11-14-1983 Special
o
"
Q
CITY OF EDGEWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 1983
Minutes
Chairman Bennington called the special meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.,
in the Community Center. He advised that the purpose of this meeting
was a fact finding workshop for the purpose of developing record for
the City Council concerning Park Plaza.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Opal, Finn, Quaggin, and Hi1lerich.
Mr. Hillerich arrived at 7:10 P.M. Mr. Chenoweth was excused. Also
present: City Attorney, Jose Alvarez, two members of the press, secretary,
Susan Mista, and various members of the audience.
Chairman Bennington asked each person to identify themselves that is
involved in this workshop, for the purposes of the record. Judson Woods
spoke on behalf of Muriel Williams, a lessee of one of the units, he is
her attorney. Mr. Gillespie spoke as attorney on behalf of Frank Hall.
No one else identified themselves as being involved in this Park Plaza
Workshop.
Chairman Bennington asked if anyone on the Board had any questions. Mr.
Opal stated he had something to read as a matter of record for all
concerned. He stated it involves Ordinance 79-0-13 which is the Code
for the City, the "Bible". He then passed a copy of said document to
each member and proceeded to read same to the Board members. (See copy
of said document attached hereto.) Mr. Opal further stated he would not
partake in any discussions, pro or con, he was not going to get involved
in any kind of litigation. He said they have a book to go by and they
have not abided by any of it; there are a lot of violations, flagrant
violations, and he will not participate in any part of it.
Chairman Bennington said that what they were here for tonight is to
determine a record of what is going on, the supposed use of the building
at Park Plaza, to est~bli~h a record for City Council so decisions can
be made. Mr. Quaggin questioned what the original site plan shows.
Chairman Bennington showed Mr. Quaggin the first plan that came before
the Board as a warehouse complex. The plan that was finally approved
was for offices and storage, there being no changes in the lay-out, except
for the name. Mr. Finn stated that the problem now is with parking spaces
for the proposed bar that is seeking an occupational license with the City.
He said he is not sure there were enough parking spaces to begin with.
Mr. Hillerich said he was not familiar with this complex inasmuch as it
came before the Board before he was appointed. He questioned whether
units 1, 2, and 3 were being used by the restaurant, to which Mr. Bennington
replied that only units 1 and 2 were used by the restaurant. Judson
Woods clarified that it was units 13 and 14, to be exact. Mr. Hil1erich
further stated that he understood this to be classed as a zero lot line
condominium concept, and he was unfamiliar with that terminology. He
said the parking spaces have been remarked for angle parking and the
question seems to be whether everyone can use the parking spaces or if
they will be aligned with the zero lot line of the particular units as
they are sold.
Chairman Bennington questioned Frank Hall as to who owns the parking lot.
Mr. Gillespie spoke on Mr. Hall's behalf in saying it was owned by a non-
profit corporation, similar to a condominium association, that controls
the parking lot as a condominium. He compared the situation to the
Persimmon Place condominium. Chairman Bennington questioned whether
these people are responsible for the maintenance of the parking lot,
drainage, exterior of the building, to which Mr. Gillespie replied, yes.
Mr. Gillespie explained that there is a 60 page Declaration that sets
out in detail the specifications regarding maintenance which is subject
o
Q
to the City's Ordinances and the State's Statutes. He further stated
this Declaration is on record in the Public Records of Volusia County
and he can make a copy available to the City Attorney, if so desired.
Mr. Finn asked if this is a condominium complex if each section is
assigned designated parking spaces, to which Mr. Gillespie replied that
that was correct. He stated the association has absolute control over
the operation of the common elements and the owners govern and abide by
the Declaration.
Mr. Finn questioned that there is a difference between a condominium
where people are living in the units and a condominium concerning
businesses. Mr. Gillespie responded that the legal structure and con-
cepts are the same, there is no difference in the type of operation,
the type of use of the facilities, they are all subject to the control
of the non-profit corporation that is composed of the unit owners in the
association.
Chairman Bennington stated that the problem is that the structure was
approved for the use of offices and stores and the parking at that time
was determined under that zoning classification, which would be one space
per each 200 square feet. The problem came up when people came in asking
for licenses to conduct a type of business that required more parking.
Under the City Ordinances, they cannot issue a license until the Building
Official has determined that the issuance of the occupational licenses are
in conformity with the zoning use for which they are requesting. In the
case of the restaurant or the bar, they need more parking spaces than is
available.
Mr. Opal referred the Board to Section 300, page 1535, the entire para-
graph. Chairman Bennington said that was the same thing as on page 1636,
Item 2. He said that what you are saying is no building, structure or
land shall be used, occupied or altered unless it complies with the zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Opal said that is correct, you cannot change it. Chairman
Bennington said you cannot change it unless it complies. It also says
the site plan cannot be altered once it is approved, unless it comes before
the Planning Board. The site plan was originally approved for offices
and stores and was built that way. So far it has been established that
the units have been sold as condominiums, there is a condominium ownership,
which jointly owns the parking lot, drainage, exterior of the building,
and they are assumably legally responsible for any accidents that occur
on that property, not the City. Mr. Gillespie stated that that was one
of the benefits of condominium ownership. The owners association is
liable for maintenance, insurance, etc. They are totally liable for
everything.
Mr. Alvarez stated they needed to know the future uses, available parking
and the plans in that respect. Chairman Bennington asked what the rest
of the units would be used for. Mr. Gillespie responded that he did not
know but that the units would have to qualify with the zoning Ordinance
and the parking requirements. He stated he thought a CPA firm would
occupy one, a shoe store for another, but he was not sure of the other
establishments. Chairman Bennington stated the biggest problem he could
see was with some of the units overusing the parking and there not being
enough parking spaces for a couple of units, and they would be denied a
license. Mr. Gillespie stated the unit owners are locked in to the
requirements of so many parking spaces per square feet.
Judson Woods stated that his client originally applied for a license for
seating for 24. She has since taken the pool table out and has resubmitted
an application for a license for seating 16 with a beer and wine bar -
she now complies with the Ordinance. He further stated that her use
would probably not interfere with any of the other uses in that most
people go to bars at night. Chairman Bennington advised that the Ordin-
ance states that parking assigned for one use may not be used for another.
He said the plans were approved for 1200 square feet and 6 parking spaces
per unit. The problem arose when someone wanted to pull a license for
use greater than 6 spaces per unit. The 200 square feet per use was
determined for offices and shops. The license is now being asked for a
-2-
Planning Commission Special Mtg.
November 14, 1983
o
o
bar and the closest item listed is a restaurant which requires one space
for each three seats, plus one for every two employees on the largest shift,
and the pool table was in there at the time which required two spaces for
each table - and this ran the number up to 14 spaces being required.
Mr. Gillespie stated that he asked Mr. Hall about the permits and he told
him it would be strictly for whatever type of occupation or business could
be operated in this particular zoning, subject to the parking requirements.
He stated he is satisfied there are businesses in the area that have
several hundred square feet more for building than they do for parking -jl
spaces. Chairman Bennington referred to a letter from Mr. Hall, dated
September 1st, before final approval, which said that the use of this
building will be for offices and shops as permitted in Section 606.02
of the City zoning Ordinance, which defines B3 Business District. There
will be 14 individual units measuring approximately 24.24 by 50 ~eet, or
1200 square feet. Offstreet parking as shown on site plan is in compliance
with the Code requirements as stated in Section 700.01 of the zoning
Ordinance, which means offices and shops were one parking space per 200
square feet. A bar does not fall under that - it falls under different
parking requirements. Mr. Gillespie responded that the letter could be
construed either way. He said that the letter states he intends to comply
with the B3 parking requirements, that being so many square feet for the
businesses and the parking spaces regarding same. Chairman Bennington
advised Mr. Gillespie that he was mistaken. The zoning requirements for
B3 say to refer to Section 700. Section 700 breaks down the type of
businesses wherein the parking is different.
Mr. Alvarez asked how they could prevent the situation of the parking
being utilized and having one or two units where no parking will be
available. Due to the variety of uses in B3, you may get down to the
end of the line and there will be no parking spaces left unless some
land is acquired. As the parking is utilized, the availability of uses
is restricted. As the future owners purchase the units, they will be
limited as to what type of business will be allowed. Mr. Gillespie
responded that they contemplated the number of parking spaces for every
200 feet and that is exactly how the building scheme was developed. Chair-
man Bennington said the parking was computed for offices and stores, not
restaurants, bars, etc. Mr. Gillespie said that as long as the businesses
only require the number of feet that is available, they will comply with
the Ordinance.
Mr. Alvarez stated that everyone recognizes the potential for the problem.
The initial design was for warehouses and it is now being used for a
shopping center. There needs to be found a solution. We have to be
aware of the potential problem and then what happens when an owner comes
and buys a unit, in good faith, and then he cannot pull a license because
of the parking requirements. Mr. Gillespie said there may be a vacuum in
the Ordinances that could be plugged up. He cannot find anything in the
Ordinance that addresses this condominium type complex but he is willing
to sit down with the Board and work out some solution to the problem that
they have and someone in the future may have. Chairman Bennington stated
they would not treat a condominium concept any differently than a rental
concept.
Mr. Alvarez said that the location of the bar is at the narrowest end of
the building. The need for emergency vehicles would be greater in a lounge
than in a, for example, shoe store. If an emergency would develop in
that lounge, it could be that there would be no way for an emergency
vehicle to get to it. Chairman Bennington advised that the problem with
the restaurant, on the other end of the building, was solved by the
Ordinance that says that the required parking space cannot reasonably be
provided on the same lot where the principal building or use is located,
such required parking space may be located on other land within 200 feet
of the principal building or use, provided the land is under the same
ownership or long term lease. That is how the restaurant provided the
parking, but that parking cannot be used by anybody else.
Mr. Woods stated a bar would be used in the evening, as opposed to a CPA
and shoe repair shop, which will be open during daylight hours. He said
his client is willing to work with the Board and Council in solving the
problem. He bought the unit in good faith and rented it to his client
who wants to utilize it as a bar. She was unaware of the parking problems.
-3-
Planning Commission Special Mtg.
November 14, 1983
o
~
Chairman Bennington stated if the bar was only open at night and the other
businesses were only open during the day, you could use half of the
parking. Spaces required for one use may not be assigned to another use
except that one half of the parking spaces required for churches, theatres,
or other places of assembly whose peak attendance will be at night or on
Sunday may be assigned to a use which will be closed at night and on
Sundays. If someone opened up something that was only open in the daytime
and she was only open at night, then they could use half of her parking
in the daytime but they would never be allowed to be open at night and
she'd never be allowed to be open in the daytime.
Mr. Opal asked if they were only discussing parking or the whole thing.
He said he understood at the Council meeting, they told them to check into
this from beginning to end. All they are talking about is parking. Chair-
man Bennington stated the Council motion read back to the Planning
Commission and the whole project and anyone that owns anything there, get
with the Planning Board to see what they have there and what parking spaces
are there, the traffic flow and any deviation from the site plan. Mr.
Opal said he would still insert Ordinance 79-0-13 and 81-0-4, as he first
presented it. Chairman Bennington asked if anyone saw any deviation in
the site plan as it was approved, other than the title. Mr. Hil1erich
stated he had not gone out and counted the parking to see if it is still
the same. Mr. Hall stated it is angle parking in the front and rear.
The front is not totally angle parking. Mr. Finn stated that the plan
was approved for offices and businesses and now it is a condominium with
a restaurant, bar, etc. - it will be hard to control the traffic and
parking problems in the complex. Mr. Woods stated his client would
comply with all the requirements of the lounge.
Mr. Gillespie stated that Mr. Hall indicated there are several other
owners present at the meeting. Chairman Bennington asked the other owners
to identify themselves for the record. Joan Roberts stated she had a
shoe repair shop; John Wilbur stated his unit is unoccupied, he has it
for rent but does not know what type business will go in - possibly a
barber shop, beauty parlor; Craig Mitchell stated he was undecided as to
what type business he would put in; Fred Vanzin stated he owns the
restaurant; Warren Wilson stated he purchased the unit as an investment
and has no intended use for it at the present time; Judson Woods reiterated
that he represents Muriel Williams who wants to put in the bar. Mr.
Gillespie stated that the owners of the CPA firm is not here, the owner's
name is Stroup.
Mr. Alvarez questioned how many units remain to be sold. Mr. Gillespie
replied, 6.
Mr. Hillerich advised that there seem to be changes in the complex that
do not comply with Ordinance 80-0-59. He asked if this plan came back
before the Planning Board for the adjustments that were made to the west
end of the property, changing the parking and retention area. Chairman
Bennington advised Mr. Hillerich to read page 857 under what is required
to issue a license. He stated that anyone who comes in and applies for
a license",before the Clerk can issue a license and with concurrence of
the Building Official that issuance of said occupational license will be
in conformity with the zoning Ordinances of the City, and it was not
in conformity of the zoning Ordinance of the City and the Council came
up with what was needed to have it comply and they had to purchase the
adjacent property to do so. He stated that would not constitute a change
in the site plan. Mr. Hillerich stated that that was not the way he
understood it. He said what was approved does not match what is existing
now. According to 80-0-59, any change made not required by either a
City change in policy and/or small engineering problems should be brought
to our attention. Frank Hall stated that the City Engineer that was
hired for a week came out and reviewed the retention area and said it
complied with the requirements.
-4-
Planning Commission Special Mtg.
November 14, 1983
o
o
Mr. Hillerich stated he was not arguing that what he changed conformed to
the Code, he read from the Ordinance that any amendments must be sent to
the Zoning or Planning Board for approval. He further stated that it
should have been brought back before the Planning Commission for an
amended site plan to figure out the parking situations, future use situation,
and all of this should be looked in to.
Chairman Bennington advised that they were here to find the facts and
they found the facts.
Mr. Opal said that he had the minutes of the Zoning Board for June 18th
and June 28th, that it was originally zoned from B6 to B2, he was at
that meeting. Chairman Bennington said that has nothing to do with what
they were meeting tonight for. He said that issue didn't concern the
Planning Commission when it came before them. The Planning Commission
was told that it had B3 zoning.
Mr. Alvarez stated that the proposed beer tavern was taking up one unit
and he questioned whether a new application had been submitted, to which
Mr. Judson Woods replied, yes, that the parking requirements had been
cut down. Mr. Alvarez asked whether his client was flexible to the hours
of operation, to which Mr. Woods replied, yes. Mr. Alvarez said they
could possibly work out some cross-parking agreement type of situation,
cross-parking agreement use.
There being no further discussion concerning this matter, upon motion
made by Mr. Hillerich to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Opal, the meeting was
adjourned at 7>:55 P.M.
Minutes submitted by:
Susan Mista
-5-
Planning Commission Special Mtg.
November 14, 1983
o
o
EDGEWATER,FLORIDA
.NOV. 1/If,1983
"SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR FAIR PRESENTATION"
TO WHOM IT MAY CON6CERN.
PLANNING, ZONING, SUB-DiVISION CONTROL~ AND BUILDING CODES
ARE 'lliE Iv1EANS BY WHICH A COMMUNITY CHArtTS ITS FUTURE.
USEFUL TO IDENTIF'j PRESSING PROBLEl>1S AND NEEDS OF A
COMMUNITY WHICH CAN BE EFFECTED BY PLANNING SHOULD INCLUDE
PASSED RECORDS OF LOCAL AND PRESSING PROBLElwiS.
REFER~ CE: . 1
SEC.l~B, PAGE 1133 CODE OF CITY OF EDGEWATER FLA.
THE BOARD IS HEREBY DESIGNATED AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PLANNING AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
(LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1975)
"THIS ACT REQUIREB BY FLORIDA LAW".
THE BOARD SHALL HAVE ALL THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO
THEM PERTAINING AS A ZONING COJ'.1MISSION AND LOCAL PLANNING
AGENCY AS SET FORTH AND PROVIDED FOR UNDER 'lliE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE STATE AND THE CHARTER,ORDINANCES AND RESOL-
UTIONS OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER. (ORD.81-0-4, 3/23/810
REFERAicE:
SEC.300.00 PAGE 1535 CODE OF CITY OF EDGEWATER,FLA.
NO BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR LAND SHALL HEREAFTER BE USED OR
OCCUPIED, AND NO BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR PART THEREOF SHALL
HERE AFTER BE ERECTED,CONSTRUCTED,RECONSTRUCTED,MOVED OR
STRUCTURALLY ALTERED EXCEPT IN CONFOm.fITY WITH ALL OF 'nIE
REGULATIONS HEREIN SPECIFIED FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT
IS LOCATED.
TO AVOID ANY INCENTIVE FROlw1 PUBLIC OR PERSONAL DOUBTS ABOUT
THE LAWFULNESS OF ANY INTENDED ACTIONS OR ERRq/a PERSONALI,Y
RECOMEND THAT THIS APPLICATION BE RETURNED TO THE EDGIDVATER
CITY COUNCIL FOR INTERPRETATION AS TO L~~ULNESS RELATED
TO PLANNING, ZONING, BUILDING CODES AND RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY.
~ - --
SINCERELY
~ _ /(; . -_I C /.:
flA .{/)/' n!:.) '(J ~1;:;77L"""rd-t...4 /:c.(!c:(~o-
'tJ"r e L' C ':~Jil ~~..c~ A - - \J
" 0 .~~. :- tvJ;tl
---./-) fi' : .' _-.----r- ".. l./
/~. ~ ; ,; .".; / . .f ~. ,. !... ,,,........ F
.~~v J ~ f i.-"Vl l' ../ '~.~;.' _ .' .; _...." ~. c'-"v \.
.., r I . ~. '. .' ... r"'t. r - .
) C)
J., cL;. ,::.~L~~, ",/1 " , " (/ ~L ! 1C 71 ~ t) -) 3 ,A"J~ ,jL~ \J C c...! r ~<.(, (02"", 'l.A vg/~"r
'./ 0'., ' ,(--,..:f. /.--; r ~J__'- : I
e;.- ~.t 4,.. .........,..'tt I. ~ ...I- L : '-_ {.t. . t ~ .....:,..J-/ r I 1'7-~'
o _.. ./" ' [, ,/. r (' ____i f) _J/-;",;-l-,n1r.r.
\~:> ~ P-v i~, i _.; -/7 _ (' _,- .. {" ~ (- .-, {".' \.. ,', /-7)'" ."';:.- ~;:1::./.L ~.ll?!-.z;;,...J-J. I;:~ I~'"
~'. . , c...,... '_r'-' 't.-' - /l.~ /... ."r~ "r~I,(i ~ '1"t11f .... -. .r\. ":t:;k~~ '.' (J"t/ iL' ~ ' r
. . .". _.~....-' 4........~. I. ,. - . .......... V'. ..' ') .' /. J '\
. . - \:;--J/,- . ~-r".:r ; I C;":"./ ,- .-:..(/. !.: .A I'~'{;"fc..<~ e>r~ 't".l",:~. i~c.\\.
IY....>-..- Ir....r_.-/~, .... ..'V -'.-~'.' .C" -- C.......
, . . .
o
.
o
Date~(/V:nd;:-C._ /~-L1!..G3
.
T k/9/1//JIMc;,
C~N/w;:S'!!:/"AJ
~-t:IZ.-I A L /J1r"t.7/A/t:;
'1: (? tJ ,/J /Jf....
-_.
-- ..------ ------
-_. ------ --
-- --- ---
--
-- -.--.-- ----
-
------ ----
~&k__(??_? L ____________ ___________________ ______________ _____
~tI h/vN
----- -- ---- -------- --- ------- -- ----_.-
i {~/'i:e (J..4t~.'tJ171 _____ ______ ___ ______ _____
"()Il!Gf!. QAt$.c.;""" ____
. __~{)_dUt~~
~~~~AI~;~9-~-
I h_
I
I
_ --__ ____.1 _ __
- - -_ _I .__ ._
.. !
I
1_ .. _ __ _ _ _
I
i
I
I
I
I
-- -------- ------- - -- I.. _ _ __ _ _ q_ I
_______ ___ -----___J __ __ _ __ __ __ __ J~___n- _- .. ~u _ __uu______ - n -- , -j-
I -- - --j- - - --
I n__.n_ T --- ---- .... .... ) -I .. ....
] .--... n_:_~._ .r-~ -~:~ _-.-. ... .u_~j~--- :..::-]-:.--f.::.-
- .- - r- ---
L-__ -
I
L
1_._-
I
.J
no __ _____ -' .
- . - - J.-- ~n
- _ _ _ J
r-
-----j