draft - volusia county, florida · 2018-12-17 · draft 1. planning and land development regulation...

DRAFT

PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION COMMISSION 1

PUBLIC HEARING HELD 2

March 15, 2018 3

4

The Public Hearing of the Volusia County Planning and Land Development Regulation 5

Commission was called to order by Frank Severino, at 9:01 a.m., in the County Council 6

Meeting Room of the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center, 123 West Indiana Avenue, 7

DeLand, Florida. On roll call, the following members answered present, to wit: 8

9

FRANK SEVERINO 10

WANDA VAN DAM (ABSENT) 11

JEFFREY BENDER 12

JAY YOUNG 13

RONNIE MILLS (ABSENT) 14

STEVE COSTA 15

ELLEN DARDEN 16

17

STAFF PRESENT: 18

MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, Assistant County Attorney 19

SCOTT ASHLEY, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager 20

SUSAN JACKSON, AICP, Senior Planning Manager 21

MICHAEL E. DISHER, AICP, Planner III 22

PATRICIA SMITH, AICP, Planner II 23

STEVEN E. BAPP, Planner II 24

YOLANDA SOMERS, Staff Assistant II 25

LISA BRUNETTO, Staff Assistant II 26

27

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 28

29

Chair Severino led the pledge of allegiance. 30

31

Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, provided legal comment. 32

33

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 34

35

February 15, 2018 36

37

Member Young MOVED to approve the minutes from the February 15, 2018, PLDRC 38

hearing. Member Bender SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously 39

(5:0). 40

41

Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications 42

43

Members of the Volusia County Planning & Land Development Regulation Commission 44

were asked to disclose, for the record, the substance of any ex parte communications 45

that had occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is to be taken on 46

any quasi-judicial matters. All members present disclosed any communication as listed 47

below. 48

49

of 21

DRAFT

No member present provided any ex parte communications. 1

2

PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATIONS 3

4

ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN 5

6

None 7

8

NEW BUSINESS 9

10

S-17-054 – Application of James Morris, attorney for Ronnie Williams, Sr., Ronnie 11

Williams, Jr., and House of Gold & Diamonds Wholesale, Inc., owners, requesting a 12

special exception for temporary campsites for three (3) days before, during, and three (3) 13

days after any regularly scheduled racing event at the Daytona International Speedway 14

for Speedweeks, Biketoberfest, the Pepsi (Coke Zero) 400, and Bike Week, on Prime 15

Agriculture (A-1) and Resource Corridor (RC) zoned property. The property is located at 16

554 and 560 North County Road 415, New Smyrna Beach; ±66.33 acres; 7211-00-00-17

0100, 7211-00-00-0220, and 7211-00-00-0111. 18

19

Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. He stated that 20

that this special exception request is for a ten-year extension that will commence with 21

calendar year 2019 events. It would allow an increase from 250 temporary campsites to 22

400, and include a third parcel of land located at the southernmost portion of the property. 23

Based on review of the application and the special exception criteria, staff recommends 24

that the application be forwarded to county council with a recommendation of approval, 25

subject to the staff recommended conditions and limiting the area in accordance to the 26

special exception site plan, dated January 18, 2018. 27

28

James Morris, attorney for owner, P.O. Box 291687, Port Orange. Mr. Morris concurred 29

with the recommendation of staff, and stated he would answer any further questions of 30

the commission. He described the types of events that would take place on the property 31

and explained that all temporary structures and vehicles relating to the special exception 32

use shall not remain on the property except during the established timeframes for each 33

event. He also advised that the owner will post a permanent address on the site in 34

compliance with staff’s condition 8 and will adhere to all conditions set forth by staff. 35

36

Mr. Ashley said that the special exception area will be limited to the area labeled on the 37

special exception plan dated January 18, 2018, as submitted by the applicant, and 38

condition 2 shall be revised accordingly. 39

40

Member Bender asked about trailers and/or recreational vehicles that were remaining on 41

the west side of the property and if they were going to be removed from the area. 42

43

Mr. Morris explained that the motor coach and trailers were the property of the applicant 44

and, if necessary, these items will be moved to another area for storage. 45

46

Mr. Ashley provided information on the types of items that are allowed to be stored on the 47

site, and he suggested a clarification to condition 2 of the staff report for an exception for 48

agricultural-related equipment or vehicles. 49

of 21

DRAFT

1

Chair Severino questioned if condition 8, relating to providing temporary address signage 2

for fire safety management, would be addressed at this time or through site plan review 3

at a later date. 4

5

Mr. Morris replied that the owner will provide permanent address signage to comply with 6

the condition and will also remove any equipment or vehicles from the site as needed. 7

8

Mr. Ashley recommended an amendment to condition 2 to reference the hand-altered 9

special exception plan dated January 18, 2018, and an amendment to condition 8 to strike 10

“temporary” and replace with the term “permanent”, concerning property address signage. 11

12

Member Costa MOVED to FORWARD the special exception case S-17-054, for a 13

temporary campsite for three days before, during, and three days after, any 14

regularly scheduled racing event at the Daytona Beach International Speedway for 15

Speedweeks, Biketoberfest, the Pepsi 400 (Coke Zero 400), and Bike Week events 16

to the county council with a recommendation of approval; subject to the amended 17

staff recommended conditions: 18

19

1. A revised site plan must be submitted for review and approval by the Land 20

Development Activity prior to the opening of the campsite. The temporary 21

camp sites shall be limited to the areas as shown on the revised special 22

exception site plan. The owner, or their assigns, will address the staff 23

comments provided as part of this special exception application during site 24

plan review. 25

26

2. The temporary campsites and type of campsites shall be limited to the areas 27

as labeled and shown on the hand-altered special exception plan dated 1-18-28

18. No new hook-up RV sites shall be permitted, and no electric or water 29

service shall be extended to the primitive and dry campsite areas labeled on 30

the special exception plan prepared 10/10/2017, which is not hand altered. 31

Any permanent site improvement, such as Tthe circuit racetrack, shall be 32

removed. The temporary campsites shall only be open for operation three 33

days before, during, and three days after the Speedweeks, Biketoberfest, 34

Pepsi 400 (Coke Zero 400), and Bike Week events scheduled for 2019 35

through 2028, commencing Speedweeks 2019. All temporary structures, 36

vehicles, equipment and other appurtenances shall be removed from the 37

property (parcels 7211-00-00-0100, 7211-00-00-0111, and 7211-00-00-0220) 38

within three (3) days from the closure date of an approved events, with the 39

exception of personal and agricultural-related vehicles and equipment. 40

41

3. The maximum number of campsites that may be allowed on the site shall not 42

exceed 400. The size of the individual campsites, number of portable toilets, 43

hand wash sinks, potable water and shower facilities shall be in accordance 44

with the Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements. 45

46

4. For the temporary campsite, only one temporary ground sign shall be 47

erected for the special exception use along the N. CR 415 frontage. This sign 48

shall not exceed 32 square feet in copy area and shall not exceed eight feet 49

of 21

DRAFT

in height measured from the finished grade to the highest point on the sign, 1

and no signs shall be located closer than five feet from the east lot line 2

adjacent to N. CR 415. The temporary sign shall be only authorized for the 3

total period the temporary campsite is open, which is three days before, 4

during, and three days after the Speedweeks, Biketoberfest, Pepsi 400 (Coke 5

Zero 400), and Bike Week events. Said sign shall be removed upon the 6

expiration of the above-described period. A sign permit application must be 7

reviewed and a sign permit issued through the county Permit Center before 8

installation of the proposed temporary ground sign. The proposed ground 9

sign location is required to comply with the sight distance requirements of 10

Section 72-619(c), of the land development code. 11

12

5. The applicant shall submit copies of provisions that address these 13

conditions of approval, directly to the DOH, Fire Safety Management, Special 14

Services of the Sheriff's Office, and the Code Enforcement Activity for review 15

and approval. The applicant must coordinate with these offices on an 16

individual basis. A special exception plan with all signed contracts for 17

portable toilets, improved road system, and garbage pick/clean up times(s) 18

shall also be submitted to the Code Enforcement Activity at least 30 days 19

prior to the events scheduled for 2019 through 2028. 20

21

6. The applicant must collect all appropriate tourist development tax and sales 22

tax, as required by County Ordinance and State Statute. A copy of the above 23

license shall be submitted to the Code Enforcement Activity at least 30 days 24

prior to the opening of the campsites. 25

26

7. The Volusia County Sheriff's Office, DOH, Fire Services and Code 27

Enforcement shall have unlimited and unconditional access to the subject 28

site including common areas within the temporary campsite on a 24 hour a 29

day basis without having to give prior notice and without having to pay any 30

type of fee or dues to gain entrance for inspection purposes. 31

32

8. The applicant shall provide fire protection services for the temporary 33

campsites in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Safety 34

Management, including, but not limited to, stabilized access drives for 35

emergency vehicles and apparatus to all areas and sites, provisions for fire 36

suppression, and provide a temporary permanent address sign not to 37

exceed 4½ square feet in copy area. 38

39

9. All recreational vehicle units with self-contained holding tanks for 40

wastewater shall secure all sewer waste line caps at all times in a manner to 41

preclude any leakage. Posted signs throughout the campground shall state 42

that no direct discharge of any wastewater from any recreational vehicle will 43

be permitted. 44

45

10. Portable toilets and hand wash sinks shall be required at a central location 46

at the campsite. Portable showers, if provided, shall have approved 47

wastewater holding tanks. The signed service contract for pumping of the 48

of 21

DRAFT

portable toilets and holding tanks, as applicable, shall be provided to the 1

DOH and Code Enforcement at least 30 days prior to the events scheduled. 2

3

11. The temporary campsites shall comply with the minimum requirements for 4

potable (drinking) water supply as required by Chapter 64E-8, Florida 5

Administrative Code and applicable Florida Building Code - Plumbing 6

provisions. Provisions for potable water are subject to approval by the DOH. 7

8

12. All food and beverage concession operations must receive a temporary 9

Food Service Permit from the DOH, and a permit from the Department of 10

Business and Professional Regulation Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 11

prior to operating on the site. The property owner shall obtain an annual or 12

an event Host Itinerant Merchant Licenses. Also, all vendors must have a 13

required Itinerant Merchant License (IML). Vendors shall not offer for sale 14

any Item which is prohibited by local, state or federal law. Except for beer 15

and wine, the sale of any alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited. 16

17

13. The applicant shall provide adequate traffic control including, but not limited 18

to, an off-duty uniformed officer(s) (police/sheriff/highway patrol) stationed 19

during the weekends, special events and peak traffic hours along CR 20

415/Pioneer Trail in front of the site. The uniformed officer(s) are for traffic 21

control only and the applicant would be required to pay any cost associated 22

with these officer(s). In the event the temporary campground becomes full, 23

the applicant shall temporarily close the parking area to entering vehicles. A 24

temporary pedestrian crosswalk shall be provided across N. CR 415 25

(Tomoka Farms Road) and coordinated with Volusia County Sheriff’s Office. 26

27

14. The applicant shall provide his own security for the campsite. Further, the 28

officer(s) providing traffic control will not be providing security for the 29

campsites. The applicant shall inform the Code Enforcement and Special 30

Services of the Sheriff's Office of the person(s) in charge of security with 31

his/her telephone number(s) and addresses at least 30 days prior to the 32

events scheduled. 33

34

15. The applicant shall provide an adequate number of solid waste containers 35

placed in strategic locations on the site. These solid waste containers and 36

containers shall be emptied and cleaned on an as needed basis. The area 37

shall be completely clear of litter and other refuse after each day of 38

operation. To ensure compliance, the applicant shall provide the County with 39

a written contract with a local solid waste management company at least 30 40

days prior to the events scheduled. The contract shall require a provision for 41

garbage to be collect and removed from the site every other day. 42

43

16. Special events may take place at the campsite with an approved outdoor 44

entertainment permit and in accordance with the zoning code. 45

46

17. Violation of any of these conditions may result in revocation of this special 47

exception according to the zoning code. The temporary campsites could not 48

be resumed without another special exception. 49

of 21

DRAFT

1

Member Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 2

3

CPA-18-005 – Application of Mark A. Watts, Esq., agent for Michael T. and Beverly S. 4

Evans, owners, requesting a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment from the 5

Agricultural Resource (AR) designation to the Rural (R) designation. The property is 6

located at 4145 State Road 11, DeLand; ±12.21 acres; 6037-02-00-0232 and 6015-00-7

00-0057. 8

9

Michael Disher, AICP, Planner III, presented the staff report. He explained that the 10

request was 12.21 acres of a larger 27.5-acre property. The property was zoned A-3 until 11

1990, when the Resource Corridor zoning classification and Environmental Systems 12

Corridor land use designation were created. This request was consistent with the 13

comprehensive plan. There have been two cases previously in this area with the same 14

request. There will be no impacts to county services, and the proposal will be consistent 15

with the surrounding area with land use, zoning, and development pattern. 16

17

Mark Watts, Cobb Cole, 351 East New York Avenue, Suite 200, DeLand, Florida 32720, 18

attorney, represented the owners, Michael and Beverly Evans. He thanked staff for their 19

work and had no additional information to provide, but was available for questions. 20

21

There was no public participation. 22

23

Member Costa commented that the land use and zoning classification that was done in 24

1990 seemed to put a burden on property owners to use their property. He asked if there 25

were any amendments to the code that could help alleviate the burden administratively. 26

27

Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, responded that some of the land uses 28

were applied purposefully; however, staff was reviewing the compatibility of the future 29

land use, zoning, and actual development patterns throughout the county and would be 30

bringing forward administrative changes. Staff has begun with administrative rezonings 31

to be more compatible with existing development patterns. 32

33

Member Young MOVED to FIND amendment CPA-18-005 CONSISTENT with the 34

comprehensive plan and to FORWARD it to the county council with a 35

recommendation of APPROVAL for transmittal to the Department of Economic 36

Opportunity for expedited review and to the Volusia Growth Management 37

Commission (VGMC) for certification. 38

39

Member Bender SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 40

41

Z-18-027 – Application of Mark A. Watts, Esq., agent for Michael T. and Beverly S. Evans, 42

owners, requesting a rezoning from the Prime Agriculture (A-1) zoning classification to 43

the Transitional Agriculture (A-4) zoning classification. The property is located at 4145 44

State Road 11, DeLand; ±12.21 acres; 6037-02-00-0232 and 6015-00-00-0057. 45

46

Michael Disher, AICP, Planner III, presented the staff report. He stated this was the 47

companion rezoning case to the Future Land Use amendment case, CPA-18-005, and is 48

subject to its adoption and state review. He mentioned page 4 of the staff report showing 49

of 21

DRAFT

the comparison of the A-1 and A-4 classifications. He also pointed out the memorandum 1

from the Environmental Management staff stating that this property was within the Natural 2

Resource Management Area (NRMA) and that any development would require enhanced 3

wetland buffers. 4

5

Mark Watts, Cobb Cole, 351 East New York Avenue, Suite 200, DeLand, Florida 32720, 6

attorney, represented the owners, Michael and Beverly Evans. He thanked staff for their 7

work and had no additional information to provide but was available for questions. 8

9


11

Member Bender MOVED to FORWARD case Z-18-027 to the county council with a 12

recommendation of APPROVAL. 13

14

Member Darden SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 15

16

V-18-018 – Application of John Junco, agent for Nancy Belmonte, owner, requesting a 17

variance to the minimum yard requirements for a single-family dwelling on Urban Single-18

Family Residential (R-4) zoned property. The property is located at 15 Eloise Circle, 19

Ormond Beach; ±0.49 acres; 3216-08-00-0400. 20

21


this is a request to allow an addition to the rear of the home for additional living space for 23

a family member. He discussed the proposed site plan and indicated the area of the 24

proposed addition that will encroach 10 feet into the required 20-foot yard setback. The 25

subject property is located in a cul-de-sac and the configuration results in the property 26

having one front yard, two side yards, and two rear yards. 27

28

Member Bender referred to page 6 of the staff report and questioned if the variance is for 29

a 10-foot or 12-foot rear yard setback. 30

31

Mr. Ashley responded that the applicant only requires a reduction to 12 feet and that is 32

why staff has recommended approval for a 12-foot rear yard setback rather than 10 feet 33

as requested in the application. 34

35

Member Darden asked if other properties in this area have been granted a similar 36

variance. 37

38

Mr. Ashley responded that research would be needed to determine if similar variances 39

have been granted to neighboring properties. 40

41

Chair Severino asked if any of the homeowners who submitted letters in favor of the 42

variance were directly adjacent to the subject property. 43

44

Mr. Ashley referenced a location map displayed on the screen and said a letter was 45

received from a neighbor at the southeast corner of the property. Mr. Ashley asked Ms. 46

Patricia Smith, AICP, Planner II, to provide additional information and she responded that 47

the neighbor who shares a section of the property line, notated with an “X”, submitted a 48

letter in favor of the variance request. 49

of 21

DRAFT

1

John Junco, applicant, 641 Devon Street, Port Orange. Mr. Junco advised the 2

commission that an adjacent property owner, who is out-of-state, contacted him for 3

information and has no objection to the variance request. He summarized the request as 4

being needed for a family member who will be residing in the home in order to assist the 5

homeowner who has some health conditions. He also stated the addition was being 6

constructed at the rear of the home to meet building code and allow easier ingress and 7

egress for the family member/caretaker, as well as emergency services, should they be 8

needed. Further, he stated that at the time the plans for the addition were being prepared, 9

they were unaware of the lot having two front and two rear yards and did not realize the 10

addition would encroach into the rear yard. 11

12

Member Bender asked the applicant about the five-foot separation from the pool for an 13

overhang and asked if the building could be shifted to alleviate the need for a variance. 14

15

Mr. Junco responded that they were trying to match the line for the addition with the 16

existing house and did not want to break up the concrete patio and pool deck, possibly 17

compromising the integrity of the pool. 18

19

Chair Severino asked why the request is not for the minimum that is needed to construct 20

the addition. 21

22

Mr. Junco said that the request included some “legal cushion” in case slight variations in 23

location of the addition warranted additional area, and that either a 10-foot or 8-foot 24

variance would be sufficient to construct the structure. He also stated to further reduce 25

the size of the addition would cause the loss of a bedroom closet. 26

27


29

Member Bender stated the applicant sufficiently addressed his concerns and he is in 30

support of the original variance request for a 10-foot rear yard setback. 31

32

Members Costa and Young were also in agreement with Member Bender. 33

34

Member Bender made a MOTION to approve variance case V-18-018 for an east rear 35

yard from the required 20 feet to 10 feet for an addition to an existing single-family 36

dwelling in the Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) zoning classification. 37

38


40

V-18-021 Application of Alfred Baldwin, owner, requesting a variance to the minimum 41

yard requirements for an existing single-family dwelling on Urban Single-Family 42

Residential (R-3) zoned property. The property is located at 2860 John Anderson Drive, 43

Ormond Beach; ±12,450 square feet; 3221-00-06-0114. 44

45


that this is a request to allow the construction of a two-story addition to an existing single-47

family dwelling to provide additional living space. The R-3 zoning classification requires, 48

and the dwelling currently complies with, a 25-foot minimum waterfront yard setback, and 49

of 21

DRAFT

the requested variance would reduce the yard to 10 feet. Mr. Ashley commented on a 1

photograph of the home being displayed that showed a previous deck and porch located 2

in the area of the proposed addition. This structure had been removed after being 3

damaged from recent hurricane. Mr. Ashley stated that staff was unable to locate permits 4

for the structures, although they appeared on tax rolls beginning in 1990. He further 5

described the existing lot conditions and noted that the parcel is located within the Natural 6

Resource Management Area (NRMA) and requires a wetland buffer of at least 50 feet, 7

although staff may allow a reduced buffer for properties located in an approved 8

subdivision or if compliance to the increased buffer creates a hardship situation for the 9

homeowner. In this case, however, staff is not in favor of a variance that causes 10

substantial encroachment as well as concerns relating to the additional concrete area 11

being proposed. Staff recommends denial of the variance, but has provided a motion if 12

the commission finds it meets the criteria for the granting of the variance. 13

14

Chair Severino asked for clarification of the letter that was provided to the members prior 15

to the hearing and received from the Chicago Title Insurance Company, dated March 13, 16

2018. 17

18

Mr. Ashley explained that the title company letter provided confirmation that a recorded 19

access easement previously covering an area along the southern boundary of the 20

property has been vacated, and as a result it provides an option to expand into the 21

southern portion of the property and potentially still meet setbacks. 22

23

Chair Severino asked if the vacation of the access easement alleviated the concerns of 24

environmental division staff because it provided additional area to expand on. 25

26

Mr. Ashley replied in the affirmative. 27

28

Member Darden expressed her concerns with a structure being built at a distance of ten 29

feet from the water’s edge and asked if staff had knowledge of other homes in the area 30

that also had only a 10-foot setback from the water. 31

32

Mr. Ashley stated because the shoreline alignment was not consistent, a number of 33

variances have historically been granted to riverfront lots along John Anderson Drive. 34

35

Alfred Baldwin, owner, 2860 John Anderson Drive, Ormond Beach. Mr. Baldwin 36

described the living area and number of occupants in the existing home and explained 37

that additional living space is being requested to accommodate their needs. He stated 38

he is comfortable reducing the size of the proposed addition and eliminating the additional 39

concrete area. 40

41

Member Young asked the applicant if the addition would be the size and dimensions 42

indicated in the staff report. 43

44

Mr. Baldwin replied in the affirmative and said the room would have interior dimension of 45

10 feet by 15 feet. 46

47

Chair Severino asked if an addition could be constructed at the south side of home. 48

49

of 21

DRAFT

Mr. Baldwin replied that until recently upon receipt of the title company letter, he did not 1

know that was an option. He further stated his concerns that his boat access to the water 2

from the south side yard may be blocked if the addition were built in that location. 3

4

Chair Severino provided a recommendation to the applicant that he may want to seek a 5

continuance to explore additional options as to the location of the home addition and 6

asked if Mr. Baldwin would be amenable to a continuance for this purpose. 7

8

Mr. Baldwin was agreeable to a 60-day continuance of the variance request. 9

10

Mr. Ashley recommended a 60-day continuance until the May 17, 2018 hearing to allow 11

the applicant sufficient time to obtain revised building plans for submittal and review by 12

staff. 13

14


16

Member Young MOVED to CONTINUE case V-18-021 for sixty days. Member 17

Darden SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 18

19

S-18-022 – Application of John A. Powers, agent for First Christian Church of DeLand, 20

Inc., requesting a special exception for a day care center on Urban Single-Family 21

Residential (R-4) zoned property. The property is located at 1401 West New York 22

Avenue, DeLand; ±10.92 acres; 7007-05-00-0010 and 7007-00-00-0210. 23

24

Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report and introduced 25

Steven Bapp, Planner II, who prepared the report. Mr. Ashley explained that the subject 26

property received a special exception approval in 1987 to operate a day care center within 27

the existing church facility, limited to 40 children. This request is to increase the day care 28

use to a maximum of 100, inclusive of children and staff. Staff has reviewed the proposal 29

and the criteria specific to the day care use as set forth in the comprehensive plan, as 30

well as general criteria for a special exception, and recommend this case be forwarded 31

to county council for final action with a recommendation of approval, subject to the staff 32

conditions contained on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report. 33

34

John A. Powers, agent for First Christian Church of DeLand, 2804 Concord Road, 35

DeLand. Mr. Powers concurred with staff’s recommendation and said he would be happy 36

to answer any questions. 37

38


40

Member Darden MOVED to FORWARD the special exception case S-18-022 for a 41

day care center to the county council with a recommendation of approval, subject 42

to the staff recommended conditions: 43

44

1. That the day care center be confined to the existing buildings of the House 45

of Worship. No new structures are to be constructed to accommodate the 46

day care center use. 47

48

2. That the day care center accommodate a maximum capacity of 100 persons. 49

of 21

DRAFT

1

3. That the applicant shall submit a required Subdivision Exemption 2

application to combine the two parcels into a unified site due to Land 3

Development Activity within 30 days of the letter of rendition. 4

5

4. That the applicant shall provide a traffic analysis (not a TIA or Traffic Impact 6

Analysis) that reviews the total turning movements at the intersection of 7

Temple Street and SR 44 within 30 days of the letter of rendition. The existing 8

turning movements, in addition to the anticipated day care center trip 9

increase, need to be analyzed by a registered traffic engineer so that turn 10

lane requirements can be assessed. This shall be completed prior to the Day 11

Care Center providing service for 100 persons. 12

13

5. That the applicant shall comply with the conditions for septic capacity 14

imposed by the Florida Department of Health in the letter dated August 8, 15

2017. 16

17

6. Violation of any of these conditions may result in automatic revocation of 18

the special exception by the zoning enforcement official. Upon revocation, 19

the day care center shall not be resumed without approval of another public 20

hearing per Section 72-415(6) of the zoning code. 21

22

Member Costa SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 23

24

V-18-023 – Application of Douglas A. Hammett, Jr., owner, requesting a variance to 25

Section 72-206(1) to separate nonconforming lots, and to the minimum yard requirements 26

on Urban Mobile Home (MH-4) zoned property. The property is located at 2016 Toni 27

Street, Ormond Beach; ±0.94 acres; 4124-02-00-0230. 28

29


the subject property is located within a nonconforming subdivision consisting of a mix of 31

manufactured and mobile home residences, currently with a Rural Mobile Home (MH-4) 32

zoning classification, and requires a minimum 100-foot lot width and one acre lot area. 33

The property is non-conforming as it does not meet the 1-acre lot area requirement and 34

cannot be separated per code. The subject property consists of two lots, one of which 35

(Lot 24) contains an existing mobile home. The separation of the two lots would cause 36

Lot 24 to become nonconforming and require a variance to the minimum yard 37

requirements to allow a reduction of the east side yard from 15 feet to 7 feet. Mr. Ashley 38

explained that this subdivision is an area (designated Area 1) that has been determined 39

to benefit from an administrative rezoning from the MH-4 zoning classification to the MH-40

6 zoning classification to help alleviate the need for similar variances in the future. The 41

administrative rezoning request will be presented to the county commission within the 42

next several months. If approved, the rezoning would allow the applicant to develop the 43

property as proposed, but because the applicant has plans to add a manufactured home 44

to Lot 23 in the near future, he has opted to proceed with the two variance requests in 45

advance of the administrative rezoning. Based on these facts, staff finds the criteria can 46

of 21

DRAFT

be met and recommends approval of both variances, subject to one condition as stated 1

on page 7 of the staff report. 2

3

Chair Severino asked if there were any questions for staff. There being none, the floor 4

was opened to the applicant. 5

6

Doug Hammett, 2016 Toni Street, Ormond Beach. Mr. Hammett thanked staff for their 7

assistance in this process. He is proposing to split the lots back to the original 8

configuration and put in a new manufactured home on the easterly portion of the lot. As 9

instructed by staff, he will move the small shed structure within the required yard setbacks 10

as a condition of approval. 11

12

There being no further questions of the applicant, the floor was opened to public 13

participation. 14

15

There being no public participation, the floor was opened to commission discussion. 16

17

Chair Severino asked if there were no further questions or discussion, to move forward 18

with a motion. 19

20

Member Young MOVED to approve case V-18-023, a variance to section 72-206(1) 21

Nonconforming lot to separate Lot 23 from Lot 24 of Assessor’s Unrecorded 22

Subdivision #176 (Variance 1) and a variance for an east side yard from the required 23

15 feet to 7 feet for an existing manufactured home on Lot #24 of Assessor’s 24

unrecorded Subdivision #176 on Rural Mobile Home (MH-4) zoned property, 25

subject to the following condition: 26

27

1. If the survey labeled 9.7-foot by 10-foot frame canopy structure shown 28

straddling the common boundary line of Lots 23 and 24 is not already 29

removed, the applicant shall remove the structure or obtain a permit to move 30

it entirely onto Lot 24. 31

32


34

V-18-024 – Application of Rick and Linda Beadel, agent(s) for Upscale Nails Inc., 35

requesting a variance to Section 72-303 for off-street parking standards, a variance to 36

Section 72-286 for off-street loading requirements, and a variance to the minimum yard 37

requirements on General Commercial (B-4) zoned property. The property is located at 38

170 Sunny Shore Drive, Ormond Beach; ±21,438 square feet; 4203-06-00-1340. 39

40

Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report explaining 41

the request for three variances and describing the location and circumstances of 42

development of the property. The property is a legal nonconforming lot because it does 43

not meet the minimum lot area of one acre. The property has three front yards, 44

Oceanshore Boulevard, Sunny Shore Drive and Tropical Drive in Ormond Beach, and 45

has an odd shape that hinders development. Ms. Jackson explained that variance one 46

was to allow all of the required eight parking spaces to be located within the front of the 47

proposed building. The code requires buildings less than 10,000 square feet in area to 48

have at least half the parking located on the side or rear of the building. This property 49

of 21

DRAFT

has three front yards and if the parking were to be located on two sides of the building, 1

the required drive aisles and turning radius would not be sufficient. This variance would 2

allow the parking to be located in the most efficient location. She stated that staff found 3

this variance to meet all five criteria required to grant a variance. 4

5

Ms. Jackson explained that variance two was to reduce the number of required loading 6

spaces from one to zero. The proposed building is for a proposed nail salon and other 7

personal services; therefore, the required 12-foot by 40-foot tractor sized loading space 8

would probably be unnecessary. There is insufficient space to accommodate the required 9

eight parking spaces and this required loading space that seems unlikely to be utilized for 10

deliveries to this less than 4,000-square-foot building that more than likely will be by car 11

or delivery van. She stated that staff found this variance to meet all five criteria required 12

to grant a variance. 13

14

Ms. Jackson continued her presentation that variance three was to reduce the west front 15

yard setback from the required 35 feet to 15 feet to accommodate the building. The 16

zoning allows for front yards to be 35 feet, rear and side yards to be 10 feet, unless 17

abutting residential, then the required yard is 35 feet. This property has three front yards 18

at 35 feet and a side yard that abuts a commercial, the irregular shape and less than 19

minimum size of the lot makes development challenging. Staff finds that this variance 20

meets four of the five criteria required to grant a variance because literal interpretation of 21

the zoning code would require the proposed building to be reconfigured to the proposed 22

building or build a smaller building. She stated that the staff report contains conditions 23

of approval for variance three should the commission grant the variance. 24

25

Member Bender mentioned he had a concern with variance two, as there is no way to 26

guarantee whom the tenants might be that occupy the space. Delis get deliveries from 27

large trucks that would have to park in the street to unload two or three boxes. 28

29

Ms. Jackson replied that the potential tenants would be those that were allowed in the B-30

4 zoning classification. 31

32

Member Bender asked if the loading space would stop the project. 33

34

Ms. Jackson replied that it would probably create additional variances. 35

36

Member Darden commented that the owner should not lease to a tenant that would need 37

a large delivery truck for supplies. 38

39

Member Costa asked if public safety was the reason for the thirty-five-foot yard 40

requirement. 41

42

Ms. Jackson replied that the thirty five feet is required by the zoning classification. This 43

area is within the thoroughfare overlay and increased setbacks are required along the 44

thoroughfare roads. There are many older buildings that are closer to the road and were 45

developed under a different set of standards than we have now. 46

47

Member Costa commented that there is a burden on a commercially viable property that 48

has to develop under codes that the surrounding area that didnot apply to the surrounding 49

of 21

DRAFT

developments. There should be more of a variance to setback requirements for this kind 1

of development. 2

3

Member Young asked if a business tax receipt came in for review, would staff review the 4

parking and/or loading requirements for the tenant. 5

6

Ms. Jackson replied that a business tax receipt would not trigger a review of the parking 7

and/or loading requirements. 8

9

There being no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. 10

11

Melissa Tincher, Alann Engineering Group, 880 Airport Road, Suite 113, stated that she 12

was the project manager for this project. She described the proposed development of a 13

3,900-square-foot building that will have a nail salon and other specialty retail uses. The 14

access to the development would be from Sunny Shore Drive, and that specialty retail 15

does not include a use that would generate the need for loading zone. The development 16

is designed to meet site development requirements such as landscaping, parking and 17

building setbacks to create a viable, aesthetically pleasing development. 18

19

Member Bender asked how many units were proposed for this building. 20

21

Ms. Tincher replied that possibly three or four. 22

23

Member Bender asked about the parking for clients because if you have four units and 24

one employee each, you would be out of parking spaces. 25

26

Ms. Tincher replied that the building square footage dictates the amount of parking 27

spaces necessary and the primary tenant is the nail salon as they are the owners but they 28

would like the ability to have other tenants. 29

30

Member Young asked how much of the building would be the nail salon. 31

32

Richard Beadel, 3000 Oceanshore Boulevard, Ormond Beach, replied that it would 33

probably occupy 1,500 square feet, and possibly three occupants. 34

35

Member Costa said that in looking at this lot and hearing your testimony, this lot was 36

created to be developed as part of a subdivision prior to the current regulations and these 37

regulations are creating unuseable space on the property due to the increased setbacks. 38

39

Ms. Tincher confirmed that she had designed several options to maximize the building 40

and comply with all the regulations, but from the architect’s vantage those options were 41

not buildable and also yielded other issues with parking and other variances that would 42

be required. 43

44

Member Costa asked about the vacancy rate for the shopping center a few blocks north 45

of this site. He acknowledged that the applicant did not know and commented that the 46

reason he asked was because the shopping center could probably accommodate large 47

trucks for deliveries. He then asked if the parking standards were determined by square 48

footage or by use. 49

of 21

DRAFT

1

Ms. Tincher replied that, for this particular use, it is by square footage but it varies 2

depending on use. 3

4

Scott Ashley, Senior Zoning Manager, replied that the parking standards are based on 5

use. For retail use it is required two spaces per one thousand square feet, and at a 6

minimum requires eight spaces. The parking standards were reduced approximately five 7

years ago to accommodate infill development. 8

9

Member Costa commented that the parking standards were reduced to accommodate 10

infill development or redevelopment on sites like this one. 11

12

Mr. Ashley responded affirmatively that the standards were reduced to encourage infill 13

development and redevelopment of properties with existing structures. 14

15

Member Bender said he understands that the reduction in the parking requirements were 16

approved, but it may not be a good idea. Development is a wonderful thing and develop 17

it smart. You are going to develop a 4,000-square-foot building on a property that barely 18

fits and have the minimum eight parking spaces. The owner stated that there were going 19

to be three people in the building doing nails. That’s three spaces right there, and each 20

have a client, that is six spaces and now if you have three other businesses, you are 21

already out of parking spaces if they only have one employee not to mention clients. It 22

does not make sense. 23

24

Ms. Tincher stated there was only one nail employee in the salon [the owner], and then 25

the other potential units. 26

27

Mr. Bender replied that the owner testified that there were going to be three in the 1,500 28

square foot nail salon. 29

30

Mr. Beadel clarified that the nail salon would have one employee who is the owner of the 31

property and one client so that is two of the eight parking spaces. Then a potential unit 32

tenant would be a network computer person that travels to clients so that is three spaces. 33

The problem is, if this is not fiscally feasible, it will not be retail uses and, if it is just the 34

nail salon, then it is just the nail salon. 35

36

Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, interjected in an effort to not have the 37

commission derail into matters that are not relevant to the variance. The applicant is not 38

asking for variance to number of parking spaces and that is not an issue for this 39

commission to determine based on number of spaces or employees. They are meeting 40

code requirements for parking spaces. 41

42

Member Darden said potential tenants will be aware of parking situation. 43

44

Member Costa asked about what is being planned to comply with stormwater regulations. 45

46

Ms. Tincher replied that they are planned to go underground. 47

48

Chair Severino asked about solid waste removal. 49

of 21

DRAFT

1

Ms. Jackson replied that that would be handled during site plan approval and does not 2

necessarily need a dumpster. 3

4

Chair Severino stated he was concerned about the back of the building, as there are no 5

walkways or accesses and in regards to variance three, and the use of the west side of 6

the property, if there is any access for that area. 7

8

Ms. Tincher replied that a dumpster is not necessary based on the proposed uses of the 9

building, and there is no access being proposed. 10

11

There being no further questions of the applicant, the Chair asked if there was anyone 12

that wished to speak to this case. 13

14

Public Participation. None. 15

16

Commission Discussion. None. 17

18

Member Darden MOVED to APPROVE case V-18-024, a variance to section 72-19

303(g)(9) to allow 100% of the required parking to be located between the front 20

façade of the establishment and the abutting street (variance 1), a variance to 21

section 72-286(9) to reduce the number of required loading spaces from one space 22

to zero spaces (Variance 2) and a variance for a west front yard from the required 23

35 feet to 15 feet on General Commercial (B-4) zoned property, subject to the 24

following conditions: 25

26

1. The variance is limited to the building and site layout prepared by Alann 27

Engineering Group, Inc., dated February 6, 2018, as depicted on the variance 28

site plan presented with this staff report. No structure shall be enlarged, 29

increased, or extended to occupy any greater area of the property without 30

approval of a separate variance. 31

2. The subject property, parcel 4203-06-00-1340, was split from the adjacent 32

parcel to the north, parcel 4203-03-00-1341, without benefit of subdivision 33

approval. Although the property is considered a legal nonconforming lot, a 34

subdivision exemption application shall be submitted to formally subdivide 35

parcels prior to final site plan approval. 36

3. The property owner or authorized agent shall obtain and complete all 37

required development permits, building permits and inspections for the 38

proposed commercial development. 39

Member Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED 4:1 (Member Bender 40

opposed). 41

42

V-18-025 – Application of Shon Myrick, agent for Paul D. Schandel, owner, requesting a 43

variance to the minimum yard requirements for an accessory structure on Urban Single-44

Family Residential (R-4) zoned property. The property is located at 202 Chippewa Circle, 45

Ormond Beach; ±11,000 square feet; 4230-04-00-0410. 46

of 21

DRAFT

1

Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report explaining the 2

location and size of the property. The property is an 11,000-square-foot corner lot located 3

within the Tomoka View subdivision. A corner lot has two front yards and two side yards. 4

The request is for a reduced side yard for a swimming pool with a screen enclosure, 5

which, by code, the swimming pool setback is measured from the water’s edge. Staff 6

finds that the variance request does not meet all five criteria, as the property is a 7

conforming property, the request is caused by the applicant and is not the minimum 8

necessary to make responsible use of the property or swimming pool in this case. The 9

pool could be moved closer to the home or redesigned to reduce the variance. Therefore, 10

staff recommends denial of this variance. However, staff has provided conditions in the 11

staff report should the commission consider approving the request. 12

13

Chair Severino stated, historically, applicants have had to come back and ask for 14

additional variances for screen enclosure and this plan is not easily read. It is hard to tell 15

what the measurements are for the pool, deck, and easements. He asked staff if they 16

had considered this in this request. 17

18

Mr. Ashley replied that on page 13 of the staff report is a close up of the survey that shows 19

the from the edge of water to the deck is ten inches and the deck ends at the five-foot 20

easement. So there is ten inches to put the screen enclosure in order to meet the screen 21

enclosure setback requirement of five feet. 22

23

There being no further questions of staff, the floor was provided to the applicant. 24

25

Shon Myrick, 91 Deep Woods Way, Ormond Beach, the pool cannot be brought closer to 26

the house because of the line of repose and windows. 27

28

There being no questions of the applicant, the Chair asked if there were any members of 29

the public that wanted to speak on this case. 30

31

Public Participation. None. 32

33

There was a commission discussion concerning the utility easement and historically 34

having another variance later with regards to safety concerns. 35

36

Member Young said he would like to hear from the applicant. 37

38

Mr. Myrick stated that by putting the pool on the left side of the house, it cannot be seen 39

from the home and this is the location is more functional. 40

41

Member Young asked the applicant if he was confident that the placement of the pool 42

and the size of deck he will not have to ask for another variance in regards to safety for 43

the pool use and ability to clean the pool. 44

45

Mr. Myrick stated that he has built this type of pool many times with these specifications 46

and is confident that the design and location does not raise undue safety concerns. The 47

pool and deck meet all other requirements, except the eight feet to water’s edge form the 48

property line. There is still five feet to make repairs to any screen enclosure if necessary. 49

of 21

DRAFT

1

Member Costa MOVED to APPROVE case V-18-025, variance to Section 72-277(1)a 2

for an east side yard setback for an accessory swimming pool from the required 3

eight feet to six feet on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) zoned property, 4

subject to the following conditions: 5

6

1. The proposed pool shall not encroach further into the required reduced 7

setback than depicted in the submitted plans. 8

9

2. The applicant shall obtain and complete all required building and 10

development permits and inspections for the accessory structures. 11

12

Member Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED 4:1 (Chair Severino 13

opposed). 14

15

Z-18-028 – Application of Sean Black, owner, requesting a rezoning from the Rural 16

Residential (RR) and Rural Agriculture (A-2) zoning classifications to the Rural 17

Residential (RR) zoning classification. The property is located at 2120 Mitchell Lane, Port 18

Orange; ±1.8 acres; 6214-01-04-0052. 19

20

Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. He explained that 21

this is a rezoning request to resolve a nonconforming situation that exists on the subject 22

property due to the two different zoning classifications. The code requires that setbacks 23

on split-zoned property be measured from the zoning boundary. Mr. Ashley discussed 24

the case aerial map depicting a shed constructed without a permit that encroaches into 25

the required setbacks from the center of the property. In order to obtain the necessary 26

permit the structure must meet the required setback; however, due to the zoning 27

boundary line that runs through the property, as well as the location of the shed, setbacks 28

cannot be met and a permit could not be issued. Staff deemed that a rezoning to the 29

Rural Residential (RR) classification is most compatible to make the existing structure 30

code-compliant. Mr. Ashley further explained that this split zoning pattern has been in 31

existence prior to the 1980’s and affects six different nearby lots. The RR classification 32

is also compatible with the existing development pattern in the area; therefore, staff 33

recommends this case be forwarded to county council with a recommendation of approval 34

for a rezoning from the Rural Agriculture (A-2) and Rural Residential (RR) to the Rural 35

Residential (RR) zoning classification. 36

37

Member Bender asked if it would make sense to go to county council and ask for an 38

administrative rezoning for all properties in this area. 39

40

Mr. Ashley stated that, in this case, the subject property required a rezoning to resolve a 41

compliance issue for a shed that was built without a permit. Staff felt that a rezoning to 42

address the internal yard setback for the shed, as well as resolving the nonconforming 43

nature of the property for any future development, was appropriate. Additionally, staff is 44

evaluating scenarios where properties are restricted due to split zoning and where the 45

zoning classification is not historically compatible to the existing development pattern. At 46

least four areas have been identified that will benefit from an administrative rezoning 47

process that has been initiated. 48

49

of 21

DRAFT

Member Bender questioned if it would not make the process easier on property owners if 1

staff were to go to council to change the zoning classification for all properties in the area 2

of this request. 3

4

Mr. Ashley responded that staff could look at this area for a potential administrative 5

rezoning action. 6

7

Sean Black, owner, 2120 Mitchell Lane, Port Orange. Mr. Black stated that he was in 8

agreement with staff’s report and the recommendation for approval. 9

10


12

Member Bender MOVED to FORWARD case Z-18-028 for a rezoning from the Rural 13

Residential (RR) and Rural Agriculture (A-2) zoning classifications to the Rural 14

Residential (RR) zoning classification to county council for final action with a 15

recommendation of approval. 16

17


19

Z-18-019 – Application of County of Volusia, requesting an administrative rezoning from 20

the Urban Single-Family Residential (R-4) zoning classification to the Urban Single-21

Family Residential (R-5) zoning classification. The property is on Ridgewood Avenue and 22

Cordova Avenue, north and south of Plaza Grande Avenue, near the cities of Ormond 23

Beach and Holly Hill; ±33 acres. 24

25

Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. She stated 26

that this was the second of the four administrative rezoning areas being processed to 27

make the land use, zoning, and development patterns more compatible with each other. 28

This area consisted of 93 parcels that were subdivided many years prior to the current 29

zoning standards. The lots more closely meet the R-5 lot size and width standards than 30

that of the current R-4 classification. 31

32


34

Member Darden MOVED to FORWARD case Z-18-019 to the county council with a 35

recommendation of APPROVAL. 36

37

Member Costa SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 38

39

OLD BUSINESS 40

41

CPA-18-004 – Application of County of Volusia amending the Capital Improvements 42

Element (CIE) of the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. 43

44

Chair Severino thanked staff for the continuance from the February 15, 2018 hearing and 45

stated that the staff report was part of the record. He asked if Mr. Disher had anything to 46

add from the previous presentation. 47

48

of 21

DRAFT

Michael Disher, AICP, Planner III, stated that he had nothing new to add from the 1

February 15, 2018 presentation but would be happy to answer any questions. 2

3


5

Member Young MOVED to FIND amendment CPA-18-004 CONSISTENT with the 6

comprehensive plan and to FORWARD to the county council with a 7

recommendation of APPROVAL for transmittal to the Department of Economic 8

Opportunity for expedited review and to the Volusia Growth Management 9

Commission (VGMC) for certification. 10

11


13

Approved February 15, 2018 Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission 14

Minutes are attached for the record 15

16

OTHER PUBLIC ITEMS 17

18

STAFF ITEMS 19

20

Mr. Ashley provided that there were memberships available to the Florida Planning & 21

Zoning Association (FPZA) Surfcoast Chapter or the American Planning Association 22

(APA) Atlantic Coast Chapter. He provided that both organizations provide a newsletter 23

and there are different meetings and lunches with guest speakers. 24

25

Member Young encouraged members by commenting that he is a member of the FPZA 26

and that the meetings are educational. 27

28

Mr. Ashley is the president of the FPZA Surfcoast Chapter and Michael Disher is the 29

president of the APA Atlantic Coast Chapter. The luncheon programs travel around the 30

county throughout the year. 31

32

Member Bender asked whether it is a membership to one or the other, or both. 33

34

Mr. Ashley said you could join both. FPZA Surfcoast is Volusia and Flagler counties. 35

APA Atlantic Coast is Volusia, Brevard and Indian River counties. 36

37

Michael Disher, Planner III, provided that FPZA is the state organization and APA is a 38

national organization. FPZA is more of a local focus and APA is a national and state focus. 39

40

Member Costa asked to join the APA. 41

42

Mr. Ashley mentioned that Member Van Dam was out with injury and that she still would 43

like to serve on the commission. She would like to return in April if she is reappointed, as 44

she has missed three hearings. 45

46

STAFF COMMENTS 47

48

COMMISSION COMMENTS 49

of 21

DRAFT

1

Chair Severino asked for a preview to anything coming forward in April. 2

3

Ms. Jackson replied that staff was bringing forward another administrative rezoning area 4

that was identified by the Smart Growth Committee. 5

6

PRESS AND CITIZEN COMMENTS 7

8

ADJOURNMENT 9

10

Having no further comments from the public, staff, or commissioners, Chair Severino 11

thanked everyone and adjourned the meeting at 11:38 a.m. 12

13

of 21

draft - volusia county, florida · 2018-12-17 · draft 1. planning and land development regulation...

Documents