Loading...
01-11-1990 {J (,) LAND CITY OF EDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AGENCY REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 1990 6:30 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER Chairman Nancy Blazi called to order a regular meeting of the Land Development and Regulatory Agency at 6:30 p.m., on Thursday, January 11, 1990, in the Community Center. " ROLL CALL: Members present were Mr. Bennington, Mrs. Blazi, Mr. Fazzone, Mr. Garthwaite, Mr. Hellsten, Mr. Klein, and Mrs. Martin. Also present were Mark P. Karet, Director of Planning and Zoning, William Vola, Fire and Rescue Chief, Mike Hayes of the fire department, Councilman Danny Hatfield, and Beverly Kinney, Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of September 28, 1989, were presented for approval. Mr. Garthwaite moved to approve, seconded by Mrs. Martin. Motion Carried 4-2. Mr. Hellsten and Mr. Klein voted no. Mr. Fazzone abstained. The minutes of December 14, 1989, were presented for approval. Mr. Garthwaite moved to approve, seconded by Mrs. Martin. Motion Carried 5-0. Mrs. Blazi and Mr. Hellsten abstained. The minutes of December 18, 1989, were presented for approval. Mrs. Martin moved to approve, seconded by Mr. Garthwaite. Motion Carried 7-0. The minutes of December 28, 1989, were presented for approval. Mr. Fazzone moved to approve, seconded by Mr. Hellsten. Motion Carried 6-1. Mr. Bennington voted no. CONTINUED ITEMS: VA-8908 Variance 2304 Victory Palm Drive (Dwinal Property) William Hathaway, Attorney, was present to request a variance to place a canvas awning over a preexisting concrete slab and place screened panels on the inside fenced area within the required building setback. Mr. Karet gave a brief summary of the location, zoning, and required setbacks of the property. He noted there was a 3,000 square foot "envelope" in which to build. It was noted by Mr. Karet that no hardship exists because there are other areas on the property where the "screen room" could be built and not encroach into the required setback or cause an increase in the nonconformity of the structure. Mr. Karet pointed out the fence erected around the existing slab was permitted by the city, but the awning and the screen panels were a violation of Section 305.00 (setback encroachments for all districts), and Section 400.03 (nonconforming structures). Mr. Karet went through the five (5) criteria citing the planning departments reasons for recommending denial of the variance request. Mr. Hathaway presented photographs to the members showing interior and exterior views of the "screen room". Mr. Hathaway stated he was amending his request of five feet six inches (5'6") to three feet two inches (3'2"), because the awning actually started at the wall of the building not at the edge of the roof. Mr. Hathaway believed the "screen room" should not be considered a structure because it was removable. The screen panels are 1 Q o freestanding and the awning can be rolled up. Mr. Hathaway stated the Dwinal's had applied for a fence permit and a permit for the awning. The Dwinal's had even supplied a photograph of a similar awning so the building department would be aware of their intentions. When they came to City Hall to pick up their permits, they were told no permit was required for the awning. It was noted by Mr. Karet that inhouse inquiries have not substantiated the applicant's contention. The Dwinal's were then cited by the code enforcement department. Mr. Hathaway believed that based upon representation of the city, the Dwinal's should be granted the variance. The members and Mr. Karet discussed the process for issuing a building permit. Mr. Hathaway added the Dwinal's had expended money based on information received from the city. He also added that the expense of removing the screen panels and the awning constitute a hardship. Mr. Hathaway stated the Dwinal's would agree to a time limit of five (5) years or until the "death" of the awning, and would pay any permitting fee applicable. Mr. Karet noted the Dwinal's had been cited by the enforcement department, but as yet had not gone before the Enforcement Board. He added that the Dwinal's may have inconvenienced, but there was no hardship. The applicant demonstrate that no reasonable use of the property can be without a variance in order to demonstrate a hardship. code Code been must made After much discussion the majority of the Agency members agreed they sympathized with the Dwinal's, but did not believe they met the requirements for a variance. The members voted on the variance criteria. Items A, B, C, and E failed. Item D passed. Mr. Klein moved to deny the variance request because four (4) of the five (5) criteria had not been met. Mr. Fazzone seconded. Motion Carried 5-2. Mrs. Blazi and Mr. Hellsten voted no. Mrs. Blazi noted she was very concerned about possible misinformation being given out by city employees to the general public. Mrs. Blazi called a recess at 8:05 p.m. back to order at 8:15 p.m. The meeting was called NEW ITEMS: SP-8918 Sea Treasure Seafood Addition 109 Everqreen Drive Mr. Fred Harpster, engineer-authorized agent, and Nester Olijynk, owner,were present to request preliminary site plan approval. Mr. Karet pointed out the site plan had not been approved by the fire or planning department, because it does not meet code, and staff recommends denial of the request. William Vola discussed fire flows, codes, fire hydrants, occupancy levels, regarding the proposed addition. In his professional opinion the current fire flow would not support the present or the proposed addition. He noted the water line is forty-five (45) years old and is only two inches (2") wide, which provides less than thirty (30) gallons per minute (gpm) to fight a fire, and seven hundred fifty (750)gpm is the minimum amount of gpm needed for fire protection. Mr. Vola noted the hundred sixty feet seven hundred feet closest fire hydrants are approximately two (260') away on the west side of U.S. 1 and (700') away on the east side of U.S. 1. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, January 11, 1990 2 o o Mr. Vola added that In the event of a fire U.S. 1 would have to be shut down and the traffic would have to be rerouted. Mr. Vola noted that the Florida Department of Transportation traffic counts indicate that traffic would be backed up for over a mile north and south on U.S. 1. Mr. Vola informed the members that he had received a memo from Police Chief Schumaker which stated a fire at the seafood market would be a burden on the police department in trying to reroute traffic from U.S. 1. Mr. Vola believed there were solutions to the developers problem. The six inch (6") line could be extended under U.S. 1 from the west side to the east side, but it would not be financially feasible. A six inch (6") line could be extended up from Riverside Drive at approximately ten dollars ($10.00) a linear foot, or a sprinkler system could be put in the building by running an extra two inch (2") line at a cost of approximately two dollars ($2.00) per linear foot. It was noted by Mr. Karet that the developer had been notified of the options available to correct the fire flow problem, but chose not to take them. There was some discussion regarding fire southern part of Florida Shores. Councilman was not aware of the problem until the fire formed and Mr. Vola had been hired. protection in the Hatfield stated he department had been Mr. Harpster stated he was not aware of the problem of fire protection until recently. He was not sure a five hundred and seventy (570) square foot addition would be that much of a fire hazard, and the owner wanted to come to the Agency with the plans as they are. Mr. Olijynk asked the Agency to overrule the decision of the Fire Chief. He stated the original building had been built in 1986, his insurance company gave him a lower rate because he fell just within the maximum allowable distance from a fire hydrant, his insurance rates will stay the same even with a sprinkler system, his place of business is inspected by the Health Department (for grease, etc.) every forty five (45) days, the city fire department could inspect every business every three (3) months to help prevent fires, the addition will be made of cinder block, the addition itself is small, there is plenty of time for escape in case of a fire, the sprinkler system could fail, the police department could reroute traffic if there was a fire, the chance of a fire in any given location is once every three (3) years, and if he had known about the fire protection problems in the beginning he would not have started this project. He pointed out that the former fire safety inspector had originally approved the site plan and since this plan had been in the pipeline during the transition period of fire safety the former fire safety inspectors decision should be used. Mr. Oiljynk believed if fire safety was such a big problem, then there should be a building moratorium. Mr. Klein was excused from the meeting at approximately 9:00 p.m. It was noted that over the current cooking area there was dry chemical fire suppression, not a sprinkling system. Mr. Bennington moved that the developer must bring site plan up to standards with a two inch (2") line from Riverside Drive for a sprinkler system. Mr. Hellsten seconded. Mr. Garthwaite amended the motion to state the site plan has to meet fire codes of the Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, January 11, 1990 3 ~ ~ ~ city and N.F.P.A. codes. Mr. Bennington and Mr. Hellsten agreed to the amendment. Mr. Bennington then withdrew his motion, and Mr. Hellsten withdrew his second. Mr. Bennington moved to approve the preliminary site plan, but the owner/developer must meet one (1) of any of the suggestions made by the fire chief as per his December 8, 1989 memo. Mr. Hellsten seconded. Motion Carried 6-0. SP-8919 Robert Graham Office BuildinQ Guava Drive Mr. Graham, property owner, plan. Mr. Karet noted that applicant, and the planning and final site plan approval. was present to discuss this site all requirements had been met by the department recommended preliminary There was discussion as to the proposed use of the building. Mr. Bennington pointed out storage was not a permitted use in the B-2 district and from the site plan submitted it seemed that storage would be the primary use. Mr. Graham stated he would be storing two (2) trucks and some of his drywall supplies for his business, and he would also have an office in the building. There was also discussion regarding the number of parking stalls shown on the site plan, which totaled three (3). There was further discussion regarding the limited use of the building because of the lack of parking provided. It was noted that Mr. Graham was aware that the permitted uses would be limited. There was discussion about placing some type of wording in the deed so that if someone purchased the property from Mr. Graham, they would be aware that the parking limited the use of the building. Mr. Graham agreed to this. Mr. Garthwaite moved to approved preliminary and final site plan approval provided documents were presented to the city prior to the certificate of zoning being issued regarding the limited use of the building due to the lack of parking. Mr. Hellsten seconded the motion. Motion Carried 6-0 DISCUSSION ITEMS: There was discussion about the city attorney attending meetings in the future. Mr. Bennington moved to have the city attorney start attending every first meeting of the Agency each month, seconded by Mr. Hellsten. Motion Carried 6-0. There was a request by some of the members to have coffee provided at future meetings. Mr. Hellsten asked to be excused from the January 24, 1990 meeting. There being no further business to come before the Agency, Mr. Hellsten moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Martin. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, January 11, 1990 Minutes Respectfully Submitted by: Beverly Kinney, Secretary 4