Loading...
04-27-1983 Special ,r ~ . u o CITY OF EDGEWATER Board of Adjustments Special Meeting April 27, 1983 Agenda Chairman Wetzel called the special meeting to order at 7:05 p.m., in City Hall. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Wetzel, Newell, Roush, Garthwaite, Mrs. Martin and Mrs. Murphy. Mr. Severance was excused. Also present: Joan Taylor, Secretary. Mr. Wetzel noted that the special meeting was called to hear the request of Mr. Edwin Hall for variances for his professional plaza located on the east side of U. S. 1, between the laundromat and the Harris Construction Co. His request for a variance to the width of the entrance driveway was considered first. Mr. Judson Woods was present to represent Mr. Hall. He was sworn in. Mr. Woods said that the plan as originally submitted called for three entrances on the front off of U. S. 1. After the building permit was issued apparently it was discovered that the State Department of Transportation would not allow anything but a 16 ft. driveway. The City's ordinance calls for 20 feet. He referred to Mrs. Taylor's memo advising that she had spoken to the D.O.T. and they confirmed that 16 feet is the normal entrance width. The D.O.T. would permit only one entrance. Mrs. Murphy felt the entrance width should be wider, and was advised that the D.O.T. was concerned that people would use the entrance driveway as an exit and cause a head~on collision trying to get to the crossover. Mr. Garthwaite motioned that the variance for the 16' entrance driveway be granted with the provision that a sign stating "no exit" be placed facing into the parking lot on the north side of the entrance on U. S. 1. Mr. Newell seconded the motion and the motion CARRIED 5-1. Mrs. Murphy voted no. The Board next considered the application for a variance to the parking requirements. Mr. Ed Hall asked Mr. Lucas, his representative, to explain to the members how he had to reengineer the plan to provide for the parking spaces. He submitted an As-built Plan. Mr. Lucas explained that the original plan provided for 56 parking spaces to meet the Code. Because the D.O.T. has limited them to one entrance it has been more difficult for them to get the parking spaces required. They will have to have some type of variance. Mr. Wetzel asked who would be using the professional offices. Mr. Hall responded that it would be mainly to whoever he could sell them to. He would have his own offices there, as a realtor and builder. There will be a prenatal care in one of them, and a karate school; two were bought for speculation and another for real estate office. Mr. Lucas said that the new as-built plan shows the parking as necessitated by the requirement of the D.O.T. for one entrance. There are still 56 spaces, but some of them are short. This is necessitated by the problem with the drainage which was brought up by the former Mayor. He reminded the members that the matter referred to the Board by the Planning Commission is just for the parking which is short. Mr. Garthwaite asked Mr. Bennington if his Board had seen the as-built plan submitted to the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Bennington said he had not. The part for which he is asking a variance is different; the rest is the same as submitted to the Planning Commission. That is, the spaces on the west side. Mr. Wetzel said that there were supposed to be 400 sq. feet for each parking space. Mr. Hall said that they were between 3 and 4 feet short; he stated that the reason for that is that when he went to the post office to sign for the mail boxes for the professional plaza, the Mayor called him inside and said that they were going to get a man from the County to come over and check the retention area. We want you to have retention area big enough. Ju- fYI, 1:1.. '/W) ~, l-r u () When Mr. Hall did that - put the retention area out front - they came short on space for parking. He said he could eliminate the retention area or get a variance for shorter parking spaces. Mr. Garthwaite said he had measured the parking spaces and did not believe they were as big as shown on the plan. He said he did not believe they could discuss parking without talking about the east end. Mr. Woods said the shell parking is not at issue. Mr. Garthwaite said the City was responsible for seeing that the Code was met - if an accident happens as a result of too little parking, the City might be held responsible. Referring to the northeast parking area - he noted that there is a telephone pole where they had shown parking. That eliminates two parking spaces. Mrs. Murphy asked if there was not a possiblity of someone over building and then finding that they could not accommodate the parking required. Mr. Wetzel said that he felt they had too many offices for the space. Mr. Lucas said that the same problem which created the entrance problem also created the shortage for parking. The original site plan was approved by the Planning Commission. Now they have a different plan necessitated by the requirements of the D.O.T. and they have a shortage for the parking. He said that if the Board felt that the smaller size parking was not feasible, he would like to suggest that the Board grant a lesser number of spaces which would be to the correct size. Mrs. Murphy asked if the building was already built before they had the permission of the Planning Commission, and Mr. Hall said that it certainly was not. He ~aid(;that they had the approval of the Planning Commission and a building permit. Mrs. Murphy said she found him a little bit offensive and was talking to Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lucas affirmed that they did have the permission of the Planning Board. She asked when the trouble came up with the Mayor and the swales. Mr. Hall said when the Mayor threatened him at the Post Office. Mr. Wetzel asked for order, and asked Mr. Bennington to explain. Mr. Bennington said that the original plan was approved as submitted. Then two problems arose. The D.O.T. only allowing 16 feet entrance, plus there were some residents complaining about water run-off. The Council was supposed to ask someone from the County to come in and look at it. Then the swales went in. When the swales went in it only created part of the problem; most of the problem was created by the 16 foot entrance, which also changed the back or east side. The ordinance says he cannot cover only a certain per cent of the land; he did not exceed that per cent. The ordinance says you have to have a certain number of parking spaces, which he had. But law requires that you have to retain 1" of your own run-off and that is why the question was raised about a swale. Maybe the Board should think in terms of reducing the number of parking spaces rather than reducing the size of the parking spaces. Mr. Hall said that if required, the power pole and guy wire could be moved. Mr. Garthwaite raised the question of putting in some type of drainage system under the asphalt if that place was paved. Mrs. Martin said that the parking problem was not created by Mr. Hall but by the State. She noted that this type of business was of the type where the parking would not be stationary. There would be general movement, and there would be spaces available to the people entering. She did not feel that it needed to be tied down as to the number of spaces. People would not be stay- ing there all day. Mr. Woods noted that the building permits were issued based upon the site plan approval. He acted in reliance on the building permit. He felt that the City would have some kind of legal problem if they denied him some relief. Mr. Garthwaite said that the Planning Board has made some mistakes. He asked if Mr. Hall would consider paving the east area and putting a drain system in there, and Mr. Hall said he would not. Mr. Newell said he would recommend passing it with regular size parking spaces but fewer spaces. Mr. Hall said that would be fine with him. Mr. Wetzel called attention to the memo reo D.O.T. which stated that the City Building Official issued the building permit before the driveway permit was issued. Mrs. Martin suggested that the Board direct a letter to the effect that no more permits be issued until the State has been contacted for the driveway permit. Mr. Hall said if he had known the requirements he could have done something before the building was constructed. Board of Adjustments, April 27, 1983 - 2 - ~ . u o Mrs. Murphy argued that part of the problem was caused because the builder did not allow for run-off. A lengthydiscussion followed concerning the swale. Mr. Wetzel questioned whether the Board of Adjustments could grant a variance to the number of parking spaces required. Mr. Woods assured him that the Board did have that authority. Mr. Wetzel directed the members to follow the criteria for granting a variance (Sec. 904.01). Mr. Garthwaite referred to Sec. 9.5-57 (a) which states that on-site retention shall be provided for no less than one inch of runoff from all roofed, paved, and other impervious areas caused by or resulting from the project. He agreed that Mr. Hall was retaining the water with the swales. The members reviewed the criteria for granting the variance to the parking. Mrs. Murphy commented that if Mr. Hall got mad at not getting a variance he could sue the City and the City could sue Charlie Murphy. She did not want anybody to vote because they were afraid the City would get sued. She did not like the idea that if you donlt vote or go our way we'll sue you. Mr. Hall said he had not said that. Mr. Woods said that litigation was unpleasant for all concerned; no one was holding a threat over anyone. They were just asking for help from the Board. Mr. Wetzel asked if they would settle for 50 parking spaces; Mr. Hall said he would rearrange the west side anyway they directed. Mr. Garthwaite asked how Mr. Lucas would correct the problem on the west side. Mrs. Murphy asked if the 24 ft. driveway was allowed would they have had enough parking spaces. Mr. Garthwaite said no, because of the swale. Mr. Hall said they were discussing the parking - not the swales. Mr. Roush suggested removing four of the parking areas shown on the west end. At this point in the meeting everyone present seemed to be talking at one time. The secretary was unable to follow the discussion. Mr. Wetzel suggested eliminating six of the parking spaces. Discussion went to the plan, and which parking spaces were to be eliminated. Mrs. Murphy asked that it be explained where all the parking spaces were on the plan. Mr. Hall explained - Mrs. Murphy said she thought the drawing was inadequate. She said she would not have to appear so stupid if the drawing were not at fault. Mr. Hall said a lot of us cannot help our appearance. Mr. Garthwaite protested to the Chairman that that kind of a remark was out of line. Mrs. Martin made a motion that they approve the request, eliminating four spaces. The members felt it should be for eliminating six spaces. Mrs. Martin corrected her motion to approve the request eliminating six spaces because the problem was not created by the applicant. Mrs. Murphy asked if she could put in the motion the reason for it and was advised that she could. Mr. Roush seconded the motion. Mr. Garthwaite and Mr. Newell asked that someone point out on the plan where those six spaces were being removed from. Mr. Hall identified the parking spaces on the as-buil~ plan. The plan was submitted as Exhibit 1. The motion CARRIED 4-2. Mrs. Murphy and Mr. Garthwaite voted no. Mrs. Murphy said she voted no because there were too many unanswered questions. Mr. Garthwaite said he voted no because he believed the property on the east side should be paved for the best interest of the City of Edgewater. Marked parking spaces with curbs with a slight swale for water runoff. He does not approve of parking cars in a swale. Mr. Hall apologized for losing his temper. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Joan Taylor Board of Adjustment, April 27, 1~83 - 3 -