Loading...
10-03-1984 . ( -. . o Q CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1984 Minutes Chairman Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:04 P.M., ln the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Wheeler, Chenoweth, Quaggin and Poland. Ann Thomas arrived later. Mr. Finn was excused. Also present: Susan Mista, secretary, and one member of the press. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 19, 1984, meeting, seconded by Mr. Chenoweth. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SITE PLAN REVIEWS SP-8443 - Fagg Shawver, d/b/a Casa EI Toro Lounge - Addition - 2001 South Ridgewood Avenue. Mr. Shawver was present to discuss his site plan. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Shawver if he had the letter the Board requested previously to send to the attorney concerning parking. Mr. Shawver said that he has the permit. Chairman Bennington stated that they did not ask him to get a permit, they asked him to get a letter from the State, saying the City would not be liable for any accident that might occur in his parking area which is on State owned land. Mr. Shawver said the City is not liable. Chairman Bennington advised that neither of them is an attorney and the Board asked him to furnish a letter so that it could be sent to the attorney and get a legal opinion as to the City's liability on this matter. He further advised Mr. Shawver that the attorney and the Chief of Police have advised him that the City would be liable if this condition were allowed to exist. Mr. Shawver reiterated that all he had was a permit for the driveway from the State. Chairman Bennington said the Board would not allow this document and it was his suggestion that this matter be tabled until such time that Mr. Shawver furnishes a letter from the State regarding their taking full responsibility and liability concerning parking on their land and that the City of Edgewater is not in any way responsible or liable for same. Mr. Wheeler made a motion that this matter be tabled until Mr. Shawver furnishes the letter from the State concerning their responsibility and liability to the parking area. Mr. Poland seconded the motion. Chairman Bennington asked if there were any discussion on this matter. Mr. Shawver said he had some discussion. Chairman Bennington said he was not involved in it, there is a motion on the floor. Chairman Bennington asked for a roll call. Mr. Chenoweth asked to see what Mr. Shawver had from the State. Mr. Shawver said he had a permit from the State to park on their land. Mr. Chenoweth said the document was a permit for construction. Mr. Shawver read where the permit states that he has permission to construct two 18' driveways and that is what he is going to do and he will asphalt that whole parking lot, fill in the ditch, with 10' of grass. Chairman Bennington said the Board will send this permit to the attorney and if the attorney says this does*not*invo1ve the City of any liability, then it will be OK. Upon roll call on the motion, motion CARRIED 5-0. Chairman Bennington said that that is what they require before approval can be given to this site plan. He said the Board is not trying to give him a hard time. Mr. Shawver said they were giving him a very hard time. Chairman Bennington said they are telling him what they require. Mr. *SEE NOTATION ON LAST PAGE OF MINUTES. . \ Q Q Shawver said the City does not own this land, the State does and they gave him permission to park on that land and he is going to improve the land, he will asphalt it, there will be a IS' grass barrier with reflecting signs. Chairman Bennington reiterated that if the attorney says that the permit he presented is OK, then the Board will go along with his decision. Mr. Shawver said he did not know he was supposed to supply this information to the attorney. Chairman Bennington said that the Board asked him at the last meeting to furnish them with something to give to the attorney and it was never received. Mr. Shawver said he has it right here and the State gave him permission to construct this driveway and asphalt it or shell it, whichever he preferred. He has the permission from the State to do it. He asked what he had to do now. Chairman Bennington said he could give the papers he has to the Board and they will have the attorney review them. Mr. Shawver gave the papers to Chairman Bennington and then asked who the Board was going to persecute after they get done with him. Chairman Bennington said they were not persecuting anyone and Mr. Shawver said they were. Chairman Bennington advised Mr. Shawver that he was excused and he replied that he was not excused. Chairman Bennington said he could either leave or they could go next door and get a police officer to help him out and Mr. Shawver said he could do that if he wanted to but he was wrong, he has the permission from the State to park on their land. He asked what the City wanted from him - blood? Chairman Bennington said no, they did not want his blood. Mr. Shawver said it wouldn't be his blood - it may be someone elses. Chairman Bennington asked if that were a threat. Mr. Shawver asked if they were threatening his blood, to which Chairman Bennington replied, no. Chairman Bennington said he would be notified as soon as the City Attorney gives them his recommendation. Mr. Shawver told the Board members that there will be a driveway there. Mrs. Thomas arrived at the meeting at this time. SP-8445 - Larry E. Harris - Addition - 1001 S. Ridgewood. Mr. Harris was present to discuss his site plan. At this time Mr. Shawver said that the Board was wrong and he hoped it was in the newspaper tomorrow, and none of the Board memebers would be here next year anyhow. Chairman Bennington said Mr. Harris is here for final approval. He was here before for sketch plan approval, which they gave him. He further stated that stormwater calculations are controlled by the City Engineer. The Board did not have any problems with Mr. Harris' drainage system. At the joint meeting with Council last week, the City Engineer recommended that the Stormwater Ordinance be modified and it was Council's intent to put back the single family residences and duplexes as being exempted from the ordinance. In regards to commercial property, the City Engineer suggested that an applicant be allowed to add 1,000 feet with no problem. Chairman Bennington stated that if Mr. Ferrara found that stormwater calculations were needed for this site plan, Mr. Harris would have to pro- vide him with same. He would not have to come back before the Board and the Stormwater Ordinance has a 15 day clause in it whereby if the calcul- ations are required, the City Engineer has 15 days to give an answer on them from the day they are given to him. Mr. Poland made a motion to give final approval to this site plan, seconded by Mr. Wheeler. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Mr. Poland asked Mr. Harris if he is required to furnish stormwater calcul- ations to the City Engineer, would he please advise the Board what his expenses are to hire an engineer to do these calculations and what the City Engineer charges him to review same. Mr. Poland said he was interested to know this information so that he will be aware of what these calculations are costing developers. Mr. Harris advised that his engineer has already advised that he will charge him $400.00 for same. The Board members felt that the City Engineer would not charge much over $100.00. -2- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 3, 1984 .f Q Q SP-8449 - Edwin Hall - Duplex - 2719-2721 India Palm Drive. Ron Lucas was present to respresent this site plan. Mr. Chenoweth asked if this site has been cleared already, to which Mr. Lucas advised, yes. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion to give this site plan final approval, seconded by Mr. Wheeler. Motion CARRIED 6-0. SP-8450 - Edwin Hall - Duplex - 2930-2932 India Palm Drive. Ron Lucas was present to represent this site plan. Chairman Bennington advised that this plan was submitted for sketch approval. Mr. Poland asked why he came for sketch plan approval instead of preliminary and final. Mr. Lucas advised that it was because of the two week waiting period. He said if he submitted this plan at the time he did for preliminary and final approval, he would have had to wait almost thre~ weeks before he could come before the Board. Chairman Bennington said this has not gone before the Department Head Supervisors, that is why there is the waiting period. Mr. Poland asked if the Board could give him preliminary and final approval, pending having it reviewed by the Department Heads, is there any reason to have him come back before the Board. Chairman Bennington said yes, that could be done. This is not some big project that requires parking and driveway problems or setbacks being wrong. Mr. Poland made a motion that this plan be given preliminary and final site plan approval, pending the applicant paying the $75.00 filing fee and receiving approval from the Department Head Supervisors. Mrs: Thomas seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Mr. Opal, a member of the audience, asked if the Department Heads have approved this site plan. Mr. Poland said no, final approval was given pending approval from the Department Heads. Mr. Opal said they were going backward; instead of forward. Chairman Bennington said he could say they were going backward, but this is identical to the first one they just approved and he could see no reason to hold them up. OLD BUSINESS Discussion with Dennis Fischer, Section 706.00 - Fences, He ges Chairman Bennington advised the Board members that Mr. Fischer left a message that he would not be able to attend this meeting and he would discuss this matter with the Board at another time. concernlng reV1Sln Mr. Wheeler made a motion to TABLE this matter, seconded by Mr. Poland. Motion CARRIED 6-0. NEW BUSINESS Discuss excluding single family dwellings and duplexes located in subdiv- isions that were approved under the existing Subdivision Ordinance from requiring site plan approval. Chairman Bennington said he brought this up at the joint meeting with Council last week. Under the Subdivision Ordinance, when the plat is approved, they furnish a print showing where the buildings will be situated, showing the setbacks. It was his suggestion to treat these duplexes the same as a single family home. It would be up to the Building Official to be sure that they are abiding by the required setbacks when they come in for a building permit. The engineer has said that when the subdivision is laid out, they have met all the requirements concerning stormwater calcul- ations. The existing ordinance says all R4, R5, etc., must have approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. ~was his recommendation to exclude duplexes and single family homes under the existing Subdivision Ordinance to be required to come before the Board for approval. Another question -3- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 3, 1984 , f o o would be should any duplex be required to come before the Board. The Council has already given their intent to change the Stormwater Ordinance back the way it was - excluding single family residences and duplexes from requiring stormwater calculations. Chairman Bennington explained to the Board members that the ordinance has always said all R4 applications need to come before the Board for approval. Several years ago the Board motioned to exclude single family and duplexes from coming before them. The Board passed it and it became a policy and direct violation of an ordinance. Building Officials came and went and they came upon a Building Official who was not doing his job and the Board told Council that the ordinance was being violated and the single family and duplexes should come before the Board for approval. Several builders argued against this at the time, however, they were advised to change the ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Board has no right to change or alter an ordinance, they can only make recommendations to Council. Since that time, the single family residences and duplexes in the R4 zone have been coming before the Board for approval. The Board can recommend that this ordinance be changed to exclude these. If we do ask to have the ordinance changed, it should be clearly noted the reasons why we are asking for the change. Chairman Bennington suggested that the single family residences and duplexes be eliminated from coming before the Board for approval. He stated they are simple, requiring so many trees, certain setbacks, certain parking, etc. The way the ordinance is written, single family in R4 are required to come before the Board. There will be very few applications for a single family home in a business district, B2 and B3. A discussion then ensued concerning this matter. Chairman Bennington said the subdivisions approved under the ordinance include:Shangri-La, Gas Lite, and Pelican Cove West, Phase 1. Mr. ,Quaggin made a motion to exclude single family residences and duplexes under the Subdivision Ordinance from requiring site plan approval, Section 715.02 - Site Plan Approval. The Subdivision Ordinance is 79-0-7. Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to item 1 under Section 715.02 which states: Existing and proposed topography at a two foot contour interval for one acre of land or more. He said that this section is the reason people thought stormwater calculations were required for any project over an acre. This section has nothing to do with stormwater. This was discussed at the joint meeting with Council last week and he said the engineer recommended that the words "one acre" be deleted from this se~tion. The other Board members agreed that this is what the engineer said. This does not effect the single family residences or duplexes under the Subdivision Ordinance - they would be exempt from this requirement. Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to the new site plan require- ments list that was drawn up by Frank Marshall. He then read several sections of this list to the Board members, adding that he felt this list was better than the one presently in the Code. Mr. Wheeler made a motion that this matter be tabled to the next meeting and that all of the Board members be given a copy of the new site plan requirements list and discuss same and make recommendation to Council of the changes at one time. Mr. Poland seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 6- O. Discuss adding to Ordinance 80-0-66 Section VI, Exemptions, item 2ed) of Mr. Ferrara's letter concerning Stormwater Management Ordinance dated 9-25-84, which exempts any existing development that increases the impervious surface or building space up to 1,000 square feet. Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to Section 9-5-56, page 757, is what the engineer is talking about amending. He then read this section to the Board. A discussion then ensued concerning the suggestions Mr. Ferrara offered in correcting this section of the Code. Chairman Bennington said that Council will be putting Item A back into the ordinance. -4- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting October 3, 1984 o o He modified Item D, adding the 1,000 square feet of impervious surface or building space. Item C is the same. Item E has been rewritten. Item B has disappeared. The Board decided to table this until the next meeting. Chairman Bennington suggested that the City Engineer be asked why he took Item B out of the exemptions; also, ask him to explain the difference between the Item E in his letter and the one in the book; and can someone pave a parking lot without a permit from the engineer to do same. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to table this to the next meeting and ask the City Engineer why he took Item B out of the Code, explain the difference between Item E in the Code and Item E of his letter, and ask him if some- one can pave a parking lot without a permit from the City Engineer. Mr. Poland seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Chairman Bennington suggested that the Board members consider this 1,000 square feet exemption. He did not think they would be dealing with this very often due to the fact that 1,000 square feet is not very much. The Building Official stated at the joint meeting with Council that a permit is not required to pour a driveway, but according to the Stormwater Ordin- ance, a permit is required. He then read from the Code concerning this section, wherein it states no person may make any changes in the use of land or construct or reconstruct a structure or change the size of a structure, without first obtaining a permit from the City Engineer's office. To pave a parking area in excess of 1,000 square feet, the Code says a permit is required from the City Engineer, not the Building Official. Chairman Bennington stated that the City Engineer is also talking about using the 1,000 square feet one time. How can you keep track of that. The item would have to be written by the attorney in a way designating that one time clause. COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Center for Governmental Training and Services at DBCC regarding Board of Adjustment meeting on 10-11-84. Chairman Bennington advised the Board that Council has authorized anyone on the Board of Adjustments to go to the meeting. Letter concerning violation of site plan for J. C. Carders boat shed. Chairman Bennington had the secretary read the minutes of the Code Enforce- ment Board meeting of September 27, 1984, concerning J. C. Carders Boat Shed into the record. In summary, the Board moved to advise Mr. Carder that he has 30 days to either request a variance for the rear setback for the boat shed and to correct the parking requirements and sidewalk require- ment; or, if he intends to change the use of the building he must present a new site plan to the Planning and Zoning Board for approval and request a variance from the Board of Adjustments for the rear setback of the building. At this time Mr. Wheeler made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Chenoweth. Mr. Opal, a member of the audience, asked about the last item on the agenda concerning letters concerning Section 400 of Code regarding Nonconformance. Mr. Wheeler withdrew his motion to adjourn and Mr. Chenoweth withdrew his second. Letters concerning Section 400 of Code - Nonconformance. Chairman Bennington referred to the letter from the Board of Adjustments to the City Attorney wherein they have two cases before them for additions to duplexes in an R4 zone. They questioned whether these duplexes would be considered nonconforming if they were built prior to the ordinance that changed the setbacks in R4 from 20 to 25 feet. Mr. Alvarez said that the structure was not nonconforming, however, adding the addition would make it nonconforming but they could be granted a variance for the rear setback. Chairman Bennington advised that the duplex front setbacks were changed from 30' to 40' to make them the same as all other R4 zoning. When Council -5- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting October 3, 1984 . . . .. o o was asked to change these setbacks, it was noted that there were at least three duplex subdivisions in the City that had been approved with 30' set- backs and they were half built. We wanted those to be exempted and allowed to finish at 30', however, it was not put in the Code book by the Municipal Code Corporation. It is in the Council minutes the night it was passed and it should be in the Code. He said he did not know what was being done to correct this. Mr. Wheeler said that J. C. Carder had talked to him about the new setback for front in R4 being 40' and that he could not live with that new requirement. Chairman Bennington said the Code book should be corrected to read that these certain subdivisions would be exempted from this front setback requirement. There being no further business to come before the Board, upon motion by Mr. Wheeler to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Chenoweth, the meeting was adjourned at 8:14 P.M. Minutes submitted by: Susan Mista *At the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on October 17, 1984, this sentence was amended to read as follows: Chairman Bennington said the Board will send this permit to the attorney and if the attorney says this does absolve the City of any liability, then it will be OK. -6- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting October 3, 1984