting a lot of cooperation back. Chair Bruce Noyes mentioned the ex -filtration system, existing wetland with no outfall and land locked basin and expressed it would be a challenge. Chris Kintner agreed there were a number of challenges. Mr. Kintner also added that as someone who prepared the 17-92 study, one of the things that was universal in interviews was they didn't want to see a proliferation of auto oriented uses generally, but specifically to vehicle sales. That was something heard at the focus groups, interviews and polls all throughout that process. What the language was intended to do was make sure that when auto oriented uses of vehicle sales in particular show up, that the final result is something positive and beneficial to the 17-92 corridor. Mr. Kintner noted that in the planning division they get a number of calls daily about vehicle sales operations, and the basic tenor of the call is that a distressed building had been found and they want to park as many cars as we can on it and not make any improvements, and don't care how many waivers are needed to do it. Mr. Kintner explained that it is the nature of that particular use that they see this type of request, so this is not speaking about this particular applicant or any other particular applicant, but it is a response to that gradual number of calls received. In addition to concerns about auto oriented uses, one of the concerns people had about 17-92 was the lack of investment. These rules are more restrictive than other sections of the code, but there is a reason this use is treated differently than some other uses. Chair Bruce Noyes and Alesia Carringer expressed that they understood. Chair Bruce Noyes addressed the garages in the Historic District and stated that the Historic Code has meant so much to many people throughout the years. In the past it has restricted development due to the lengthy process. Chair Noyes pointed out that when we look to our neighbors and other communities who don't have downtown districts, and specifically historic districts, so many communities around us are trying to create these downtown areas because they feel they have no identity as a city. Longwood has that and historically has been cherished. Chair Noyes stated that he didn't understand the motivation other than monetary, to waiver in the standards we have cherished for so many years. It's a small and important area of town, and was not in favor of it. Chair Noyes stated that he didn't think we should compromise on the architectural integrity of our town in practically any way. Sheryl Bower responded that we have actually become less restrictive because now we don't even look at architectural character of the building. There was a point where it had to be in context with the historic character, and we don't have the ability in the code to look and see if the type of architecture is consistent with the historic nature of the district. Ms. Bower stated that they have loosened it up quite a bit, and to allow the garages in front is problematic. Ms. Bower expressed that if they are going to go that route, we as a community have to ask if this place worth protecting. Chair Bruce Noyes referred to the example given of a lot split where there was not enough room for the driveway to make it to the back of the property because of the width of the new lots. Sheryl Bower replied that was part of it and they didn't want to spend the money to have another house designed. Ms. Bower's concern was that Historic Downtown Longwood was being eroded away and would be inconsistent with what they are trying to create. Michelle Dowda agreed and stated if it was allowed, you cannot then change it. Alesia Carringer also agreed and pointed out there were not places like this around. Sheryl Bower stated that it was taken in front of the Commission and they said it would be changed but it was more of a reaction on staff s part because they knew of other people coming in for this and instead of having everyone apply for a special exception, but after having Smart Growth America come in and hearing what they had to say about protecting the Historic District we thought it was important to bring to you. Ms. Bower added that it was a big part of Longwood and rises to the level of needing community discussion. Robin Thorn mentioned that it was quite a hump in requirements and referred to the fact that even paint colors had to be submitted for approval. Chair Bruce Noyes stated that for some time we have listened and learned to how the community has felt about the look of our town, the City Commission's desire to improve that look with specific businesses in specific locations and trying to improve the character of certain corridors in the community. Chair Noyes mentioned a prior applicant that had the desire to improve a property on 434, and that it did not meet the standards that the city and Community Development had put before us of a benchmark they are trying to achieve. Chair Noyes addressed Mr. Banta's concerns he presented before them and stated that he cannot see a reason to comment on those items when the landscape buffers have always been there and the conditional uses have been there before and the LPA agrees with them. Chair Noyes noted that there should be an avenue for variances or exceptions, but Mr. Banta's concerns would need to be taken up with Community Development Services and the City Commission. Chair Noyes addressed the garages in the Historic District and the possibility of recommending approval with exceptions based on the concern of front garages in the Historic District. Bruce Noyes moved that the Land Planning Agency recommend approval of Ordinance 15-2088, with the exception of the garage ordinances, to the City Commission, seconded by Alesia Carringer and carried by roll call vote. 6. DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Sheryl Bower addressed the need for community engagement on the Historic District noting the feedback from Smart Growth America and Bob Gibbs Retail Study. Discussion ensued about the change in meeting time for the Land Planning Agency going forward. The Land Planning Agency agreed to move the meeting time to 6:30pm. Chair Bruce Noyes moved to rescind the original motion, seconded by Alesia Carringer and carried by a unanimous vote. Bruce Noyes moved that the Land Planning Agency recommend approval of Ordinance I5-2088, with the exception of the article related to garages in front of dwellings in the Historic District and also in relation to the meeting time for the Land Planning Agency to be changed to 6:30pm, to the City Commission, seconded by Alesia Carringer and carried by roll call vote. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bruce Noyes moved to adjourn. Seconded by Alesia Carringer and carried by a unanimous vote. 0 Chair Noyes adjourned the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Bruce Noyes, C air ,'uIie Ward for Kristin Zack -Bowen, Recording Secretary 10