Loading...
05-09-2001 .... """'" ...... CITY OF EDGEWATER Planning and Zoning Board Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 9,2001 6:30 p.m. Chairman Garthwaite called to order the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board at 6:30 p.m., May 9, 2001 in the Community Center, 102 N. Riverside Drive, Edgewater, Florida. ROLL CALL Members present were Mr. Masso, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Vopelak, Mrs. Zeese, Mr. Youkon and Chairman Garthwaite. Mr. Hellsten was excused. Also present were Lynne Plaskett, Planning Director; Bonnie Wenzel, Planning Secretary; Pat Drosten, Board Coordinator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Masso made a motion to approve the minutes of April 11, 2001. Mr. Mullen seconded. Motion PASSED 6-0. . OLD BUSINESS ...... N one at this time. NEW BUSINESS VA-OIOI- Ray Lenois, Artesian Pools, authorized agent for Gene Mirabella, owner, is seeking a variance of four-feet, ten-inches (4'-10") from the required ten-foot (10') rear setback and one-foot (1') from the required five- foot (5') setback from the home to construct a swimming pool. Chairman Garthwaite opened the public hearing and asked Mrs. Plaskett to give background information on this case. Mrs. Plaskett read the staff report and background information into the record. She further explained that staff asked Dennis Fischer, Building Official to explain to the Board what the five (5) foot separation was in the code for. Mr. Fischer was unable to attend the meeting, he did however supply a memo for explanation. Mr. Masso asked what was meant by a signed and sealed drawing and what was meant by the five (5) foot separation. Mrs. Plaskett explained how a pool could undermine the house, and drawings signed and sealed would ensure the integrity of the footers would not be undermined. Chairman Garthwaite felt most of staff's recommendations have been answered --.,. by Mr. Fischer's memo. He asked why it was stated that no construction Planning & Zoning Board 05-09-oI.doc 1 ..... ..." variance be granted. Mrs. Plaskett explained how the new LDC allowed the Building Official to grant a construction variance for mistakes. '-' Mr. Youkon stated he felt the setback requirements we have in place are not necessary , and should be changed. Mr. Vopelak asked if the setback requirements were the same for any structure. Mrs. Plaskett stated that there are different requirements for different zoning areas. Although, pool setbacks are the same no matter the zoning district. Mr. Masso felt changing the codes would not make sense, as this was a special circumstance. Mrs. Plaskett agreed. Chairman Garthwaite felt the pool should be located as close as necessary to meet the requirements. He further asked if the agent would like to speak. Mr. Jim Cole, Artesian Pools stated he did not understand the staff recommendation number two (2). Mrs. Plaskett explained that staff did not want the pool to be located any closer than five (5) feet to the property line. Mr. Cole stated the pool would be five feet-two inches (5'-2") from the line. There was discussion of the reasoning of the I 0- foot setback for pools. Mr. Youkon asked if one (1) foot of decking could be eliminated near the house to bring the pool into code. Mr. Cole stated it did not make sense to have such a narrow pool. ..... Discussion ensued regarding the placement of the home. Artesian previously stated that the house was set to far back on the property to allow for the pool to meet the setbacks. Staff determined the house was within the required setbacks. Mr. Cole stated that Artesian has qualified people to layout the pool and will have a new survey after completion. Mr. Masso asked what would happen if the replat did not agree with the layout approved. Mr. Cole stated they would start over. Mrs. Plaskett read into the record a letter from the property owner's doctor stating why she was in need of the proposed pool. Mr. Masso then asked what size would the pool have to be to meet the setbacks. Mr. Cole stated eight (8) feet wide, and further noted that was not normally done. There was discussion regarding the five (5) findings of fact. The Board was unsure if they were to approve all five (5) in order for the variance to be granted. Chairman Garthwaite called a IO-minute recess at 7:20 p.m. ~ Chairman Garthwaite resumed the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Planning & Zoning Board 05-09-Ol.doc 2 ...... ..." Mrs. Plaskett explained the new iDC and said the Board had the option to make a motion to approve or deny the request. Mr. Youkon felt that "shall" in the ~ code meant, "have to". Chairman Garthwaite felt an interpretation from the City attorney would be beneficiaL Chairman Garthwaite closed the Public Hearing. The Board voted on the five (5) findings of fact. 1. The granting of the proposed variance will implement specifically identified policies and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. PASSED 6-0. 2. The granting of the proposed variance will not result in creating or continuing, a use of either structure, the land or a combination of land and structure, which is not compatible with adjacent land uses in the area. PASSED 6-0. 3. The granting of the proposed variance is the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property. FAILED 3-3, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Y oukon, and Mr. Vopelak voted no. "-" 4. The phYSical characteristics of the subject site are unique to the specific site and not present on adjacent-sites. FAILED 1-5, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Youkon, Chairman Garthwaite, Mr. Masso, and Mr. V opelak voted no. 5. The circumstances creating the need for a variance are not the result of actions by the applicant, or actions proposed by the applicant. PASSED 4-2. Discussion ensued as to whether or not another vote should be taken. Mr. Youkon made a motion to report the results of the findings of fact and send them to the City attorney for determination as to whether or not in light of our findings of fact a variance can be granted. Seconded by Mr. Masso. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VA-OI02 - C.W. Ascherl, owner 2201 S. Ridgewood Ave., Lot 29, Friendly Shores Mobile Home Park, is seeking a variance from the required 20-foot front setback to three feet (3') to replace the existing 12' x 60' mobile home with a 24' x 48' double wide mobile home. Chairman Garthwaite asked Mrs. Plaskett for the background on this case. Mrs. Plaskett stated that there was an error in the LDC that has been brought to the glitch committee's attention, as a result of that Mr. Ascher! is not in need of a ,.... rear setback variance. Planning & Zoning Board 05-09-Ol.doc 3 .~ ...." Chairman Garthwaite opened the Public Hearing. ~ Mr. Youkon noted that while reading staff's findings of fact he concluded approval for the variance, while the staff recommendation is denial. Mrs. Plaskett stated staff has recommended the same variance as the previous requests from Friendly Shores. She further stated the reason for recommending denial was that there seemed to be reasonable use by replacing the home with one the same size. Mr. Vopelak asked if the double wide would cover any more area than currently covered. Mrs. Plaskett explained the coverage of the lot. Mr. C.W. Ascherl, owner, stated to the Board that a 12-foot wide mobile home could be purchased, but would be very expensive. He further noted that he was requesting a one (1) foot variance to the front setback, and stated there were already four (4) doublewides in the park. Chairman Garthwaite closed the Public Hearing. The Board voted on the findings of fact: ,..,. 1. The variance requested arises from a condition that is unique and peculiar to the land, structures, and buildings involved and is a condition that is not ordinarily found in the same zoning district. PASSED 6-0. 2. Strict compliance with area, setback, frontage, height, bulk, and/or intensity requirements would result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant as distinguished from restrictions imposed by this Article on all other property in the same zoning district. PASSED 6-0. 3. The condition is not the result of the actions of the applicant or the property owner. PASSED 6-0. 4. Granting of the variance will not create unsafe conditions or other detriments to the surrounding properties or public welfare. PASSED 6-0. 5. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land or structures. PASSED 4-2, Mr. Mullen and Mr. Vopelak voted no. 6. The variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of this Article and the City of Edgewater Comprehensive Plan. PASSED 6-0. Mr. Mullen made a motion to grant the variance providing all conditions are met. Mr. Vopelak seconded. MOTION PASSED 6-0. ........ Planning & Zoning Board 05-09-01.doc 4 .. '-' ...." Consider rezoning certain parcels of land as part of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan EAR Based Amendments. Designating a new zoning classification '-' for each property from current County zoning to City classification. Chairman Garthwaite read the agenda request. Mr. Vopelak asked about the chart containing the comparison between County and City zoning. Mrs. Plaskett explained why the chart was in the packets. The Board wanted to vote on the rezoings with one (1) motion. Mr. Youkon suggested voting on the large and small-scale amendments separately. Everyone agreed. Mr. Masso made a motion to approve the proposed zoning for large-scale map amendments. Mr. Mullen seconded. MOTION PASSED 6-0. Mr. Masso made a motion to approve the proposed zoning for small-scale map amendments. Mr. Vopelak seconded. MOTION PASSED 6-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Planning Director's Report None at this time. 2. Chairman's Report __ None at this time. Mr. Mullen asked Mrs. Plaskett if they could get some reasoning from the City Manager's office and the Legal Department as to why they discourage the Board members from meeting with potential developers. The Board asked if they could get some type of identification as Board Members since they visit sites. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Bonnie A. Wenzel Board Secretary. :baw ~ Planning & Zoning Board 05-09-01.doc 5