Loading...
09-05-1984 ~ 0 CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 Minutes Chairman Don Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Wheeler, Finn, Quaggin, Poland, Bennington, and Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Chenoweth was absent. Also present: Susan Mista, secretary and one member of the press. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN Chairman Bennington asked for volunteers to serve as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Wheeler said he would take the position if no one else wanted it. Chair- man Bennington nominated Mr. Wheeler and then asked for a roll call. Mr. Wheeler was unanimously elected Vice-Chairman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Quaggin made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 15, 1984, meeting, seconded by Mrs. Thomas. Motion CARRIED 5-1. Mr. Wheeler voted no because he was not present at that meeting. SITE PLAN REVIEW SP-8443 - Fagg Shawver, d/b/a Casa El Toro - Addition - 2001 S. Ridgewood. Mr. Shawver was present to discuss this plan. Mr. Quaggin questioned the item on the checklist where it states a sealed set of plans with a question mark. Chairman Bennington said this was a single family dwelling and he is not sure it needs one. The State law says any commercial building over $25,000 and three units or above in multi-family requires a sealed set of plans. Mr. Poland asked if this addition was enlarging a non-conforming building. Chairman Bennington read from the Code wherein it states that no non- conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in any way which increases its non-conformity. But any structure may be altered or changed to de- crease its non-conformity. Chairman Bennington explained that the applicant first came in with the plans for the addition to be used as a storage or warehouse facility. He then went before the Board of Adjustments seeking a variance to have a 600 square foot apartment, which was denied. He now wants to enlarge it 200 square feet to make it a legal apartment. Chairman Bennington said the parking in the front is on State property. He said he has asked the Chief of Police and the City Attorney about the City's liability concerning the parking on State property. Both of them advised that if we allow parking to exist on the State right-of-way and there is an accident, the City could be sued. Mr. Wheeler said they are presently parking all across the front on this property. Chairman Bennington said he did not know how long the State has owned this, possibly when they put four lanes of traffic in this area, and in doing so the State made this structure non-conforming. Chairman Bennington said Mr. Shawver advised him that the State has no problem with the parking there. He said he would like to see it in writing from the State, that if there is ever a problem they will take the liability. Concerning the existing parking lot, Chairman Bennington said that it has been expanded to the extent that the front logs have been removed. A street light was requested by Chief Baugh, and Mr. Shawver advised that a light would be installed within two weeks. He added that no one is using that parking lot and it looks to be soft, possibly creating problems o 0 to use it for parking facilities. He also said there IS no landscaping on Boston. Mr. Wheeler said before the Board OK's this plan, he would like to see a letter from the State authorizing the applicant to use the property for parking and the State assuming any and all liability for same. Chairman Bennington said he would like to have the letter reviewed by the City Attorney to see that the document is sufficient in protecting the City. Chairman Bennington said he would like to see the parking arranged so that people can tell it is a parking area. At the present time, it no way resembles the original site plan. Mr. Wheeler made a motion that this site plan be tabled until Mr. Shawver gets a letter from the State, assuming all responsibility for the parking on State property, and said letter being reviewed by the City Attorney; and the parking on the north side to be designated as a!Jparking area so that the public will know where the parking spaces are situated. Mr. Poland asked what tabling this matter would do, other than not give him the approval of this Board. It will not keep him from doing anything. Chairman Bennington said that right now he is in violation of the Code; he was told to straighten it out. He had several options; he could leave it as it was and try to get a variance from the Board of Adjustment, which he did and was denied; he could enlarge the apartment to make it legal, which he is not getting from this motion if it passes; the other option is to do it the way the Code is stated and the City says he has to comply and if he does not abide by the Code, he is in violation and will be turned over to the Code Enforcement Board, who has the power to issue a fine, make him tear the structure down, etc. Mr. Poland seconded the motion. Chairman Bennington said he would like to see something in the motion to clarify that the City considers the area hazardous and we do not want anyone parking there unless the State will take full liability for it. Mr. Wheeler agreed to amend his motion to include that sentence. Mr. Poland amended his second. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Mr. Shawver presented the Board members with a qriveway permit from the DOT in DeLand for the front parking lot. He said he has to asphalt the entire front end, put reflectors on the road and plant grass. He said he will extend the ditch, fill it in, and make the parking lot about 75' longer along U.S. 1. He said if the Board has any problems they can call Douglas Doudy at the DOT in DeLand. Chairman Bennington said that what he presented was an application. Mr. Shawver said he was to go back to DeLand in the morning with the application and a drawing showing where the exit and entrance will be along the road. He said Mr. Doudy was aware that the property is owned by the State. Chairman Bennington reiterated to Mr. Shawver that this Board needs a letter from him that the State will accept liability for this parking area. Mr. Shawver said he was liable. Chairman Bennington said that according to the City Attorney, the City is also liable. Mr. Shawver said that the grass grows through the shell and he cannot do anything about that. He said the Chief of Police told him to take the shrubs out of the front and move the logs and he was following his orders. Chairman Bennington said that when the original logs were there the parking lot did not conform to the requirements of the Code. The parking spaces were sharing the 20' back-up area that is required. At the present time the Code requires a permanently surfaced area and loose shell is not per- manently surfaced. The hardest area there was between Mr. Shawver's pro- perty and Boston and that is where everyone parked. Mr. Poland questioned the premise of non-conformity. A building that is too close to a right-of-way or extends into State 'property, or in any way does not comply with the Code, as he understands it the reason you were not allowed to modify the building was that it was to be left there to eventually be torn down because it was no longer a usable structure. That is why restrictions were placed on adding on or modifying non-conforming structures so that they will eventually be replaced with a structure that conforms. Chairman Bennington read from the Code on page 1540, under Repairs and Maintenance, wherein it states that a structure containing -2- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting September 5, 1984 o o a nonconforming use can be repaired or modernized so long as it does not increase the nonconformity. It further says that nothing in the Ordinance prevents restoring or strengthening to a safe condition any building declared to be unsafe by a public official. Chairman Bennington said that it is not the intent of the section on non-conformity to have these structures wither away and die and eventually be replaced. He further read from the Code wherein it states that no such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered to increase the nonconformity, but any structure may be altered to decrease the nonconformity. A discussion then ensued concerning if you add onto a structure in a non- conforming area you would be increasing the non-conformity but if you add on in a non-conforming area you would be decreasing the non-conformity. Mr. Poland's opinion was that you would be just making it a larger non- conforming building. Chairman Bennington said that a structure can be conforming, for example, an applicant has a 40' setback which conforms to the Code, and he goes before the Board of Adjustments and asks for a var- iance of 10' and is granted the variance; now they are a non-conforming structure and they cannot alter it. The Code clearly addresses a non- conforming use, but the section on a non-conforming structure is not clear. He said the Board could ask the City Attorney for a legal opinion on that section of the Code. Can an applicant increase a building but part of it is non-conforming, or can they not? The Board members agreed to get a legal opinion from Mr. Alvarez on this matter. Mr. Shawver asked the Board if he could take 200' from the downstairs and connect it to the upstairs with a stairway to make the area meet the Code requirements. He said Dennis Fischer told him he could do that. Chairman Bennington said that that would be OK. SP-8444 - Russell Gold - 805 Egret Court - Addition. Mr. Gold was present to discuss his site plan. Chairman Bennington explained that Mr. Gold got caught in an error, wherein the Ordinance was changed in the R4 zoning for the front setbacks to 40' on duplexes, and it was passed. In the meantime, before the change was I.put in the Code book, the Ordinance was changed concerning corner lot setbacks, some of the zones did not have this requirement, and in changing the Ordinance to include the corner lot setbacks an error was made in typing and the old Ordinance said 25', the Ordinance changing the corner lot setbacks said 20' for the rear setback. The City Attorney said that the new Ordinance did not address the rear setback and the 25' is the required rear setback for the R4 zone. Mr. Gold must go before the Board of Adjustment to get a variance for the 2' setback in the rear. Chairman Bennington said the purpose of this Board is to not the site plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan does not address this situation. Mr. changing the usage, he is just adding on a patio, family area. say whether or He said the Gold is not room and storage Mr. Poland made a motion that final approval be given this site plan, pending the Board of Adjustments granting a variance for the rear yard setback. Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 6-0. SP-8445 - Larry E. Harris - Sketch Plan for Addition - 1001 S. Ridgewood. Mr. Harris was present to discuss his site plan. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Harris if this addition would be a garage to store his vehicles. Mr. Harris said that it would be used for that purpose. Mr. Harris asked the Board to what extent he is responsible for the stormwater calculations. He advised that he is retaining the water in the front of this property at the present time. He said that he shows the swale and retention areas on the plans. He asked if he was required to get a topo and spend hundreds of dollars to have an engineer determine these calculations when he can show how he will take care of the run-off on the plans. After a discussion concerning the matter of the requirements for stormwater management calculations on the site plans, it was the opinion of the Board that Mr. Harris did not need to hire an engineer to do these calculations. He could present the plans for final approval, showing how he would take care of the water run-off. -3- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting September 5, 1984 o o Mrs. Thomas made a motion that this sketch plan be approved, seconded by Mr. Finn. Motion CARRIED 6-0. OLD BUSINESS Review Definitions ln the Code. Chairman Bennington stated that it was brought to his attention that the new definition for "Contractor" is not clearly stated and somewhat con- fusing. After a discussion concerning this definition, it was decided that the definition used in the Code under Article X - General Contractors - be used. Said definition states: Any person who, for compensation under- takes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, alter, remodel, add to, subtract from, improve any building or structure, including related improvements to real estate for others, or for resale to others, and who is re~ponsible for substantially the entire project. Contractors are subdivided into three (3) categories as follows: (a) General contractors, (b) Building contractors, (c) Residential contractors. The Board members decided and agreed to change the definition of "Abutting Property Owners" to read: Property owners with land contiguous to or across the street from the property in question. There being no other changes in the Definitions, Mr. Finn made a motion that the list of Definitions with the two new corrections be sent to Council, reoommending that the 880 Ordinance be changed to include this new list. Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Review requirements of satellite dishes to be added to Code. Chairman Bennington said that he did not like the Ordinances that the Florida League of Cities sent. Mrs. Thomas agreed, saying that she would like more time to review this matter. Mr. Poland suggested that the Board consider requesting someone who sells these satellite dishes to come to a meeting to answer any questions concerning this matter. A discussion then ensued regarding where these dishes should be allowed to be installed on a person's property. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to table this matter and research it further. Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Review Stormwater Management Ordinance. Chairman Bennington said he did not have an answer to this matter. He stated that the County is in the process of adopting a new Ordinance and the conditions for same are becoming stricter. He said there is no State law concerning Stormwater Management, the matter is left up to the munic- ipalities to govern. A discussion then ensued concerning parking require- ments, wherein if they are hard surfaced they will not allow the water to be absorbed into the ground, and the methods of taking care of the run-off. Chairman Bennington stated that something needs to be done about the parking requirements. It is his understanding that a parking lot can be paved or blacktopped without having to have a permit to do so. He suggested that they check with the Building Department to find out if there are any requirements for someone wanting to pave a parking lot. A discussion then ensued concerning the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy and final inspections by the Building Department. It was noted that at the present time after final inspection by the Building Official, Florida Power and Light is notified to turn on the power. The COs are not being picked up by the developer or business owner and after final inspection is given and if any violations to the Code exist, there is no way to make the person comply with the Code. If the Building Official would refuse to call in the power if a Code violation or site plan violation existed, this would solve some of the problems the City is having. Mr. Poland asked what can be done about abandoned construction, whereby construction is never completed on a structure. If the building permit expires after a year and the structure is not completed, what can be done about this? He referred to a house on Mango Tree Drive. A discussion then ensued concerning this matter. -4- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting September 5, 1984 o o Mr. Wheeler made a motion to table this subject matter to the next meeting. Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 6-0. COMMUNICATIONS Letter from David Jones, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer, regarding status of several businesses in violation of original site plan. Chairman Bennington read this letter into the record. Concerning the Casa EI Toro Lounge, wherein the letter states that Dennis Fischer in- spected the parking and found it to be in compliance with the site plan, Mrs. Thomas questioned this statement due to the fact that it was determined earlier in the evening when Mr. Shawver was present with his site plan that the parking requirements were not in compliance with the original site plan. She said that it seems that something is not being done when a situation like this occurs and there are two conflicting reports. Mr. Wheeler questioned the comment in the letter concerning Pelican Cove West Subdivision and the installation of sidewalks. He said that Ed Hall purchased a block in the subdivision and he agreed with the report that Mr. Hall says he is not responsible for installing the sidewalks, Mr. Carder is responsible. Chairman Bennington stated that as a non-attorney he thinks Mr. Hall is right. Mr. Carder would be responsible for all aspects concerning the subdivision in that he is the developer of same. MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Bennington advised the Board members that it has been brought to his attention that there is another piece of property in the City . zoned B6. It is located near the entrance to the Florida Shores Shopping Center. He asked the Board if they wanted this property to be rezoned B3, along with the B6 property on Park Avenue that is in the process of being rezoned to B3. All of the members agreed to ask that it be changed. Mrs. Thomas made a motion that the B6 property located near the entrance to the Florida Shores Shopping Center be sent to Council with a recommen- dation that it be rezoned B3; and recommend that the B6 section of the Code of Ordinances be deleted from same. Mr. Poland seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 6-0. There being no further business to corne before the Board, upon motion made by Mr. Wheeler to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Poland, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Minutes submitted by: Susan Mista -5- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting September 5, 1984