Loading...
05-16-1984 " . u v CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MAY 16, 1984 Minutes Chairman Don Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Wheeler, Chenoweth, and Ann Thomas. Mr. Quaggin, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Finn were excused. Also present: Susan Mista, secretary, one member of the press and various people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 2, 1984, meeting, seconded by Mrs. Thomas. Motion CARRIED 3-0, Mr. Chenoweth did not vote because he was not present at the last meeting. SITE PLAN REVIEWS SP-8400 - Michael Link - Retail, Wholesale Business - 26th & Guava Mr. Link was present to discuss his site plan. Mrs. Thomas stated that she may have a conflict of interest concerning this site plan due to the fact that the firm she is employed by may possibly consult with this applicant in the construction of this proposed business. Chairman Bennington questioned Mr. Link as to whether or not he had seen the ~etter that was sent by Scott Spooner of Briley, Wild concerning this site plan. Mr. Link advsied that he had. He also stated he had been up to their office several times, trying to submit the necessary stormwater management calculations to them to receive approval for this site plan. He then presented revised site plans to each Board meember to review. In addressing the letter from Scott Spooner, Mr. Link advised that he had complied with item 1 in drawing the project to scale. He also stated that he has had his engineer prepare the requested information but has been unable to contact Scott Spooner to review them. Chairman Bennington advised him that the City now has an engineer that they have hired and he will go over these calculations and Mr. Link will not have to go back to Briley, Wild for their comments. Mr. Wheeler asked how many parking spaces there would be, to which Mr. Link replied, 4. Mr. Link referred the Board members -to item 3 of Scott Spooner's letter, wherein it states that it must be shown on the plan what measures will be taken to prevent runoff from the parking area. Mr. Link showed the members on the revised site plan how his engineer shows how the drainage will occur. He also stated that behind this property is a 25' drainage ditch. Mr. Wheeler questioned the swale area and Mr. Link showed him on the plan how there will be gutters to take the water to the retention areas. Chairman Bennington said that all the land swopes down in the rear of the property to the canal. He said he did not see anything wrong with the site plan, pending the new city engineer accepting the drainage system. Mrs. Thomas made,:a motion that this site plan be given final approval, subject to the City Engineer approving the drainage system and two sealed sets of plans given to the Planning Department, prior to issuing a building permit. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. SP- 8427 - A-I Truss Company - Trus:$ ,Plant - 1521 Industrial Drive Orville Hawkins was present to discuss this site plan. /1 J , I J o o Mr. Hawkins presented the Board members with a revised set of plans. Mr. Wheeler questioned Mr. Hawkins as to how many trees would be on the property, to which Mr. Hawkins replied, 10. Mr. Wheeler also questioned the parking area, and Mr. Hawkins showed him on the plans where the area would be, stating that it is 100 by 200 in size. Chairman Bennington said that the driveways must be 20', the plans only show 12'. Mr. Hawkins stated that they had planned on them being 20', the engineer who drew the plans must have made an error. Chairman Bennington asked how many employees there would be, to which Mr. Hawkins replied, 8. Chairman Bennington advised him that the Code requires 1 parking space for each employee and 1 for each company vehicle. Mr. Hawkins said that they have more than enough parking spaces and showed them on the revised site plan. Mr. Wheeler made a motion that this site plan be given preliminary and final approval. Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Motion CARREED 4-0. SP-8428 - Volusia Truss Co. - Truss Yard - 902 West Park Avenue Carlos Cint~on was present to discuss this site plan. Mr. Cintion explained that all they want to do is provide shade for the employees in working out in the hot sun. Mr. Wheeler questioned the restroom facilities, if they were connected to the City's sewer or what. Mr. Cintion explained that they have a temporary portable toilet which is serviced once every two weeks. He further stated they were leasing the land at the present time and were in the process of purchasing same. When they purchase the land they will put an office with restroom facil- ities in it at that time. Mr. Wheeler stated that they were parking their cars along the front of the fence and he questioned as to whether or not that property belongs to the County. A discussion then ensued concerning the parking require- ments. Chairman Bennington stated that according to the Code requirements, they will need 8 parking spaces on site, on the property. Mr. Cintion asked if he could get permission from the landlord to park on his property where there is another 3 acres, could they park there? Chairman Benning- ton advised that if they did that they had to either own the land or have a long term lease. Mr. Cintion advised that he should own the land in roughly 2 months. He stated he could get written permission from the owner to park the cars on the back side of the property, or the property abutting the business. Chairman Bennington said there were two problems with the site plan, one being that they have to have the City Engineer check the stormwater management calculations prior to final approval, and the other is to resolve the parking problems. Mr. Cintion asked the Board members to just let them put up the canopys for the employees and they will comply with whatever is required of them. He emphasized the need for these canopys and the ha~dship it will cause if they have to delay another 3 weeks before getting the building permit. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to give this site plan preliminary approval, pending the City Engineer checking the stormwater management calculations and solving the parking problems. Mr. Cintion asked if he could put up the canopys and bring back the necessary information to the Board at the next meeting in 3 weeks. He was advised that he could not. A discussion then ensued concerning how to handle the parking problem. Mr. Cintion kept reiterating to the Board members how important putting up these canopys was to the employees welfare in working in this heat. -2- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting May 16, 1984 - ~ o Chairman Bennington suggested that they could grant approval, pending on Mr. Cintion supplying plans showing parking and the engineer's approval of the drainage calculations. He said the Building Official would have to see that the revised plans comply with the specific Ordin- ance regarding parking requirements, which is 700.01 and 700.02 Sections in the Code. He advised Mr. Cintion that he must show the parking spaces plus a 12 x 40' area for offstreet loading. Mr. Wheeler said that they should only be given preliminary approval and they should come back at the June 6th meeting with these requirements prior to giving them final approval. Mr. Chenoweth said he did not see why they should hold them up, due to the fact that th~ need these canopys for the welfare of the employees. It was his suggestion that final approval be given, subject to the Building Official ascertaining that the revised plans that are submitted to him comply with the requirements of the Code and the engineer approving the drainage system. Mr. Wheeler's motion DIED for lack of second. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion to give final approval to this site plan, subject to the City Engineer approving the stormwater management calcul- ations and that revised plans be submitted to the Building Official, showing the parking spaces and offstreet loading spaces and that the Building Official review these plans and be sure they are in compliance with Section 700.01 and 700.02 of the Code of Ordinances. Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. A discussion ensued regarding giving preliminary and final approval to site plans and there being no follow up after the building permit is issued to be sure the site plan is complied with as approved by the Board. Reference was made to the site plan submitted by Paul Loeffler to build an addition at 821 West Park Avenue. He was required to provide a sealed set of plans by an architect to the Building Official prior to issuing the building permit. He provided a sealed set of plans by an engineer and not an archilltect, as was a requirement by the Planning and Zoning Board. Chairman Bennington stated that the first phase of the project submitted by~Paul Loeffler is not in compliance with the Code. He further added that in looking at the building, the gutters on the roof are dumping all the water onto the pavement in the front and the pavement is sloped to the road; the drainage swales do not exist in the back. He asked the Board members if they wanted to send a letter to the Building Official to check on this situation. He referred the members to the letter from the Building Official regarding the Casa El Toro Lounge, wherein he sent the owner a lett~r, advising him that he was not in compliance with what he submitted on his site plan. The secretary advised the Board members that Mr. Fischer had met with the owner that day and it was decided that a buffer should be planted on u.S. 1, surrounding the parking area, however, a buffer could not be planted on Boston Avenue, as was submitted on the site plan due to the fact that nothing will grow in that area because of the shell that exists there. Mr. Chenoweth asked if the Building Official finds someone to be in violation of the Code, if he turns the matter over to the Code Enforce- ment Board. He stated that at the Zoning Seminar he attended in Orlando, one of the speakers there told about how their City enforces the Code and how strict they are to see that violations do not occur. Their Building Official sees if they are complying and if they are not, he spends little time trying to enforce it, he sends them one letter and from there the matter goes to the Code Enforcement Board and they have authority to penalize the owner or do whatever is needed to comply with the Code. It was his opinion that the Building Official should have the authority to send one letter and then if no action is taken, send the problem to the Code Enforcement Board for further action. -3- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting May 16, 1984 ~ o Mr. Wheeler mentioned that Jose', the owner of the pizza restaurant, has not complied with the Code regarding converting the house south on U.S. 1 to his restaurant. The parking has not been established on the property, no trees have been cut down, as he was required to do in accordance with his site plan. Chairman Bennington read Section 715.02, Site Plan Approval, to the Board members, which states that prior to the issuance of any building permit, plans must be submitted and approved by the Zoning and Planning Board and the Building Official. Site plan shall be in substantial compliance with the concept of the outlined development plan, which includes offstreet parking areas, landscaping, etc. He further read that no changes can be made in the approved site plan after a building permit has been issued, except upon application to the appropriate agency. Minor changes may be authorized by the Zoning and Planning Board. All other changes must be made by the Zoning and Planning Board. Chair- man Bennington concluded that the Building Official does not have the right to tell him he does not have to put in a landscaped buffer, in reference to Mr. Shawver of the Casa EI Toro Lounge. Mr. Wheeler said that this matter should be sent to the Code Enforcement Board, and also Paul Loeffler's project should be sent to the Board to determine if he is in compliance with the site plan that was submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Chairman Bennington suggested that they wait to hear from the Building Official, in writing, regarding the action that was taken on Casa EI Toro. All of the members agreed to send a letter to the Code Enforcement Board concerning SP-8312, Paul Loeffler, asking that they check into this site plan to determine whether or not he is complying with the Code requirements and what was shown on his site plan. In regards to Paul Loeffler's plans requiring a seal by an architect, Chairman Bennington asked the secretary to again check and see if she can find the correspondence that was written in regards to this subject. He stated that the law is very confusing in this regard. Dan Nolan stated that by law an architect's seal is required on public facilities, such as schools, government facilities, and the like. Chairman Bennington stated that this entire matter was prompted by a letter- from Charlie Murphy, past Building Official, that stated according to Chapter 481 of the State Law it states that any commercial building over $5,000 in value (this has now been updated to $25,000) must have an architect's seal on it. State Law Chapter 79-200 also states any commercial building valued in excess of $25,000 must have a registered or certified general building contractor build it. Chairman Bennington said that the law is vague in saying an engineercshall not do an architect's work and an architect shall not do an engineer's work, but it also says this does not preclude them from doing things that are incidental. Therefore, it was determined that it was up to the City to decide how they wanted to handle this matter and at that time they decided to require an architect's seal on these type buildings. OLD BUSINESS Review letter from Pat Wallace of Southern Bell concernin installin SLC-96 in the City an send recommendation to Council. Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to the most recent letter from D. J. Charpentier of Southern Bell regarding his suggestion of how to handle the construction of these facilities in the various zoning districts. A discussion then ensued regarding this subject matter. It was the agreed opinion of the Board members that their suggestion of treating the construction of these facilities as a Permitted Use in the B and I zones and a Special Exception be required in the Rand MH zones would be acceptable for the reason that they would have to comply with -4- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting May 16, 1984 o o 1 the zoning requirements if treated as a Permitted Use and the Special Exception requirements would include advertising the request, studying the application to be sure it complies with the zoning district, prior to allowing same to be constructed. Chairman Bennington stated that the City will have to go along with Southern Bell since they have indicated the need for this system and this suggested manner of installing same in the various zones would be the best policy to pursue. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to send a letter to Council, recommending that the City authorize Southern Bell to install the SLC-96 system in Edge- water with the understanding that these facilities will be treated as a Special Exception in the Rand MH zones and as a Permitted Use in the B and I zones. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to the letter sent to them by Mr. Spencer which stated that the Code had not been changed to alter the square footage requirements for single family dwellings in the B2 and B3 zone, as was discussed at the last meeting. It was suggested that the secretary check the minutes of the Zoning Commission for last year wherein they requested that Council change this requirement, and make a copy of this request for the Board members to review at the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS Review Permitted Uses in I zones. The Board members decided to discuss this item at the next meeting. Review Article II Definitions - in Code. Chairman BenRington stated that the definitions were being worked on by the Zoning Commission at one time and he suggested that the secretary check the previous minutes and make copies of what had been done concer- ning the definitions and give same to the Board members for the next meeting. Mr. Wheeler stated that there is a man at 2518 South Ridgewood who has a body shop and the owner told Mr. Wheeler that he primes the cars there and sends them to some place in the County to have them painted. Mr. Wheeler stated that there are no stalls in the building and no fans to conduct this type of business. The owner advised Mr. Wheeler that the Building Official said it was OK for him to operate this business there. Mr. Wheeler stated he was in violation of the Code in operating this type business in this manner. The Board members agreed that the Board should be able to complain to someone when they approve these plans and then they do not comply with what was submitted for approval. There being no further business to come before the Board, upon motion made by Mr. Wheeler to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. Minutes submitted by: Susan Mista -5- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting May 16, 1984