HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-01 Workshop Meeting - Discussion of proposed Ordinances and Map Changes City Commission Meeting Minutes MINUTES
CITY OF DANIA BEACH
CITY COMMISSION / STAFF
WORKSHOP MEETING
AUGUST 1 , 2000
6:00 P.M.
1. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor Bertino.
2. Roll Call:
Present: Vice-Mayor John Bertino
Commissioner Jim Cali
Commissioner John Etling
Commissioner Bob Mikes (arrived at 6:55)
City Attorney Tom Ansbro
City Manager Mike Smith
Absent: Mayor Charles McElyea
3. Discussion of the following proposed ordinances and map changes.
® a) "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DANIA BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 28 "ZONING' OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
DANIA BEACH BY REPEALING EXISTING ARTICLE 27 "INDUSTRIAL-
RESEARCH-OFFICE-MARINE (IROM) DISTRICT' AND REPLACING IT WITH A
NEW ARTICLE 27, "INDUSTRIAL-RESEARCH-OFFICE-MARINE (IROM)
DISTRICT', INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO DISTRICT PURPOSE, PERMITTED
USES, PROHIBITED USES, SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, REQUIRED
CONDITIONS, AREA REQUIREMENTS, AND APPROVAL OF SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN; RESCINDING ALL ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE."
THE IROM- INDUSTRIAL -RESEARCH- OFFICE- MARINE ZONING DISTRICT
IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
The properties within the City of Dania Beach currently zoned as Broward
County M-1 (Light Industrial), Broward County M-2 (Medium Industrial),
Broward County M-3 (General Industrial), Broward County C-1 (Commercial),
and various Broward County A-1 (Limited Agricultural) zoning districts, and
located outside of the area described as bound by Stirling Road on the south,
Griffin Road on the north, Interstate-95 on the east, and the CSX Railroad on
the west.
WORKSHOP MINUTES 1 AUGUST 1, 2000
b) "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DANIA BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 28 "ZONING" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
DANIA BEACH BY CREATING ARTICLE 30, "INDUSTRIAL-RESEARCH-OFFICE-
COMMERCIAL (IROC) DISTRICT", INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR THE
DISTRICT PURPOSE, PERMITTED USES, PROHIBITED USES, SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USES, REQUIRED CONDITIONS, AREA REQUIREMENTS AND
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN; RESCINDING ALL ORDINANCES
AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE."
THE IROC- INDUSTRIAL -RESEARCH- OFFICE- COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
The properties within the City of Dania Beach currently zoned as Broward
County M-1 (Light Industrial), Broward County M-2 (Medium Industrial), and
Broward County M-4 (Limited Heavy Industrial) zoning districts, and located
within an area described as bound by Stirling Road on the south, Griffin Road
on the north, Interstate-95 on the east, and the CSX Railroad on the west.
c) "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DANIA BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF DANIA
BEACH IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF
"INDUSTRIAL-RESEARCH-OFFICE-COMMERCIAL" ("IROC") DESIGNATION;
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY
OF DANIA BEACH IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF
"INDUSTRIAL-RESEARCH-OFFICE-MARINE" ("IROM") DESIGNATION;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE."
Vice-Mayor Bertino explained that this meeting was scheduled to discuss the IROM and
IROC zoning classifications amongst the City Commission, staff and interested parties.
Laurence Leeds, Growth Management Director, stated that he has had a number of
discussions with various representatives of properties in the affected areas. He is%
sure that the ordinances are where they should be and urged the City Commission to
move ahead on August 8, 2000, to adopt the amendments to the IROM zoning
classification ordinance, to establish the IROC zoning classification and to rezone the
properties as discussed.
Commissioner Cali was concerned with two issues. The first issue was the proposed
destruction formula of 75%. He asked whether any change had been made to the
current draft of the ordinance that defines what the 75% formula is. For example, if
there are 10 buildings in a project, do 7.5 buildings have to be destroyed, or does 75%
of one building have to be destroyed?
City Attorney Ansbro read into the record, the following proposed revision to address
the issue raised by Commissioner Cali. "For the purposes of this article, all uses,
structures, landscaping and parking existing upon the effective date of this section
which do not otherwise meet the requirements of this article, may lawfully continue. If
WORKSHOP MINUTES 2 AUGUST 1, 2000
75% or more of a use or structure is destroyed, any new construction must conform to
the provisions of these regulations. For the purposes of this article, a group of buildings
designed as a single site, which may (but is not required to) use a common name, may
change the location of the uses within buildings located on the site so long as the total
square footage of those respective uses are not increased within that site."
Laurence Leeds asked whether this would affect the current code language regarding
non-conformity?
City Attorney Ansbro stated that a standard clause is included in each ordinance which
states that the ordinance would prevail unless there is a conflict and if there is a conflict
this would be the prevailing law. He stated that the intent is to go forward with the
IROM & IROC zoning classification ordinances, to leave the current existing non-
conforming use provision, in the code, intact and add the following to the IROM & IROC
zoning classification: "For the purposes of this article, all uses, structures, landscaping
and parking existing upon the effective date of this section which do not otherwise meet
the requirements of this article, may lawfully continue. If 75% or more of a.use or
structure is destroyed, any new construction must conform to the provisions of these
regulations. For the purposes of this article, a group of buildings designed as a single
site, which may (but is not required to) use a common name, may change the location
of the uses within buildings located on the site so long as the total square footage of
those respective uses are not increased within that site."
• City Attorney Ansbro suggested that the way to implement this would be to take a snap-
shot of the buildings that are affected and to determine by inventory, the concentration
and number of uses and the composition of square footage occupied. He suggested
that a zoning certificate (almost like a vested-right certificate) could be issued stating
that a certain business activity was using a certain amount of square footage as of the
effective date of the ordinance and advising the business owner that the business
activity could be moved around into different bays, but could not exceed the total square
footage of the use, if it is now prohibited.
City Attorney Ansbro gave an example of the 75% destruction rule; if there were four
buildings in a common ownership and three buildings were destroyed, everything would
have to be brought up to code as part of a single park. He stated that some refinements
may need to be made, but explained that the proposed revision was suggested to
accommodate some of the concerns that still linger.
Laurence Leeds was concerned with the following wording in'the second sentence of
the proposed revision: "If 75% or more of a use or structure is destroyed, any new
construction must conform to the provision of these regulations." If the City desires to
apply the 75% rule to a development, the language would need to change as follows:
"structure shall also include, in addition to an individual structure, a group of buildings
tied together with common ownership or some other unifying feature."
Laurence Leeds directed the following question to City Attorney Ansbro: If there was an
• existing industrial park of 10 buildings and an auto/body repair was established in two or
three places within that park, would City staff have to determine the total square footage
WORKSHOP MINUTES 3 AUGUST 1, 2000
of existing auto/body repair, and then from the effective date of this ordinance on, if
there was 20,000 square feet of auto-body repair in an industrial park, the City could
never again allow the auto-body repair square footage to exceed that number? Mr.
Leeds was concerned that it would be somewhat difficult to regulate.
City Attorney Ansbro.agreed that it would be difficult to monitor, but stated that the two
or three parks that qualify under this definition have already undertaken the steps to
prepare an inventory and the inventory would only have to be verified by the City.
Laurence Leeds wanted the proprietors to understand that a plan would have to be
submitted showing the location and the square footage of each use along with an
affidavit signed by an architect vouching as to the extent of such uses in each park. He
felt that there would be some resistance during the permitting process. He also stated
that after the ordinance is adopted, City staff would have to contact the owners of each
industrial park and advise them that a snapshot would have to be submitted before any
new occupational license would be considered. He advised that this step would add to
the timeframe of the review process.
Mr. Leeds suggested that if it was the desire of the Commission to use a 75% figure and
to apply it to a group of buildings in a project, that language should be included tonight
so that everyone will have an understanding of what will be approved on Tuesday,
August 8.
Commissioner Etling had a concern about the following wording in the last sentence:
"change the location of the uses within buildings located on the site so long as the total
square footage of those respective uses are not increased within that site."...
He asked if the intent was to aim exclusively for changes that occur because of
destruction, or if one non-conforming use that makes up a certain percentage of the site
right now, closes, can a new business that is a non-conforming use open to fill that
void?
City Attorney Ansbro explained that despite the destruction, the business would still be
able to move within the different buildings.
Nancy Stroud stated that if destruction was more than 75% then it would be looked at
as a unified plan, but also just to be able to change within the site, the location of
various uses, as long as the total amount of square footage was not increased.
Vice-Mayor Bertino stated that if the idea was to cleanup a designated area and bring it
into a certain type of usage, to allow 75% destruction before a business would lose their
grandfather status, seemed ludicrous. He felt the destruction percentage should be 50
or 51%. He asked who would make the determination as to whether or not a structure
was 75% destroyed.
Laurence Leeds read the following language from the code: "Any non-conforming
structure which has less than 75% of its previous existing floor area made unsafe or
® unusable may be restored, reconstructed or used as before provided that the floor area
of such use building or structure shall not exceed the floor area which occurred prior to
WORKSHOP MINUTES 4 AUGUST 1, 2000
the damage." He advised that the determination of a structure being 75% destroyed
® would be made by the Building Official and/or the Growth Management Director.
Laurence Leeds explained that the proposed amendment does not specifically refer to
floor area, it states "If 75% or more of a use or structure is destroyed.". He advised that
if any or all of this amendment is considered, it should specifically say "If 75% or more
of the floor area of use is destroyed." He advised that that the common percentage
used in many cities in Broward County was 50%.
Vice-Mayor Bertino felt that common ownership should be considered.
Larry Leeds urged the Commission to keep it as simple as possible, he felt that floor
area was a good way of dealing with it, and that the only issue was whether the
destruction percentage number should be 50% or 75% or somewhere in between. Mr.
Leeds also suggested that way to go would be to define the percentage in terms of a
development and define a development in terms of physical parameters.
Commissioner Etling asked how the determination would be made that the floor space
was unusable.
Laurence Leeds stated that the word unusable means unusable for its intended
purpose. He explained that if a substantial portion of the roof is missing and the missing
roof makes the building unusable for its intended purpose, then the structure would be
® considered unusable.
Attorney Bill Spencer, representing the owner of 14 buildings in the Tigertail Industrial
Park, stated that his client's main concern was the non-conforming use issue. He
stated that the proposed revision that was handed out, deals with structures singular,
talks about new construction and also references uses. As proposed, this ordinance
would affect a project of almost 300,000 square feet, and without some reasonable
approach to the non-conforming aspect, the ordinance would unduly and unfairly burden
this property and result in a very substantial economic loss to his client. He suggested
that it must be project-wide. He did not believe that it could be limited to ownership, he
felt that ownership would become a difficult concept to apply to the physical layout and
respectfully suggested that ownership not be a component but rather the footprint and
the layout of the buildings as presently configured within a development. He suggested
that the term development could be defined as a building or group of buildings, business
establishment or group of business establishments not necessarily owned by one party
or a single land owner but designed as a single site which are generally adjacent to
each other and have a minimum total gross floor area of 10,000 square feet for all
structures combined and which may or may not have a common name. Mr. Spencer
urged the Commission to take the non-conforming approach on a project development.
Due to possible problems arising with financial lending institution as to conforming use
or non-conforming use, Mr. Spencer suggested that the following language be used:
"that the current use shall be deemed conforming unless the existing structure is
destroyed."
•
WORKSHOP MINUTES 5 AUGUST 1, 2000
It was Mr. Spencer's understanding from the Planning & Zoning Board meeting, that as
long as the park itself maintained its current integrity and footprint and had not been
destroyed by more than 75%, it would be construed park or development-wide. He
thought it would be extremely important that the ordinance include a provision that
certain aspects that relate to the structure, not apply unless there is a disaster-type
situation.
Laurence Leeds concurred with Mr. Spencer's assessment of the understanding given
at the Planning & Zoning Board and felt that the language in the zoning code needed to
be modified.
Attorney Manny Garcia, representing Mr. Sorovic, the owner of three buildings in the
Tigertail Industrial Park, stated that the proposed language: "For purposes of this
article, the following provisions contained herein shall not apply to any existing
development unless and until such time that 75% or more of the development is
destroyed", would enable the City to issue a letter to financial institutions that may make
the inquiry as to whether or not the property is conforming or non-conforming.
Commissioner Mikes suggested that staff contact several commercial lending
institutions to request their written policy on this issue in order to obtain clarification.
Elizabeth Matte with the Broward County Aviation Department stated that property
owned by BCAD located on SW 22 Avenue is affected by the IROM zoning
classification. She advised the Commission of a discrepancy on the zoning map. She
explained that SW 22 Avenue on the City's zoning map should be a little further west
than it is. She also explained that the zoning district line splits the property owned by
BCAD.
Laurence Leeds advised Ms. Matte that the issue could be resolved in his office.
City Attorney Ansbro explained that he had received a letter from the County Attorney's
Office asking whether the City would open up or broaden the permitted use category in
both the ROM and IROC zoning classification. He stated that a concern had been
expressed by the Commission that they did not want to see a lot of this land turned into
governmental land and excluded from the tax rolls and not be used for a rebirth of that
area. He was inclined to recommend that it not be confined to the City but perhaps that
the uses be confined to government office not to exceed a maximum of, possibly 20
acres (whatever would be reasonable), of ROM land within the City.
Barbara Hill from the County Attorney's Office, stated that her office had suggested that
the County be-allowed to put in-any governmental office in the same manner as the City
of Dania Beach would be allowed.
Laurence Leeds stated that the current language states that "governmental facilities that
are not Dania Beach governmental facilities are not permitted." If it is the desire of the
Commission to permit any governmental facility, it should be limited to offices. Mr.
Leeds also suggested that a cap be placed on acreage and prohibited uses be included
such as paved parking lots, rental cars, storage areas, etc.
WORKSHOP MINUTES 6 AUGUST 1, 2000
• Attorney Ed Stacker, representing Jim & Sandy Nemitz, owners of the property located
at 2251 Stirling Road, stated that his clients could be ruined financially with respect to
their parcel of land and its redevelopment potential. He stated that every parcel that is
included within these areas is not similarly situated. His client has been engaged in
business at this location since 1989, for utility trailer parts and repairs including some
welding. He felt that rezoning this parcel fronting Stirling Road to IROM was not in the
best interest of the City and requested that the property be excluded from the IROM
zoning classification and allow,it under the remain under the M-1 zoning classification
until such time that it could be rezoned to a more appropriate zoning classification.
Laurence Leeds explained that the following uses have been allowed in the IROM
zoning district: machine shop, welding shop, sheet metal shop, tool & die shop,
conducted within a completely enclosed building, subject to some requirements. He
explained that if the building were to be destroyed, the use could continue within a new
building that would allow welding, mechanical and repair operations to continue. The
only thing that would not be permitted would be the interim trailer storage and would be
the only issue of concern if the property is zoned IROM.
City Manager Smith stated that nothing would preclude Mr. Stacker from coming back
after this zoning district is adopted and request that his client's property be rezoned.
Laurence Leeds stated that a rezoning application could be submitted the day after the
• IROM zoning classification is adopted and the moratorium is lifted. He can also request
rezoning to Industrial Restricted which allows the outdoor storage of various kinds of
vehicles. Mr. Leeds did not suggest that he would support that use at this location, but
that it would be an alternative to pursue.
Commissioner Etling advised Mr. Stacker that he felt the Commission would support the
rezoning of his client's parcel to a zoning classification that would be conducive to
redevelopment and that would enhance the value of the property and not restrict it.
Attorney David Mancutta, representing Mr. & Mrs. Kelly, owners of property on SW 32
Street, which is currently used to store buses and trucks. He stated that there were
properties in the affected area that were uniquely not suited for the IROM and IROC
zoning district. He stated that his client's property, with an unobstructed view of the
underside of 1-595, is an industrial site. He also requested that the Commission
seriously consider excluding his client's property from the IROM zoning district.
Attorney Robert Lockrie representing George Russell, Russell Engineering, located at
2530 SW 36 Street, was very concerned about this ordinance as it applies to his client's
property. He stated that if the proposed zoning is adopted, the existing structure and all
the uses on this property would become non-conforming and would definitely decrease
the value of his client's property and become a significant hardship to Mr. Russell
should he need to apply for refinancing.
Commissioner Cali stated that the parcel was a unique situation and asked Mr. Leeds if
it could be excluded from the IROM district and rezoned to something more appropriate.
WORKSHOP MINUTES 7 AUGUST 1, 2000
Laurence Leeds suggested the IR (Industrial Restricted) zoning district as an
alternative. The rezoning would be considered based on the location of the parcel, the
fact that the outdoor storage components of this use are limited and that it is a legal
established use.
Commissioner Cali felt that it would be a tremendous waste of time and effort to rezone
the property on August 8 and then rezone it again in the future. He felt that it made
more sense to leave it alone for now and allow the property owner to proceed with the
rezoning to the IR zoning district as soon as possible.
Attorney Lockrie stated that they would prefer to have this parcel excluded and rezoned
to a more appropriate zoning district that would allow the current uses.
Commissioner Mikes stated that we need to get rid of the M zoning as soon as possible,
to make the exceptions and then in good faith make the other changes in a professional
manner where special situations exist. He did not want to delay this any longer and did
not agree with excluding certain properties.
Commissioner Cali felt that the various parcels in question, should be excluded.
Attorney Ansbro stated that with the consent of these three property owners, the
properties could be pulled out of the IROM classification. The property owners would
• have to agree that they would'be susceptible to the continuation of the moratorium. The
Commission could agree to diligently pursue each of their rezoning applications to
review them and their unique situations. If the consent of the three property owners
was not given, then City Attorney Ansbro would strongly urge that the three properties
be zoned IROM and the property owners would have to apply for rezoning at a later
date.
Commissioner Cali agreed with Attorney Ansbro's suggestion.
Commissioner Mikes was concerned about giving special consideration to three
parcels. He was more comfortable with zoning all the property to IROM and then
allowing the individual property owners to apply for rezoning at a later date.
It was the general consensus of the Commission to rezone the entire area and allow the
individual property owners to apply for rezoning to a more appropriate zoning
classification at a later date.
Dave Reich, owner of property located at 2111 Edgewater Road, stated that his
property could be affected by the IROM zoning classification and would like to continue
his present business of storage, service and repairs to automobile, aircraft, trucks,
motorcycles and recreational vehicles.
Mr. Reich asked for a distinction between the wording in the first paragraph of the IROM
• ordinance which states "uses which are conducted within completely enclosed
WORKSHOP MINUTES 8 AUGUST 1, 2000
buildings" and the IROC ordinance which states "uses which are primarily conducted
• within completely enclosed buildings."
Mr. Leeds stated that he would have to review his notes to answer his question, but
stated that the word primarily could easily be taken out.
Since Mr. Reich's property is not included in the IROM or IROC rezoning area,
Commissioner Cali asked if he had .the option to request that his property be rezoned to
IROM or IROC.
Mr. Leeds explained that Mr. Reich's property is currently zoned residential, but he
could apply for whatever rezoning he would desire. He is entitled to ask for industrial
zoning, but at this time Mr. Leeds would only support the IROM zoning classification,
because he has no existing industrial development that justifies the IR (Industrial
Restricted) designation.
Vice-Mayor Bertino suggested that a possible solution would be to include airplane
repairs as a special exception use in the IROM classification, with the condition that no
outside storage be allowed or the special exception will be dissolved.
Attorney Ansbro advised Mr. Reich to file a rezoning application.
In response to Commissioner Mikes, Attorney Ansbro advised that to add special
exception uses to the IROM zoning classification, it would take approximately two to
three months.
It was the general consensus that special exception uses could be added to the [ROM
zoning classification at a later date.
Attorney Bobbie Fagers, representing the Heaton family, owners of the property located
at 2711 SW 36 Street, explained that his client's primary business was rental of
barricades, cones, traffic control signs, but they also engaged in road striping. He
stated that the business was currently a legal non-conforming use under the County
designation of M-1. If the zoning is changed to IROM, the business would become a
legal non-conforming use that continues as to the outdoor storage but would also
include the actual activities. He explained that the property was approximately 5 acres,
with an existing structure of 5,000 square feet which is used for administrative offices,
and the balance of the property is used for outdoor storage of vehicles, signs,
barricades, cones and traffic control signs. He asked whether the current activity would
be a prohibited use.
Laurence Leeds assured Mr. Fagers that the office building was a permitted use under
the [ROM zoning classification. He advised that barricade repairs, inside the building,
would be a permitted use. He also advised that the outdoor storage would be a legal
non-conforming use.
Mr. Fagers stated that with regard to the 75% destruction rule, he was concerned with
the mixing of tangible and intangible elements. He was concerned that if the tangible
WORKSHOP MINUTES 9 AUGUST 1, 2000
building were destroyed that it would affect the activity that may take place on the other
• 80% of the property. He was concerned that the damage to the physical building would
automatically destroy the ability to continue the use even though the use would not be
terminated.
Attorney Ansbro stated that temporary trailers could be used and the building could be
rebuilt as a principle permitted use. He also stated that the outdoor storage could
continue. He stated that he would lose the outdoor storage use only if he ceases
business for a year. As long as he has an active building permit and is actively
rebuilding, the City would have to view it that he is actively trying to restore his business
to what it was as a permitted use.
Commissioner Etling stated that the principle business was the lease of barricades and
therefore the principle business is conforming. If 75% of the building is destroyed, the
principle business is conforming and he would be allowed to rebuild the building. He
stated that the ancillary use is non-conforming but should have nothing to do with the
destruction and reconstruction of the building.
Vice-Mayor Bertino stated that a disclaimer should be made that the City is not
warranting any of these statements to be true fact of law.
Commissioner Mikes asked that City Attorney Ansbro review the case laws on this
particular issue and report back to the City Commission on August 8, 2000.
• Vice-Mayor Bertino stated that the City reserves their judgment until it can be
researched and a proper legal opinion can be rendered.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
MAYOR"— COW41SSIONER
ATTEST:
ACTING CITY CLERrK
Respectfully submitted by Nanci Denny
APPROVED BY CITY COMMISSION: AUGUST 22, 2000
•
WORKSHOP MINUTES 10 AUGUST 1, 2000