Loading...
01-26-1989 Q (.) CITY OF EDGEWATER LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AGENCY REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M. THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1989 COMMUNITY CENTER Chairman Nancy Blazi called to order a regular meeting of the Land Development and Regulatory Agency at 6:05 p.m., Thursday, January 26, 1989, in the Community Center. ROLL CALL: Members present were Mr. Bennington, Mrs. Blazi, Mr. Garthwaite, Mrs. Glover, Mr. Klein, Mr. Mackie, and Mrs. Martin. Also present were Jose Alvarez, City Attorney, William Powers, City Manager, David Mitchum, Mayor, Joseph Ong, Planning and Zoning Director, and Beverly Kinney, Secretary. NEW ITEMS: Mr. Mackie moved to start with items 3, 5, 7, and 8, and then go to the regular agenda schedule, Mrs. Glover seconded. Motion Carried 7 - o. Sketch Plan Storage Shed 1804 Hibiscus Drive: Mary Hanson, attorney, was present to represent Paul Bowman, owner. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the type of construction (metal or wood), whether the shed would be on a concrete slab or skids, ventilation for the shed, and the materials being stored. The members went through the Department Head comments. There was a brief discussion regarding an alley at the rear of the lot. Mrs. Joan Strong, resident of 18th Street, was also included in the discussion. There was further discussion regarding locking the shed, the shed area being fenced, and the use of non-flammable materials. Mrs. Glover moved to approve the sketch plan with the area being fenced, the shed being locked, and the use of non-flammable materials. Mrs. Martin seconded. Motion Carried 5-2. Mr. Bennington and Mr. Klein voted no. Petition Requesting Falcon Avenue Not Be Opened To Florida Shores Subdivision: The Agency went through the Department Head comments, and Mrs. Blazi read the petition from the homeowners of Pelican Cove West subdivision into the record. Mr. John Scherz, 905 Egret Court, was the appointed spokesperson for the group attending. He stated the subdivision was laid out as a large cul-de-sac, and access to or from Florida Shores would cause traffic problems, elevate the chance of crime, and cause v.ehicular/pedestrian accidents. Mr. Scherz also discussed the previous and many problems the homeowners have had with the subdivision and the developer. There was discussion among the members with Mr. Scherz that included emergency vehicle access, and the six foot (6') planted buffer between Florida Shores and Pelican Cove West. There was some discussion about the homeowners blocking off the Florida Shores access. They were advised they would need to make formal application to the City. There was no action taken by the Agency regarding this request. Variance Request 515 N. Ridgewood Avenue: Mr. Bennington moved to recess for a public hearing, seconded by Mr. Klein. Motion Carried 7-0. There was no one wishing to address the Board during the public hearing for a variance of fifteen feet five inches (15' 5") from the required twenty-foot (25') side corner setback to allow a structure nine foot seven inches (9'7") from the property line. This application goes with a site plan to place a walk in cooler on the property if the variance is granted. Mr. Bennington moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mrs. Martin. Motion Carried 7-0. Mr. Bennington believed this did not qualify for a variance, because it was a non-conforming structure as per section 400.03, and he would be adding to the non-conformity. Mr. Ong stated he would recommend approval of this request, and when the site plan was previously to the Agency, Mr. Perry was told to apply for a variance. Mr. Ong stated it was "our" feeling that the reason you have variances is to take care of situations that aren't covered. It was non-conforming before, it was not of his doing, and he answered the questions that are required to get a variance, therefore, "we" recommend approval. Mr. Alvarez asked ~ o o what the basic requirement for a variance was. Mr. Ong stated you would have to answer the questions. It is where special circumstances exist which are beyond meeting the normal codes and ordinances. Mr. Alvarez stated the basic requirement for a variance is a matter of hardship. A variance is a very un- usual and seldom granted remedy, because in essence it is ~ departure from 'the zoning ordinance. When you grant a variance you are allowing to do something that the ordinance prohibits. Mr. Ong agreed. Mr. Alvarez stated he agreed with Mr. Benington's statements. Mr. Alvarez stated unfortunately it's always the element of sympathy, and it's a tough job, but the ordinances are there. Mr. Perry was asked to address the Agency. He stated he was trying to do something beneficial for the whole community by taking the location from a straight liquor bar to restaurant with a lounge, and he had received a building permit to do the renovations. Mr. Bennington asked if he had received a permit from the Building Official. Mr. Perry stated yes, but it had nothing to do with this request. Mr. Bennington stated it did, and asked that it be put on the record that a building permit was issued in violation of our ordinances. No building permit can be issued in B-3 zoning unless it comes before this Agency with a site plan. That's the code. Mr. Perry believed that was true if you changed the footprint of the building, but he was not doing that. Mr. Bennington stated he was wrong, but to go on. Mr. Perry stated he was under extreme hardship be- cause the room was very important to him to be able to serve more food and the longer he is delayed in getting this, the more detrimental it is to the new type of business he is trying to open. He added he had started this process in November. He presented some photographs showing the site from several angles. Mr. Mackie asked if the permit he received was for interior or exterior work. Mr. Perry stated it was for the outside. He stated that the bar business has dropped 40% in the last five (5) years, and he is trying to save his business by adding a restaurant. Mr. Perry stated he was entitled to relief from this hardship because it was not his fault the building was erected prior to the current ordinances. Mr. Perry presented another set of photo's which showed the "Club 319" which faced the exact same situation and received a variance, and a building permit to add a band room to the original structure, in approximately 1983. Mrs. Blazi asked Mr. Alvarez to go over the concept of a variance. Mr. Alvarez stated that in the past there had been laxity in the granting of variances. When the line is going to be drawn is a difficult decision, but it has to be made. However, those issues are not before the Agency tonight. Basically you have special exceptions and variances. They exist for the purpose of providing relief when as a result in a change of zoning, uses and structures are no longer permitted. Special exceptions are uses listed in the code book, which are granted with certain conditions, and to which the applicant is entitled, because they are listed. They are not automatically a matter of right like permitted principal uses, but they are with conditions imposed by the Agency. The variance on the other hand is to do some- thing which as opposed to the special exception, which is listed, is to something which is prohibited by the ordinance. However, the old Board of Adjustments had the power under very controlled circumstances, which are listed in the code, could grant a variance from the ordinance. Mrs. Blazi asked how old the building was. Mr. Perry believed it was probably forty (40) years old. Mrs. Blazi asked if it could be interpreted as his circumstance change and the structure became non-conforming because of the code. Mr. Alvarez agreed, and that was covered under Section 400.02, under non-conforming structures and uses. Mr. Alvarez believed the non-conformity could remain in the zoning district, but could not be enlarged or altered. With the passage of time the non-conformity will disappear. Mr. Alvarez believed this was not so much a variance of the existing setbacks, but this should be looked at under the non-conforming section of the code. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, January 26, 1989 PR~P. 7 o o Mr. Alvarez asked what were the setbacks when the structure was built, and when he adds this room is he intruding into todays set- backs, or is he within the setbacks at the time the building was erected. Mr. Mackie stated to his knowledge there were no setbacks. Mr. Bennington stated the code was amended in 1984 to include set- backs in the B-3 district. Mr. Alvarez stated this is not a variance. Present setbacks will not allow the enlargement. It goes into a gray area when the Agency has to look at what he is doing, is it beneficial or detrimental to the City, will the enlargement place the new add- ition too close to an existing property line, building, or street? Will the new addition hinder emergency services? When you look at non-conforming structures you can just simply say there will be no enlargement whatsoever, or you may have a gray area to work with so long as you follow a criteria. Mrs. Blazi stated the Department Heads overall had no problem with this, but she was not sure if they knew what a variance was. Mr. Perry pointed out he had more than an adequate amount of setback to the rear, and he is not trying to intrude further into the setback. Mr. Alvarez stated that was up to the Agency. (there were three (3) different conversations going on at this point) Mr. Alvarez said non-conforming structures may be enlarged or altered ln a way which decreases the non-conformity. They cannot be enlarged or altered ln a way which increases its non-conformity. Mrs. Blazi asked if simply by changing the footprint of the building does not mean you are increasing the non-conformity? Mr. Bennington answered by stating if the increase is in an area where there is no non-conformity then you are not increasing the non-conformity. Mrs. Blazi asked why Mr. Perry could not move the cooler into the area where there would be no non-conformity. Mr. Perry stated if it was moved the cook would have to go through the restaurant area to get to the cooler, instead of straight through the kitchen into the cooler. Mrs. Blazi asked if the Agency would look at this, not as a variance, but as a different issue dealing with the non-conformity since the Attorney has given his opinion, and he believes there is a gray area in which the question can be asked, does the request increase the non-conformity? Mr. Bennington moved that if this is allowed to be built it is increasing the non-conformity, seconded by Mr. Klein. Mrs. Blazi clarified that the motion states by granting the request the non- conformity of the structure would be increased. Motion Carried 5-2. . Mrs. Blazi and Mr. Mackie voted no. Mr. Perry asked for a clarification. Mr. Alvarez stated the proposed enlargement increases the non-conformity so Mr. Perry would be free to change his plans so an enlargement could be made. The enlargement as presented has been declared to be increasing the non-conformity. Mr. Perry stated he was aware that people on the Agency were not aware of what they were voting for. Mrs. Blazi disagreed. Mr. Perry stated he had the approval of all the Department Heads. Mrs. Blazi stated the Department Heads were handling a variance. This is not a variance, it should not be a variance. That is what was determined by the majority of the Agency, and th~ majority of the Agency believed it would be increasing a non-conforming structure according to the code book, and until the book is changed there is nothing else the Agency can do. Mr. Perry asked if he had any recourse. Mr. Bennington stated he could request that the code be changed, or change the design. Mrs. Blazi asked if he could appeal to Council. Mr. Alvarez stated it would have to be looked into. Mr. Bennington moved to have the Attorney review Section 715.02 regarding building permits being issued in violation of the code, seconded by Mrs. Martin. Motion Carried 7-0. Land Development and Regulatory ~gency Regular Meeting Thursday, January 26, 1989 Page 3 o o ALAMANDA RIGHT-Of-WAY HELP-V-SELL LIBRARY: Mr. Ong gave a brief history of the shared parking concept for the Library and Help-V-Sell. Per the City Attorney it was alright to have parking for the library in the right-of-way. The Department of Transportation stated they would like to see fewer curb cuts on S.R. 442. Mr. Ong explained the two (2) sketches presented to the members showing shared parking concepts. Mr. Donnie Williams of Help-V-Sell stated he had already signed an agreement with the City and had put the sidewalk in as requested by the Agency. He added he had lost about three (3) weeks and a thousand dollars ($1,000.00) in the process. He would agree to work with the City, but had no intention of spending anymore money in the process. Mr. Williams stated Alamanda Drive had been opened by the developer, not the City many years ago, but the City had failed to maintain it. There was discussion regarding landscaping, a lien to cover any work done if an agreement can't be reached with Magnuson Corporation. Mr. Williams stated he would prefer to go with the parking arrangement as approved on his site plan, and if the library parking comes to pass, he would work with the City. Mr. Garthwaite moved to go with Mr. William's original approved site plan, and the City should proceed to see if the property (right-of-way) can be used for library overflow parking. Mr. Mackie seconded. Motion Carried 6-1 with Mr. Klein voting no. Sketch Plan Eastern Shores Mobile Home Park 10 Camino Real Drive Open New Road and Close Current Access: Mr. Sheldon Vidibor, owner, explained he wanted to close the current V.S. 1 access and open an access either on Camino Real Drive or Eaton Road. The members went through the Department Head comments. The members discussed the problems with access from Eaton Road and Camino Real Drive (Eaton Road is not paved, large amount of elderly residents in mobile home park, near fat Bob's which is a dangerous intersection. Camino Real Drive empties onto Marion Avenue in the industrial area which is dangerous to elderly residents). Mr. Garthwaite moved to reject the request, and leave the access as is. Mr. Klein seconded. Motion Carried 5-2. Mrs. Blazi and Mr. Mackie voted no. Mr. Klein was excused at 8:50 p.m.. Annexation Request 2751 Alamanda Drive and 2750 S. Ridgewood Avenue: Mr. Larry Carson was present to represent Mr. David Hall and himself regarding the annexation request. Mrs. Blazi went through the feasib- ility study done by Department Heads. Mr. Carson explained they were already tied into City water, and just wanted to be annexed into the City. The members discussed the six foot (6') planted buffer being vacated early by Council regarding the Carson property. After some further discussion Mrs. Martin moved to recommend approval of the annexation request to Council, seconded by Mr. Mackie. Motion Carried 6-0. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS Request to Vacate Cocoa Palm Drive Right-Of-Way: It was noted that William Powers, City Manager, was requesting the Agency to reconsider their previous decision to vacate a portion of Cocoa Palm Drive for setback requirements, leaving a twenty-five foot (25') easement for utility and drainage maintenance at 2057 Guava Drive, Norman Cox, owner. Mr. Cox was present and gave a brief history of the process he had been going through since March of 1988 regarding this property. Mr. Ong explained the problems the City is having trying to obtain access to drainage easements in the City. Mr. Powers explained the City wanted the right-of-way, and may need it in the future. Mr. Alvarez gave a brief history of how easily variances, vacations, etc. have been granted by the City in the past. Mr. Klein arrived at the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, January 26, 1989 Page 4 o o Request to Vacate Cocoa Palm continued: Mr. Bennington agreed the City may need the right-of-way some time in the future. Mr. Cox was willing to enter an agreement with the City so that he could use the right-of-way for required setbacks on his property, and the City could keep the right-of-way. The Agency discussed vacating the right-of-way versus a variance for Mr. Cox's property. Mr. Cox stated he was aware the Council had final say, and the Agency could not be held liable for Mr. Cox's selling the property without final say of the Council as far as the right-of-way was concerned. Mr. Bennington stated he did not believe the City Manager should intercept items going to the City Councilor the City Attorney, such as this request, because it should have gone to the City Council, not back to the Agency via the City Manager. He added the Agency was still awaiting a joint meeting with the City Council to have a policy established for the Agency members. There was some further discussion regarding the Cocoa Palm right-of-way. Mrs. Martin moved to send this back to City Council as originally intended, and to deny the request for re-review by the City Manager. Mr. Mackie seconded. Motion Carried 7-0. Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Bennington moved to recess the meeting and reconvene in the next week to finish the agenda. Mr. Klein seconded. Motion Carried 7-0. The meeting was recessed at approximately 10:10 p.m. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, January 26, 1989 Page 5