Loading...
07-29-1997 CITY OF EDGEWATER CONSTRUCTION REGULATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING JULY 29, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Sid Corhern called to order the regular meeting of the Construction Regulation Board (CRB) on Tuesday, July 29, 1997 at 6:59 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room. ROLL CALL: Members present were Vice Chairman Sid Corhern, Gary Madole, Bob Howard, and Woody Tindall. Les Ogram, Michael Bosse, and Nancy Swiney were recorded absent. Also present were Mark P. Karet, Director of Community Development; Robert A. Dunn, Building Official; Krista Storey, City Attorney; and Tonya Elliott, Board Coordinator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vice Chairman Corhern asked for a motion to approve the minutes of March 11, 1997. Mr. Tindall so moved. Seconded by Mr. Corhern. Motion CARRIED 2-0. Mr. Howard and Mr. Madole did not vote since they were absent from that meeting. Vice Chairman Corhern went over the procedures for appeals before opening the public hearing. He said there would be a presentation from staff, a presentation from the property owner, an opportunity for Board members to walk across the street and look at the subject property, and then discussion on the issues at hand. He said there would be no recordings taken while at the property, therefore no conversations should take place. PUBLIC HEARING: Vice Chairman Corhern opened the public hearing appeal by Douglas Molstre and Carol Dunn, 101 Park Place, of the Decision of the Building Official under Section 706.00(c) of the Edgewater Zoning Ordinance regarding the grade applicable to a determination of fence height. Mr. Dunn, Building Official, was sworn in at this time. He began by explaining the history of events, starting in May when the property owners came to the Building Department requesting a permit to place a new fence adjoining Park Avenue up to the appeal hearing taking place. He said staff worked with the owners advising them on setbacks, and the height and structural requirements for building a block fence prior to the permit being issued. Mr. Dunn said then in June, it was discovered that because of the grade being used to build the block wall it was in violation of City Ordinance height requirements. Mr. Dunn did not issue a stop work order at this time because the property owner agreed he would not place any blocks above 6' so he could continue on with the job. During conversations Mr. Dunn had with the property owner it was brought to his attention that they wanted to increase the height of the wall up to possibly 10' high to eliminate the noise and lights Construction Regulation Board July 29, 1997 Page -02- caused by the Police Department. Mr. Dunn concluded by saying numerous fence permits are issued with no problems, some requiring him to establish a grade height. Vice Chairman Corhern asked if there were any questions from the Board. Mr. Howard asked if there was ever any mention that the fence would be over 6' prior to the issuance of the permit. Mr. Dunn said no. There was some discussion on the foundation of the block wall, and the uniqueness of the lot since it has 3 street sides. Since there were no more questions from the Board, Vice Chairman Corhern opened the hearing for the property owners to make their presentation. Mr. Doug Molstre and Ms. Carol Dunn, 101 Park Place, were sworn in at this time. Mr. Molstre began by saying that everything Mr. Dunn said was factual. He said Mr. Dunn used the sidewalk when establishing grade, but according to the plan he submitted for permitting he was standing in his yard looking north. He said the grade hasn't changed by adding fill and presented photographs to the Board. He said his plan was to take down the existing wall and build a new one with a good footer that would step down according to his property. Mr. Molstre and Ms. Dunn said the reason for the block wall was because of the nuisance caused by the Police Department. Vice Chairman Corhern called a brief recess for the Board members to go look at the wall, reminding them they were to have no discussion during this time. Upon everyones return, Vice Chairman Corhern asked if there were any further comments. Mr. Dunn recapped the events that took place, and said he felt staff was very fair when establishing the grade. He addressed problems that could arise if the city was put in the position of allowing the block wall to be higher than City Ordinance allows. Mr. Molstre reiterated that the plans submitted for permitting were drawn from his grade. Ms. Dunn went over the different hardships she feels they have. There was a lengthy discussion on the established grade, and which section of the block wall was the issue. Since there were no more questions, Vice Chairman Corhern closed the public hearing at this time. He said it was up to the Board to determine if Mr. Dunn was being fair and correct when establishing grade, and asked for discussion or a motion. Mr. Howard said this is one you agonize over and can appreciate the property owners problem with noise, but he doesn't feel a 10' or 20' block wall would take care of the noise or lights. He also feels that the west side 30' back should have been stair stepped from the beginning down to the east toward the river and should have been Construction Regulation Board July 29, 1997 Page -03- brought up during the time of permitting. Mr. Howard after hearing the testimony presented, moved in reference to the appeal by Mr. Douglas Molstre that the decision of the Building Official regarding the grade application to the determination of the fence height be upheld. Motion FAILED for lack of a second. Mr. Madole said he feels the land owner should be able to go by their grade even if it is higher than the city grade, and put that in the form of a motion. There was discussion on the natural and unnatural grades, and the berming of the property. Mr. Dunn said he wanted to make sure the property owners were aware they would loose a lot of money in the construction, and that the wall would be completely altered the way it has been built if the motion passed. Mr. Karet said by using the owner's grade, the west end would be 4' but it would take away from the height at the east end. Vice Chairman Corhern asked if there was a second to the motion. Mr. Tindall so moved. Motion FAILED 2-2. Mr. Corhern and Mr. Howard voted no. Vice Chairman Corhern asked for more discussion or comments on which direction to proceed. Mr. Howard said he would like to revisit the west end again and the stair stepping effect. There was a lengthy discussion on trying to establish a grade and fence height that would be in the best interest of everyone. Mr. Howard moved that the decision by the Building Official in reference to the grade applicable to a determination of the fence height on the property located at 101 Park Place, Edgewater, is upheld except as to the following: As to the west thirty (30) feet, the fence shall be erected four (4) feet above the property owners' grade. For the next fifty-five (55) feet four (4) inches east to the gate or opening, the fence height must be staggered to achieve a height of six (6) feet above the property owners' grade. East of the gate or opening for a distance of one hundred and five (105) feet, the fence shall be staggered to achieve a height of six (6) feet above the grade of the sidewalk. Seconded by Mr. Madole. Motion CARRIED 4-0. ADJOURN: There being no further business to come before the board a motion to adjourn was made and seconded. Meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Minutes Respectfully submitted by: Tonya L. Elliott, Board Coordinator h:\tonya\crb\minutes\july29.97