Loading...
05-12-1988 u 0 LAND CITY OF EDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AGENCY REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1988 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER Chairman Nancy Blazi called to order a regular meeting of the Land Developmment and Regulatory Agency at 7:00 p.m., on Thursday, May 12, 1988, in the Community Center. ROLL CALL: Members present were Mr. Bennington, Mrs. Blazi, Mr. Garthwaite, Mr. Hardester, Mr. Klein and Mrs. Martin. Also present were Lynne Plaskett, Planning Assistant/Grant Administrator and Beverly Kinney, Board Secretary. Mrs. Glover was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of March 29, 1988, were presented for approval. Mr. Bennington stated the Hilldale request to cross the buffer into the City limits was incorrect. He moved to approve the minutes, but the minutes must reflect the tie in for water is located on Alamanda and "which he will be receiving from the City" be omited. Mr. Garthwaite seconded the motion. Motion Carried 6-0. VARIANCE REQUEST: Lawrence Lanchoney 110 Lincoln Road Single Car Garage R-2: Mrs. Blazi read sections of a letter from Mr. Lanchoney, a report from Mr. Fischer, Building Official, and a report from Mrs. Plaskett, Planning Assistant/Grant Administrator, into the record. (available in the Planning Department) Mr. Lanchoney was still complaining of noise and light problems from the Enjoi' Miniature Golf Course, and did not feel anyone from the City had been around to check on the situation. Mrs. Blazi pointed out there had only been a four (4) foot chain link fence erected as a buffer between the commercial and residential properties and the code called for a six (6) foot fence. Mr. Hardester brought up the easement at the back of the golf course. Mrs. Plaskett pointed out the planted buffer area had been done improperly and was not up to code. She also stated the owner of the golf course could have opened up the easement at the rear of the property, but did not at her request. Mrs. Blazi felt the Board's request for information had not been adequately addressed, and the Board needed to know if the project had been built as specified to the approved site plan. It was noted, the Lanchoney's had erected a six (6) foot wood fence as a buffer at their own expense. Mrs. Martin wanted to know why the Building Department had not followed up on the golf course while it was being constructed. Mr. Bennington stated he had been on Lincoln Road at night, and agreed the light corning from the golf course was as bright as day light, but he did not hear that much noise. He also didn't think putting up a garage would cut down on the noise and the only relief from the lights would be the front corner of the house. Mrs. Blazi pointed out there was nothing in the code addressing lighting. Mr. Bennington stated it was the lighting on the West side of the course that was a nuisance. Mrs. Blazi opened the floor for comments. Mr. Lanchoney felt that his buying property abutting the B-3 zoning district should have no bearing on his request. He felt he required the variance because there were irritating aspects to the environment next to his home. He added there was added noise by some of the equipment used at the golf course. Mr. Bennington felt the garage would not solve the problem. Mr. Garth- waite felt approving the variance would be "crutching" the system, and the Board should go through the Building Department and force the golf course to abide by the code, which means putting in the proper buffer, and making sure the landscaping is maintained. Mr. Garthwaite also wondered if the Board could work with the owner of the golf course to work some of these problems out. Q o Mrs. Hill, Lincoln Road, stated the developer had told the prospective buyers there would be a forty (40) foot setback between the residential and commercial properties. She stated six (6) foot fence was put up by the residents, not the commercial developer, and the trees that were planted had not been maintained. Mrs. Hill stated the lights from the golf course light up Lincoln Road at night and it is very difficult to see while driving home at night. Mrs. Hill did not feel the garage would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Bennington asked what legal grounds the City might have regarding the lighting. Mrs. Plaskett stated if Mrs. Hill's complaint about the lighting was true, there may be a safety hazard to the public which the City may be able to do something about. Mrs. Blazi reminded the Board, if they approved the garage, they would be approving of a nonconforming structure. She also felt the golf course does not do a booming business, and wondered how long it may be there. Mrs. Blazi felt because Mr. Lanchoney knowingly bought property abutting B-3 zonid land the Board should take this into consideration. She also felt there were other high volume, less atractive businesses that could have gone on that parcel of land. Mr. Bennington read an article from Saturday's newspaper. (didn't state which paper)"Stopping a public or private nuisance may take a law suit." "An example (private) would be a neighbors all night party or your neighbor's barking dog. Assuming it does not violate any law, the legal remedy to stop a private nuisance is a law suit. asking the court for an injunction to stop the activity. The most frequent defenses to law suits involving private nuisances include plaintiff moved to the neighborhood and knew of the nuisance, the nuisance has been tolerated for a long time, there are other nuisances in the area, statutory approval of such a building or use permit for the activity and use of the property in a legal manner. Only the last two defenses are held to be valid by the courts. The first three are not considered private nuisance defenses. If you want to. obey, the public or private nuisance problem, is to prove to the court the nuisance exists. If a public or private nuisance is preventing full enjoyment of your property, consultation with a real estate attorney is suggested." Mr. Bennington stated the Board realized Mr. Lanchoney had a problem, but granting a variance in violation of the code for a partial solution was not the way to go. The Board discussed the possibility of setting a presidence by approvlng this variance. Mr. Klein moved "because there are conflicting reports, it says here on this letter that these things were planted in the manner prescribed by the site plan, that they have since died and that the owner is planning to do something in the .near future, and it seems to be a question as to whether the water retention has been followed the way it should. I would recommend that we refer this to our City Manager to see if he can't get this straightened up. He is now in charge of this City~ Mrs. Blazi suggested they refer to the Building Official with a carbon copy to the City Manager, but Mr. Klein wanted the matter referred to the City Manager with a carbon copy to the Building Official. Mr. Klein added "they need to pursue the lights blinding these people driving down the street with our attorney, as being a safety hazard. If it's a safety hazard it certainly needs to be corrected, and that may be a temporary solution. What Mr. Bennington read may also be a solution. That is my recommendation at this point. Refer the whole letter along with the fact that they have a four foot fence instead of a six foot fence." Mrs. Plaskett pointed out the fence should have been SlX feet tall, and Mr. Lanchoney stated she was at the meeting when the site plan was approved which showed a four foot chain link fence. He felt his privacy was being violated. Mrs. Blazi called for a second to the motion. Mr. Bennington seconded, but asked that a time limit be set in getting the information requested. Motion Carried 5-1, with Mr. Hardester voting no. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, May 12, 1988 -2- o o Lanchoney continued: Mr. Garthwaite moved to table the variance request. After some discussion, Mr. Garthwaite withdrew his motion. There was further discussion about tabling the variance application pending the information requested. Mrs. Martin moved to table the variance request, seconded by Mr. Bennington. Motion Carried 6-0. The Board discussed the possibility of a special meeting if the information regarding the lighting and noise was available prior to the next regular meeting. SITE PLANS: SP-8619 Huntley Jiffy Indian River Boulevard Jim Clements B-2: The Board was informed the site plan had been approved by the former Planning and Zoning Board on October 2, 1986. Since then an easement had been vacated and other problems with the project had been corrected. The site plan before the Board at this time was an amended plan. Mrs. Plaskett stated there were other comments that Mr. Clements was not aware of ie: -the canopy as a strUGture needs to be set back twenty- five--feet from the property line. Th~ Board agreed to a twenty- two foot setback. Mr. Bennington brought up the six inch curbing, the east entrance should be one-way, lighting and intercom system. The Board discussed the trees currently in the visibility triangle, which Mr. Clements agreed to relocate. The Board talked about possible gasoline seepage into the ground, the number of driveways, loading zones, the sixty foot setback on Indian River Boulevard, and the possibility the gas pumps may have to be moved in the future. Mr. Bennington moved to approve the site plan pending the above items being addressed and turned into the Planning Department for review prior to the issuance of any permits. Motion seconded by Mrs. Martin. Motion Carried 6-0. SP-8802 Edgewater Mower Service Mango Tree Drive Fred Harpster I-I: Mr. Poland, owner of Edgewater Mower, wants to expand the existing building and provide additional parking. The Board discussed the size of the building, the fire rating required and a sprinkler system. They also discussed the lack of communication with department heads when it came to completing the site plan check list, and the fact that the Building Official does not fill out the form properly. Mrs. Blazi stated a handicap ramp would need to be installed. Mrs. Plaskett questioned the Board about the number of required trees and shrubs, because the current code does not address additions to existing structures. Mr. Poland pointed out there are currently one hundred and thirty two (132) trees, and the ordinance only required seventeen (17). Mrs. B1azi asked that the landscape ordinance be addressed at a later date. Mr. Poland felt if a site_ plan.comes in -for an addition to an existing building, the whole site should be brought up to compliance. The Board favored the idea. Mr. Harpster stated the comments from H.R.S. regarding the septic tank were in, and there were minor problems that could easily be addressed. Mr. Harpster stated the project cannot be tied into the City's sewer line, because the existing line is a force main. There was further discussion regarding the septic tank. Mrs. Blazi asked for a motion for this plan, and felt even though the request was not for final approval, the plans were very well done and final should be granted. Mr. Bennington moved to grant final approval, seconded by Mr. Garthwaite. Motion Carried 6-0. EXTENSIONS: Luis Geil Live Oak Apartments: Mr. Geil stated the site plan had been approved previously, but had expired. The plan came back and was approved again in May, 1987. The property has changed- hands. The owner is requesting the extension so he will have time to complete another project he is now involved with and still have time to start the Live Oak project. Mr. Klein did not feel it was sufficient cause to grant an extension. The Board discussed the extension request further. Mrs. Martin moved to grant a one time only, six month approval, seconded by Mr. Garthwaite. Motion Carried 5-1, with Mr. Klein voting no. Land Development and Regulatory Regular Meeting Thursday, May 12, 1988 -3- o o COMMUNICATIONS: A letter from Volusia County regarding the opening of a road at Massey Airpark Ranch was discussed. The Board wanted to know if the Council had received a copy, if not who did, and who wanted the letter to come before the L.D.R.A. The Secretary stated the Mayor received the letter, and a man from the ,County came to see him with a survey showing where the road would be. The Mayor stated he had no problem with the request. The L.D.R.A. was not formed by the deadline date given for a response by the Coun~y. Mr. Klein moved that the letter be passed onto the Council and to ask why no action was taken on it. Mr. Bennington seconded the motion. Motion Carried 6-0. Louisa Street: Mrs. Fox of Lovell Real Estate was in need of a ruling from the Board as to whether the property were nonconforming lots of record and buildable for duplexes. Mrs. Fox stated there were duplexes all around the property. Mr. Bennington stated he had looked at the site and had read the code book, and the only thing permitted on a nonconforming lot would be a single family home. The Board discussed the current R-4 zoning and the existing duplexes on the block, a home which was built in 1980 as a single family home and then converted into a triplex in 1985. A discussion took place regarding the inter- pretation of the ordinance as it relates to nonconforming lots of record and the requirements of the R-4 district. Mrs. Plaskett questioned if a duplex could be built. They met the minimum width and square 'footage requirements, and it is in the R-4 district. She also stated there was no information available as to whether the existing triplex was converted legally. Mrs. Fox asked if she should tell a prospective buyer to file for a variance if they want to build a duplex on the lot, because there are other multi-family dwellings in the area, and felt the property would not sell with a price of $25,000.00 for single family. There was further discussion regarding the intent of the nonconforming section of the ordinance. Mr. Bennington moved to allow only the construction of single family homes based on Mrs. Plaskett's memo to the Board, the property is zoned R-4, and it does not meet the requirements of R-4. It falls under nonconforming lots of record, and the way Mr. Bennington interpreted the section, only single family homes could be built. Mrs. Martin seconded the motion. Mrs. Fox suggested rezoning the property to R-l. Motion Carried 6-0. Mr. Garthwaite moved to send this problem to the City Attorney for his interpretation, seconded by Mrs. Martin. Motion Carried 6-0. Comprehensive Plan: Mrs. Plaskett stated she was asking permlsslon to have the consultants doing the housing and infrastructure elements address the comments received from D.C.A., and have the replies sent to the Planning Department. Mr. Klein so moved, seconded by Mr. Hardester. Motion Carried 6-0. Mrs. Plaskett stated the final draft for the capital improvements, intergovernmental coordination, conservation and traffic circulation elements were due to D.C.A. on September 30, 1988. She felt it was imperative that the future land use element be done before the intergovernmental coordination element. D.C.A. had no problem with switching "work products", but she needed a recommendation from the Board to have a letter sent to Council to do it. Mr. Hardester asked to be kept up to date regarding the status of the comprehensive plan. Mrs. Martin moved to allow Mrs. Plaskett to send the letter, seconded by Mr. Hardester. Mr. Klein stated the motion should include what the letter is in regard to. Mrs. Martin amended her motion stating the letter was to amend the contract to replace intergovernmental coord- ination with future land use. Motion Carried 6-0. Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, May 12, 1988 -4- o o Unmanned Car Washes in B-2 as a Special Exception: Mrs. Blazi stated the former Planning Zoning Board recommended allowing unmanned car washes as a special exception in the B-2 district. The ordinance was drawn up, but Council received some letters of protest from local businessmen who are located near the railroad tracks. Mr. Bennington stated he would like to see all auto related business removed from the B-2 district, because they didn't belong there. Mr. Hardester felt it detracted from the neighborhood. Mrs. Blazi felt the use, as a special exception, was the issue at this point. The Board discussed the possibility of this being considered an accessory use to a gas station or auto business. Mr. Klein moved that the Board recommend that unmanned car washes be permitted in the B-2 district as a special exception, seconded by Mrs. Martin. Mrs. Plaskett explained the special exception allows the Board to put certain con- ditions on the use and each application would be handled on an individual basis. (Ordinance 88-0-9, amending section 606.01(d)) Motion Carried 5-1, with Mr. Hardester voting no. OFFICER REPORTS/BOARD MEMBER REPORTS: Mrs. Blazi informed the Board the Secretary had worked up a new form for special exception/variance criteria. Each Board member was given a copy and asked to look it over for discussion at the next meeting. Mrs. Blazi called for a break at 9:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:55 p.m. The tape recorder did not work properly during the rest of the meeting. The remainder of the minutes are from the Secretary's notes. The Board considered a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Board and local developers to discuss recreational impact fees. Mr. Kelly, Interim City Manager, requested the joint meeting, and asked it to be held either June 9, or June 16. Mr. Sheridan, resident of Edgewater, stated the original formula was based on a population of 3.03 persons per household, but the current formula is 2.45. The figures are based on information from the Census Bureau. Mrs. Plaskett pointed out the City is sometimes "cheated" out of fees because the fees are based on undeveloped land, such as Edgewater Landing. The fees would be greater if figured on a developed parcel of land. She also felt the fee should be paid as each building permit is pulled. After further discussion, the Board agreed they would prefer to meet on June 16. Mrs. Martin so moved, seconded by Mr. Klein. Motion Carried 6-0. Mr. Hardester stated he would not be available for the meeting. The Board discussed the problems with Dennis Fischer doing his job as Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer. Mrs. Blazi felt the matter should be handled administratively and only items that have come before the L.D.R.A. should be brought to the attention of the Interim City Manager. Any other items should be brought to Mr. Kelly on an individual basis (as a private citizen). The Board asked the Secretary to send examples of the problems they have had with Mr. Fischer in the past, but not to include problems from the Planning and Zoning Board or the Board of Adjustment. The Board questioned the fact that Mr. Fischer is not certified as a building official, because they thought he had agreed during a taped employment interview to become certified if hired. Mrs. Blazi stated she had talked with Mr. Kelly about separating Code Enforcement from the Building Department. There being no further business to come before the Board, Mrs. Martin moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Bennington. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:20 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Beverly Kinney Land Development and Regulatory Agency Regular Meeting Thursday, May 12, 1988 - 5- f