Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-88 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD OCTOBER 20, 1988 CALL TO ORDER PRESENT: Chairman Bruce Beatty, Vice Chairman Bob Colburn, Members: Vern Combs, Lowell Boggs, Alternates: Geneva Foster, Tanya Miller, Acting City Manager Dennis Finch, and Secretary Ellen King. ABSENT: Member Cliff Rhodes and Building Official Harvey Nagel APPROVALS: Mr. Boggs moved to approve the minutes of March 29, 1988 Board of Adjustment Meeting as presented, seconded by Mr. Combs and approved unanimously. SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST - MRS. FRANCES J. KELLEY Chairman Beatty asked Acting City Manager Finch to explain the special exception brought before the board. Mr. Finch stated the issue was whether the board should approve the continuation of a nonconforming use in a nonconforming building for the existing building located at 525 N. Lakewood Avenue. The property is presently zoned R -1 Single - Family Residential and is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Lakewood Avenue and Rewis Street immediately north of the railroad tracks. Mr. Finch further explained his comments of the October 17, 1988 staff report and stated that the staff respectfully recommends denial of the petitioner's request. Chairman Beatty read aloud Chapter I, Section 5.4 (5)(c) which was given in the staff report, and Chapter I, Section 5 (6). Mr. Beatty stated he had two concerns: (1) nonconforming use, and (2) nonconforming building. Chairman Beatty opened the public hearing to the petitioner. Thomas D. Marks, Attorney, 39 West Pine Street, Orlando, Florida 32801 represented Mrs. Frances Kelley (Petitioner) and stated that the petition was not for an extension of nonconforming use, but that a nonconforming use had been in existence since 1926. Over the years it has been used as a grocery store, paint store and vinyl /carpet sale store in a nonconforming use. The building had been involved in an automobile accident in May of 1988 causing damage. The city granted a permit to Mrs. Kelley for it to be repaired back to its previous condition, as a nonconforming use. Permits were granted for building and wiring, and then for %1r the Certificate of Occupancy. For those reasons, the City permitted the restoration of a nonconforming use to restore it to its exact specifications to its previous commercial use. Mr. Marks stated he would argue that the petitioner has relied on the City to her detriment because she spent a substantial sum of Page 2 Board of Adjustment Meeting October 20, 1989 money putting the building back together in order to use it as a commercial use, and now the city is considering not allowing her to do that. Secondly, Mrs. Kelly is not in any violation on any ordinance of the city. Mr. Marks referred to Chapter I, Section 6 and Chapter I, Section 5.4 (4)(b). Also, Chapter I, Section 5.4 (1) paragraph 2, sentence 3. No extension, no enlargement, it is the same structure as before. The city permitted it to be re- built. In fact, required it to be built to the same specifications giving indication that nonconformity would continue to be allowed requiring that the wiring be done to commercial use specification. It would be unfair to Mrs. Kelley to require her after investing her money into the property, not to be allowed to use it. The community is behind her. If the nonconforming use is there, how do we make it safe? Joseph Adkison, son of petitioner, spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Chairman Beatty recognized the residents in attendance and asked for a show of hands who were for the continuing of the nonconformance use of the property. Approximately 25 residents were present and all supported the petitioner. No one was opposed. Chairman Beatty asked for comments from the board. Bob Colburn stated he had reason to visit the building when it was a sign shop and had no problem entering or exiting the property. Also, he recalled the place was never untidy. Geneva Foster recognized the long time existence of the building, but commented on the increase in the traffic. She stated that there would seem to be a safety problem exiting from the property due to the curve. Vern Combs questioned if there was a curb on their side of the street and Mr. Finch stated there was not a curb. Mr. Combs felt that it would not be difficult to put in a curb. Mr. Combs stated that after listening to Mr. Finch and Mr. Marks that he felt that the intent from the city was there when the city gave them permits to re -build to let them use the building. Stated in the staff report was that the property had not been improved to current city standards, in such areas as stormwater retention, driveways, access, and parking. When the City gave them a permit to re -build to a nonconforming use, Mr. Combs felt that it was the City's intent to let them use it. Mr. Finch stated that his understanding when the building permit was issued was that it restored the building. He was not sure that it had anything to do with the use. Page 3 Board of Adjustment Meeting October 20, 1989 There was some discussion between Mr. Finch and Mr. Marks on the use of the building. Mr. Marks suggested that the Board recommend approval of a General Rule. Mr. Finch had no problem with a recommendation of a general rule. Mr. Finch did not think that the Board could arbitrarily say we will approve retail or commercial, but that it would have to be very specific, and then if the Board wants to go by general rule and authorize staff for the next time a new tenant comes in and the new tenant has problems, or the business is basically the same that staff can correspond. But, if it is different, then the Board of Adjustment will meet again. Mr. Combs questioned the process of the recommendation to the City Commissioners. Mr. Finch stated that it will have to be a specific use. Mrs. Kelley did not know what type of use she wanted until she ran an ad in the paper. Mr. Finch stated that the whole purpose for the General Rule is not to get so specific. Chairman Beatty read aloud a list of businesses from the City's Zoning Code under "Neighborhood Shopping District" (Chapter IV, Sec. 8) retail stores and shops. He asked the petitioner Mrs. Kelley if she felt the uses read would be what she would use for the building. There is a stipulation in the code which Mr. Beatty pointed out, Chapter I, Section 5.4 (3)(c), if she finds a tenant and he leaves, and the building is vacant for 30 days she can not use the building for a nonconforming use. Mr. Marks noted the text of Chapter I, Section 5.4 (5)(e). He suggested the board make a recommendation for that use. Mr. Finch stated the staff's concern is the parking, traffic, and ingress and egress. Lowell Boggs stated that the traffic pattern on the described roads will increase due to growth in the City. Mr. Boggs related the reason for nonconformity to the City's Code and stated that situations do change and it gives the board some flexibility to make those changes if necessary on a piece of property that has been given a nonconforming standard. Mr. Boggs could not see where the building demands any change. The building will not change, it will always be a 20 foot building. Any kind of business that goes in there will not increase the traffic to that extent. The normal growth in the area will change. He suggested that the Board let her continue her business venture at the same location. The Board should require some kind of designated ■ • parking area off of Rewis Street coming in from the side or the back rather than in front of the building. Page 4 Board of Adjustment Meeting October 20, 1989 Chairman Beatty entertained a motion to either establish a General Rule or a motion related to the case specifically and certain authorized uses and modifications to parking, from the board or a recommendation that we support the City's position. Chairman Beatty stated that he shared the boards' concern that the City did grant the building permit and perhaps did encourage her to re -build it as a commercial establishment. Vern Combs moved to recommend that a nonconforming use be granted under a General Rule, and that parking areas be designated off of Rewis Street. Bob Colburn seconded. Mr. Finch stated that in considering additional parking it may run into problems with the language regarding paving. Chairman Beatty stated that he respected the motion on the floor and that it would be voted on. His feeling after hearing all the testimonies and the position of the City and rereading the ordinances, was that the City was in a situation at no fault of the applicant. The applicant had a nonconforming use without special paving and without anything prior to the accident. Mrs. Kelly did come before the City and person(s) unknown did not properly counsel her regarding nonconforming uses, etc. She did reinvest in the property and had every intention to turn it back into its original purpose. Perhaps if the motion on the floor was defeated, Mr. Beatty would make the motion that no additional constraints be put on the property and that it would be allowed to be returned to a reasonable use designated by the City and City Staff. The intent of the Board is not to have a 7 -11 Store nor some giant nonsuitable use, but that the petitioner could continue to use the property as it was prior to the accident. Chairman Beatty called for the question on the motion that involved returning the property establishment as a general rule as well as additional parking concerns and restrictions. The motion was approved 5 to 1. The votes in favor were Colburn, Combs, Boggs, Foster, and Miller and the vote against was Beatty. This case should go before the City Commission on November 1, 1988 @ 6:30 p.m. COMMENTS: %bay CITY MANAGER No comments from the Acting City Manager. `Ir• Page 5 Board of Adjustment Meeting October 20, 1988 BUILDING OFFICIAL No comments from the Building Official. BOARD MEMBERS No comments from the Board Members. CITIZENS No comments from the Citizens. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Boggs moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. '<-1:"7 alik' c Chairman B tty Iiir ATTEST: rt Secretary Ellen ing *4411.-