Loading...
03-17-1983 Special o ~ CITY OF EDGEWATER Board of Adjustments Special Meeting March 17, 1983 Minutes Vice-Chairman Garthwaite called the special meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Mrs. Martin, Messrs. Newell, Roush, and Garthwaite, and Mrs. Murphy. Excused: Mr. Wetzel. Also present: Susan Wadsworth, Deputy City Clerk, Joan Taylor, Secretary and one member of the press. Mrs. Wadsworth administered the oath of office to Alice Murphy, appointed to the Board by Resolution 83-R-25. OLD BUSINESS Harold Brown, application for a Special Exception to permit a 24-unit apartment complex on the northeast corner of U. S. 1 and Magnolia Avenue in a B-3 Zoned area. Mr. Garthwaite explained that the meeting was being held for the Board to go through the facts as';they were submitted previously and to list them for Council as to why the Board voted against the project. He asked that there be no interruptions from the audience. They would hear any new evidence from both the applicant and the opponents' representative, and then the Board will go through and review their findings. Mr. William Gillespie, Attorney, was present to represent Mr. Harold Brown. Court Reporter Barry L. Taylor, was also present at the request of the appli- cant to record the meeting. Mr. Gillespie said he had conferred with the City Attorney, Mr. Alvarez, and understood that he had conferred with the members of the Board since the last Commission meeting, as to his advice as City Attorney on the matter to be considered by the Board. He said that in the opinion of the City Attorney and in his opinion the report filed with the City Council by the Board was not proper consideration. He reviewed the five separate criteria which the Board must consider in order to grant a special exception. He reminded the members that the property is presently zoned B-3. If Mr. Brown wanted to put a tavern in, which is allowed under B-3, he would not have to come before any Board for approval. He said there were many other uses in B-3 which they should consider. Regarding the consideration of traffic congestion, it was Mr. Gillespie's opinion that traffic would be increased, but it would not be congestion with this use. But by putting a tavern in it would cause traffic congestion until 2 a.m. in the morning, which is legal. He also mentioned that a car wash or a dance hall are already allowed in B-3. Mr. Gillespie asked that Mr. Wallace be permitted to submit further evidence. Mr. Wallace explained that he would only go through the items on the preliminary site plan requirements which are required to comply with City Ordinance. (See copy of this form attached.) In his opinion they did comply with all require- ments, except item 11, which requires engineering approval of the final site plan. This will be provided when the plan is submitted for final approval. Following Mr. Gillespie's closing statement, in which he emphasied that this use would not be detrimental to the public morals, as a barroom or tavern might be, the Vice-Chairman asked Board membe~ for questions regarding Mr. Wallace's comments. Mrs. Murphy asked if there would be any outside recrea- tional area or a park area. Mr. Wallace explained that each apartment had its own balcony area. There was adequate open area for tables and benches. Mr. Carl Groepler, 109 Neptune Drive, Edgewater, was present to speak for the residents opposed to the development. Mr. Groepler noted that everything Mr. Wallace had talked about tonight was covered by the previous two meetings, and was not new evidence. Mr. Groepler called attention to Ordinances 923 and 977, which stated that appeals of the Board of Adjustments decision must be Q ~ taken to City Councilor Circuit Court. Mr. Groepler noted that Ordinance 80-0-66, under the section pertaining to special exceptions, says that duplex residences should be used as the property is designed around it. Mr. Groepler objected to there being no engineering print or engineering number on any of the plans submitted. Mr. Garthwaite advised that a sealed set of plans must be submitted to the Planning Commission at the time of final approval. Mr. Groepler stated that this matter would probably not have come this far if Mr. Brown had in the past shown compassion for the people who lived in the area. He asked why they should trust Mr. Brown when he had not complied with anything before which was prescribed for him. Mr. Groepler asked if there was a storm water runoff ordinance in Edgewater, and if there is, why is it not filed with Deland. He said this is pertinent in that Mr. Wallace had said that they would do anything to comply with the requirements, and whatever the City Engineers required - if it isn't written down how do we know what the requirements are. Mr. Garthwaite called attention to Article III, Storm Water Management, Ordinance 80-0-66. Mr. Frank Opal spoke about the Comprehensive Plan, referring to pag~ 5 and 6, regarding storm water runoff and drainage. Mr. John Siburn of Connecticut Avenue said that most of the residential build- ings from Park Avenue to Indian River Boulevard are occupted by transients, and it was his opinion that this apartment development would be a slum and any place on Route 1 where they put apartments will be a slum. Mr. Jim Mackie spoke to the Board, explaining how the special exception use was put into the Code. He said that the State has come out and said that you have to return the water back to the ground. He questioned why this matter had come back to the Board for a second decision, as appeals go to City Council. Mr. Garthwaite explained that there was not sufficient data provided to the applicant to show why the Board rejected the special exception. If he wants to take it to court he has to have this information. That is basically why the Board is meeting tonight. The matter was then turned over to the Board for discussion. Mrs. Martin :asked if it was not important for the Board to go over some of their comments, which were not in the verbatim minutes, as to why they voted the way that they did. Mr. Garthwaite recommended they start out with Articles VI, VII, VIII and then go to the five items the Board must give written testi- mony to and go through those. He asked the members of the Board to please speak up if they had anything to say or did not agree with what he was saying. Mr. Garthwaite first referred to Sec. 903.00 pertaining to the granting of special exceptions. Articles VI, VII and VIII must be fulfilled before a special exception is granted. He reviewed the definition of a special exception from page 1532 of the Code. Mr. Garthwaite then went to page 1603 which describes the intent and permitted uses under B-3, and to page 1606, which states that multi-family dwellings are permitted as set forth in the R-4 MUlti-family District. He referred to R-4 (Page 1556), noting that the Brown project proposes using 17% of the total lot area for building coverage; the code requires 35% maximum. He asked for clarification from Mr. Wallace as to which side was considered the front of the project for setback purposes. Mr. Wallace said the front faced U. S. 1, and they have indicated a 40-foot setback. It was determined that the plan met with all the R-4 requirements. Mr. Garthwaite then referred to Sec. 700.00 (Pg. 1622.16) pertaining to off-street parking. It was determined the off-street parking requirements have been met. Referring to Article VIII, Mr. Garthwaite said the Board had nothing to do with Administration and Penalties, covered in this article. He then returned to Article IX, Board of Adjustments. The meeting was recessed for five minutes. Mr. Garthwaite said they were now ready to review the requirements for granting a special exception, and asked if any of the members had a comment to make at this point. Mrs. Murphy commented that a special exception is a discretionary action and can be granted or denied. On page 1642 it says, Before a special exception is granted the Board of adjustment shall make written findings. It doesn't say, when a special exception is denied the Board must make written findings. She said it seemed to her that you have to justify the change in the status quo, which would be the special exception; it must be assumed that the status quo has its own justification, otherwise the zoning would not have been laid out that way. She remarked also that she was disturbed with the attitude that if they do not permit the apartments they will build something really bad. In her opinion, she stated, this approach is tantamount to blackmail. Board of Adjustments Special Meeting, March 17, 1983 - 2 - (.) (J :1. The Board next began a review of the five items under Sec. 903.00 to~determine if those provisions are fulfilled. (a) The use requested is listed among the special exceptions ln the district for which application is made. It was determined that the use requested is listed in the B-3 district. Mrs. Murphy reiterated that she did not believe they had to justify a denial. Mr. Garthwaite referred to Sec. 901.06 which states that the board shall inform the appellant or applicant in writing of the board's decision and reasons there- for. Mrs. Murphy responded that she thought the conditions outlined in the former Chairman's letter were sufficient reasons. Mr. Garthwaite referred again to the intent of the Highway Business District, noting that if justification can be found, a special exception can be granted. (b) The requested use will not impair the character of the surrounding or adjoining districts, nor be detrimental to the public health, morals, or welfare. Mrs. Murphy commented that they may not know if the requested use will meet the above criteria until it is in operation. Mr. Garthwaite reminded the members that this use would be moving multi-family into a B-3 district, doing away with the commercial area for that portion. The district behind it is single family residence. Mrs. Martin said that she felt that they have been utilizing too much of the City's business district for family living areas. Edgewater is not that big and there are already quite a few in the area. Think we should maintain some of the B-3 for business. Mr. Garthwaite said that he agreed with Mrs. Martin. They feared that Edgewater would become just a "bedroom" community. (c) The requested use will be in conformity with the land use plan. Mr. Garthwaite reviewed Sub-Chapter 4, Land Use, specifically calling attention to item number 6, "Protect future commercial and industrial sites from resi- dential encroachment.", and Sub-Chapter 5, Housing, under Policies, item number 3, "Prevent unplanned residential development in areas reserved for industrial and commercial uses." It was Mr. Garthwaite's opinion that this project does not conform with the Land Use Plan. It would be an encroachment of residential into a commercial area. (d) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, sanitation, and/or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. It was determined that the access roads were there, Neptune and Magnolia. A question remains if they are adequate or not. Reference to drainage, the applicant has assured that with swales and brim the drainage will be properly handled. Some discussion was had regarding putting in a dam across the north section of the property, Mr. Wallace agreed that they could put a retainer across the northwest portion. The members agreed that there is already a problem with sanitation. Mrs. Martin discussed the present problem which has been going on since 1975; this is on record with the Council, and the problem still exists. Any build up of water or drainage onto Riverside is cut off at the Merrimac Station, then drains back south. Mrs. Martin fears that anything which adds to the sewage is not good for Riverside Drive or Edgewater. She said that she had been before Council about this matter; they had a TV screening to find out the problem, but it was never corrected. She feels it is up to the City to correct this problem; they spent money for the TV screen and should correct the problem. She noted that the property is not even with Route 1; with the fill needed on the property there will be much more drainage off of the property, as far as water is concerned. Mr. Roush noted that the shell road would wash off and suggested that the roads be paved. Mr. Wallace said they would pave the road shown as shell, if the Board requires it, but there would be more runoff with pavement. Mr. Wallace noted that their storm water computations which must meet the engineering and City requirements, may require what is known as a trench drain system, there- fore they can comply. Mr. Garthwaite reviewed the requirements of this section, noting that the access roads are questioned as to adequacy, sanitation requirements are questioned, but the developer maintains that he can handle the drainage. BOard of Adjustment Special Meeting, March 17, 1983 - 3 - o Q (e) The proposed use will not increase traffic congestion. There was some discussion about the amount of increased ~raffic for this use as compared to a commercial use. Mr. Groepler commented that he felt there should be a cuI de sac for turnaround for fire equipment. Mr. Garth- waite asked if there was any reference to a cuI de sac other than for in a subdivision. Mr. Wallace said it would not be necessary for an emergency vehicle to go frum one end to the other. A siamese type connection will be installed for the use of the fire department on each unit. He emphasized that this is not a roadway or right of way, it is a defined buffered parking area. The main entrance to the project is 25 feet from U. S. 1. In summary, Mr. Garthwaite indicated that the project meets the requirements or R-4, under Article VI. Article VII, Parking, the egress and ingress and width requirements are met, two parking spaces are met, the square footage are met. Article VIII - Nothing for the Board to discuss or consider. Under Sec. 903.00, Granting of special exceptions. Article (a) is met. Under (b) it was not proven that it would be detrimental to morals or welfare, but the sanitation could be considered detrimental to the public health. Article (c) - it was determined that the project does not meet with the land use plan. Under Article (d) - utilities are available; access roads would not be adequate for the increased traffic; drainage - have been advised that all the water will remain on the property - that will be up to the engineers; sanitation - question this as there are problems along Riverside Drive. Under (e) was determined there is a possible increase of 48 cars - and it will cause traffic congestion. Mr. Garthwaite asked for comments from the Board in addition to those already made. Mrs. Murphy noted that the Land Use Plan said the project must be consistent with the density of the surrounding atea. Because of the single family homes behind the development she questioned that this density would be consistent with the surrounding area. She was not convinced that a good commercial establishment built to the Building Code standards would downgrade the area. She was in favor of keeping it commercial. Mr. Garthwaite said that that seemed to be the general feeling of the Board members. Mr. Garthwaite said that after reviewing the case, he felt they had given their reasons and they all agreed that they would stay with their recommenda- tion to deny the Special Exception. This case will go back to Council, with a letter outlining their findings, with a copy to the applicant and a copy to each of the Board members. Mr. Newell motioned to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Roush. The meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m. Minutes submitted by Joan Taylor Board of Adjustment Special Meeting, March 17, 1983 - 4 - ," " Q Q PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Section 715.02 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following will be required prior to issuing a building permit. A site plan drawn at a scale no smaller than 1" = 50 ft. must be submitted to the City for all R-4, R-5, R-5A, R-6, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, I-I, 1-2, 1-3, P.I.D. and Subdivisions. CJ (1) LJ (2) o (3) o (4) o (5) o (6) o (7) L7 . (8) CJ (9) o (10) Existing and proposed topography at one foot contour inter- vals. (One acre or more) Property dimensions and legal description. (Sealed survey) Extensions of street systems, walks, entrance ways and off- street parking areas. Please note the requirements for parking in the multi-family areas are two spaces per unit. Also, the Building Official can give the applicant informa- tion on requirements for parking spaces used by handicapped persons at commercial buildings. A minimum width of twelve feet (12') is required, together with an incline ramp. Ingress and egress to a public street, road or highway shall be noted, with dimensions. Locations and dimensions of buildings, fences, structures and improvements. Show insert of project location. Common open space and landscaping areas and their treatment. (Buffer required) Utility plans (water, sanitation and electric treatment) shall be documented'. Drainage and ,stormwa.ter ,coIDoutations by registered en9ineer/architect (one acre or more) . Elevation and .perspective drawing displaying typical building character. Screened garbage collection area. Any legal instruments, as an attachment, that are required as deed covenants. o (11) 2 sealed setsof plans for final Site Plan approval by Florida registered architect/engineer. Corr.mercial / industrial usage and multi-I family (three units or more) require a sealed set of plans for projects over C5,OOO oa by a Florida registered architect. I -I c:::z~ o-o-rJ. Costs incurred by the City from the City Engineer for review of the project will be invoiced to and reimbursed by the developer. ?f Seven (rr sets of site plans containing the above information should be submitted to the Planning Department to be reviewed by the Planning Board. The site plans will also be reviewed by the City departments (Building Official, Public Works, Public Utilities, Police, Fire, Buildings and Grounds, Planning and Legal) for approval. Upon application for preliminary site plan review a fee of $75.00 must accompany the application. There is no charge for sketch plan reVlew. Sketch plans must be submitted at least one week prior to the Pl"anning Board meeting. Preliminary' and final site plans must be sub- mitted at least two weeks prior to the Board meeting, and will be sub- mitted first to a Department Head meeting (Tuesdavs at 9 AM) and the next Tues.. if required. Department Head meeting if changes have been requested. The site plan will then be placed on the next Planning Board meeting.. A representative of the Developer must be. presen1:. at each meeting during which the plan is to be considered, and will be notified accordingly. I have read the Edgewater Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance (when applicable) 7 and hereby agree to abide by these requirements. ~ '.~' Signed Date