Loading...
06-11-1984 - Special " . (.) Q CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 11, 1984 Minutes Chairman Don Bennington called the Special Meeting to order at 7:04 P.M., in the Community Center building. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Stewart, Quaggin, Chenoweth and Finn. Mrs. Thomas was absent and Mr. Wheeler was excused. Also present: Susan Mista, secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Chenoweth made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 16, 1984, meeting, seconded by Mr. Quaggin. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SITE PLAN REVIEWS SP-8429 - Pilch Construction Co. - Tourist Court and Office Complex - 335 North Ridgewood Avenue. Earl Wallace was present to represent this site plan. Chairman Bennington asked if the applicant had provided a sealed survey, to which the secretary advised that he had. The Building Official said on the Department Head Supervisors checklist that the 10' setback on the north side of the site plan should be 25'. According to the Code, 10' is all that is required. The Building Official also stated there was a problem with parking in the center of the complex with backing out. The revised site plan shows the change in the parking and change in the entrance and exit drives, per the Police Chief's request. Terry Wadsworth stated that the plans show moving the sewer line but do not show how it will be done and he could not give approval to the project until he reviewed the information concerning the sewer. Mr. Wadsworth provided a letter to the Board, dated June 4, 1984, which Chairman Bennington read into the record, stating it would be to the City's advantage to abandon the sewer line that exists on the property, with Pilch being the sole user of the line, which will revert the responsibility of maintenance of the line to the property owner. The City will reserve the right to inspect and supervise the relocation of the manhole to the southern boundary. Chairman Bennington went on with the comments from Earl Copeland, stating that the trash pick-up be moved, which they complied with. The Police Chief requested the entrance and exit drive be changed, which they have complied with, also. Chairman Bennington stated that per Terry Wadsworth's request concernlng the easement on the property, he assumes they will have to go to Council for permission to vacate the easement. Mr. Wallace stated they had no problems with relocating at the owners expense and with the supervision of the Utilities Department. Chairman Bennington stated that there are no sealed sets of plans, as required. Mr. Wallace advised that the sealed sets would be provided after final approval is given, thereby eliminating sealed plans that need to be corrected or have not been given final approval. Chairman Bennington agreed with Mr. Wallace, however, he advised that the Board has a letter from Connie Kinsey and the Building Official, requesting that they not grant any more finals with conditions. That leaves the Board three oho~ces; either they can do it, or not do it, or if it is some minor change or omission, approval can be granted provided this information be furnishedto Susan, the secretary, prior to her turning it over the the Building Official. '" o o Concerning the planted buffer, Chairman Bennington requested that it extend across Erskine Drive, to which Mr. Wallace agreed to the request. Mr. Wallace explained that this project is to be built in three phases. The owner plans to build the office complex first and destroy the building that presently exists on the property that they are in now. Chairman Bennington said that the City Engineer approved the stormwater management calculations and he added that in the future, the City Engineer will be requiring that the engineer of each project must certify that all work meets the plans that were approved, prior to final inspection on same. Mr. Wallace discussed the parking Ordinance and suggested that this Ordinance be reviewed, especially concerning one lane traffic, angle- parking. The present Ordinance deals mainly with 90 degree parking. Chairman Bennington said that these plans showing angled parking are approximately 2' short on one side. The parking space is 20', back out area is 20' on one side and the other side is 18'. Mr. Wallace said that the Code has no provision for one lane traffic, only double lane, coming and going in a 20 to 24' width. One lane traffic can be as narrow as 11', he has shown 13'. The reason for one lane traffic is that it does define the traffic flow. Chairman Bennington said that the Code states that 400' is needed for parking, even if the Board agreed with Mr. Wallace's reason for angled parking. The Building Official recommended that the parking be moved and put up against the buildings, thereby each unit would use a cornmon back out space. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion to give the site plan final approval. Mr. Wallace advised the Board that he could comply with the Code require- ments, and he then furnished the members with revised plans, showing the parking up against the building. He requested that the parking require- ments in the Ordinance be reviewed and updated and requested that the Board hold a workshop on this matter. Chairman Bennington agreed with Mr. Wallace that the parking Ordinance needs to be updated, there is no reason to require all that concrete if it is not needed. Chairman Bennington suggested that the motion include the sewer easement and that an architect's sealed set of plans be provided to the secretary. Mr. Chenoweth withdrew his original motion and made a new motion that final approval be given to this site plan, subject to the easement being approved by City Council and a sealed set of plans being provided to the secretary, prior to giving final approval for the building permit to the Building Official. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Annexation of Fong Property Attorney Jefferson Clark was present to discuss this annexation. Chairman Bennington stated that they have a letter from the City Attorney- stating that he had discussed this matter with Mr. Clark regarding whether or not annexation of this property would create an enclave. He said that this question should first be determined by the Board, keeping in mind the availability of water and sewer service by the City. He further read the letter from Terry Wadsworth, dated December 14, 1983, concerning the water and sewer service available, wherein Mr. Wadsworth stated he could see no problems with providing this service with the plans that were submitted to him. Jefferson Clark stated that this land would be used for single family residences, except for the 275' strip for business along U.S. 1. He referred the Board members to the map that was furnished to them, showing the City's boundary lines, streets, etc., and the relation of this property to same, notating that there would be no City enclave, however, there would be an enclave to the County, along Palm Breeze Drive. Councilman Jack Spencer addressed the Board and advised that since Terry Wadsworth's letter of December 14, 1983, they have had numerous requests to provide water to areas outside of the City limits and Mr. Wadsworth has written several letters since that time, one dated May 22, 1984, -2- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting June 11, 1984 , ! o o to Connie Kinsey, City Clark/Administrator, advising that the City was not in a position at this time to service water outside of the City limits. The City has to increase the capacity of the water plant and it is not feasible to provide water to Mr. Fong or anyone else until the City has a plan to include the capacity to provide this service. Mr. Clark said that this was only a small portion of land and Mr. Fong has been trying to be annexed into the City since 1978. He further advised that Mr. Fong is not asking for immediate service, only to be annexed in and to get in line for the service at a later date. Chairman Bennington said that they needed an updated letter from Terry Wadsworth concerning the availability of water and sewer service, at the present time. He further advised that he had a conversation with the City Attorney at one time wherein he cited a case where a City annexed some land and several years thereafter the developer wanted to develop that land and the City no longer had the water to service same. The Court ruled that the City had to supply the water; the City annexed them in and they had to supply them with water. He said they have to be sure that they can supply the land with services if they annex it in. Chairman Bennington stated that their only concern, at this point, is does it create an enclave and can water and sewer service be provided. He questioned as to whether or not they would be in violation of a state law if it is annexed in and service could not be provided. Mr. Clark said that when Mr. Henderson was attorney for the City, he advised that the annexation would not create an enclave. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Clark to provide the Board with copies of the document that contains that information, to which Mr. Clark advised that he would furnish the secretary a copy of same. Chairman Bennington suggested the Board get a legal opinion from Mr. Alvarez concerning what the City's committments to provide service would be on a voluntary annexation. Gouncilwoman Bennington suggested that the Board request that Mr. Alvarez attend the next meeting, rather than ask for an opinion in writing. The Board members agreed with her suggestion. It was decided to table this item until an updated review is received from Terry Wadsworth and the City Attorney can be present to discuss this matter in greater detail. Chairman Bennington advised Mr. Clark that they would try and put it on the agenda for the next meeting, which is June 20th, if the secretary can get the requested information and the City Attorney to attend same. Review Square Footage Requirements ln B2 and B3 zones for Single Family Residences Chairman Bennington, in discussing this topic with the Board members, said that the requirements for single family residences in the B2 and B3 zones for square footages has not been changed from the present requirement of 800 square feet. Council has passed a change for these requirements in the R4 and R5 zones to 1,200 square feet. The Board then discussed the minimum lot size in B2 and B3 and determined that if the requirement was set at 1,200 square feet, enpugh space would be available on the lot to construct a home 40' by 60' or 2,400 square feet. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion that a recommendation be sent to Council to change the square footage requirements in the B2 and B3 zones for single family residences to 1,200 square feet. Mr. Finn seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Review Permitted Uses in I Zones Chairman Bennington said he did not see any problems with the Permitted Uses in the I zones. Susan Mista advised the Board that Susan Wadsworth, Deputy City Clerk, requested that one of the I zones include auto repair and a service to do minor repair and provide gasoline to tractor-trailers. Councilwoman Gigi Bennington suggested that the review of the Permitted Uses in the I zones be referred to the Industrial Board. They may want different businesses to be included in these zones and they should be able to go over the zones and give their recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board for any changes, corrections, additions, etc. All of the -3- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting June 11, 1984 . , o o Board members agreed with this suggestion. William Riggle, a member of the audience, asked the Board members if they could assist him concerning a sketch plan for a quadraplex that the Board approved a few months ago. He advised that his legal description states his lot is 80' by 125' except for 25' where the canal is located. The Code requires 8,250 square feet area. He asked if he could include the 25' in the area insofar as the usage is concerned. He will meet the setback requirements, but if he cannot use that 25' he will not meet the requirements for the area. Chairman Bennington read the Code con- cerning the criteria that must be met before the Board of Adjustments can grant a variance to an applicant. After reading same, he advised Mr. Riggle that he would be required to ask the Board of Adjustments for a variance for the 250' in question, that he first must come before the Planning and Zoning Board with his site plan and they will make a recommendation to the Board of Ajustments as to whether or not his site plan is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Code require- ments. Mr. Riggle thanked the Board members for their time and advising him what he needs to do to comply with the zoning requirements. Review Article II - Definitions Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to the list of definitions that the secretary had comprised from the meetings and workshops in the past concerning updating same. The following is a list of the definitions that were discussed and altered or deleted from the list that was provided: Abutting Property Owners - Need a better definition. Buffer - Changed to read: A 6' high screen that is kept in a neat and presentable condition at all times and consists of either a decorative wooden fence, a decorative concrete block wall or plant material of sufficient opacity and density to prevent visual penetration or a com- bination of any of the three. If plant material is used, it shall not be less than 3' high when planted. Building, Front of - Remove. Change of Occupancy - Need a better definition. Do not remove from Code. Lot, Atypical - Keep definition that is in Code. Lot, Corner - Use definition in Subdivision Ordinance. A lot situated at the intersection of two (2) streets, and the interior angle of such intersection not exceeding one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees. Lot, Double Frontage - Use definition in Subdivision Ordinance. A lot other than a corner lot having frontage on two (2) or more streets or two (2) portions of the same street. Miniwarehouse - OK as to the new definition for same that has been approved by Council. Off-Street Parking Space - Need a better definition. Parking Lot - Need a better definition. Planned Unit Development - OK as in Code. Planning Board - OK as in Code. Public Use - OK as in Code. Setback - OK as ln Code. Shopping Center - OK as in Code. Sign - OK as in Code. Sign, Advertising - OK as ln Code. -4- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting June 11, 1984 " , Q o Sign, Construction - OK as in Code. Sign, Development - OK as in Code. Sign, Directory - OK as in Code. Sign, Occupant Identification - OK as ln Code. Sign, Political - OK as ln Code. Sign, Professional - OK as in Code. Sign, Real Estate - OK as in Code. Sign, Shingle - OK as in Code. Sign, Subdivision OK as ln Code. Special Exception OK as in Code. Story - OK as ln Code. Story, Half - OK as in Code. Street - Use definition from Subdivision Ordinance. A public vehicular right-of-way which affords a primary means of access to abutting properties, whether designated as a street, avenue, highway, road, etc., but excepting driveways to buildings and easements of ingress and egress. Street, Arterial - Use definition from Subdivision Ordinance. A major, high-capacity street which carries large volumes of through traffic between regional urban areas. Street, Collector - Use-definition from Subdivision Ordinance. A street which, in addition to providing access to abutting properties, carries traffic between local streets and the system of arterial streets and highways. Street, Cul-de-sac - Use definition from Subdivision Ordinance. A local street of relatively short length with one end open, and the other end terminating in a vehicular turnaround for the safe and convenient reversal of traffic movement. Street, Local - Use definition from Subdivision Ordinance. A street of limited continuity used primarily for access to abutting properties and not for through traffic. Street, Marginal Access - Use definition from Subdivision Ordinance. A local or collector street, parallel and adjacent to an arterial or collector street, providing access to abutting properties, and protection from through traffic. Public Street - Use definition from Subdivision Ordinance. A vehicular right-of-way that has been dedicated to and accepted by the City Council for maintenance. Note: The Board also agreed to include in the section for Streets, the specifications to be included in the definition from the Subdivision Ordinance, page 1731 (d) and (e). Structure - OK as in Code. Theater - OK as in Code. Townhouse - A two story dwelling unit constructed as part of a group of three (3) but not more than eight (8) dwelling units in one (1) building, all of which are: (a, band c same as in Code.) Travel Trailer - OK as in Code. -5- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting June 11, 1984 , . " . Q o Use - OK as in Code. Use, Accessory - OK as In Code. Use, Nonconforming - OK as in Code. Use, Permitted - OK as In Code. Use, Principal OK as In Code. Variance - OK as In Code. Yard - OK as in Code. Yard, Front - A yard extending across the front or any part of a yard parllel to any street, alley or public accessway. Depth of required front yards shall be measured along a line drawn perpendicular to the front property line: - . Yard, Rear OK as in Code. Yard, Side OK as In Code. Zoning Board - Remove. Zoning Certificate - Remove. Mr. Chenoweth agreed to find a better definition for "Apartment - Garden". Mr. Stewart agreed to find a better definition for "Off-Street Parking". Chairman Bennington agreed to find a better definition for "Change of Occupancy". Letter from Building Official regarding Casa EI Toro Lounge Chairman Bennington gave the Board members copies of verbatim minutes dated 2-2-83, where this site plan was given final approval by the Planning Commission. He then read a memo from Susan Mista concerning this site plan which stated that the Building Official has been requested to do a final inspection for the electricity for Casa EI Toro for the apartment. The Building Official agreed to not issue the final until after this meet- ing to see what the Board decides to do with fuis matter. Chairman Bennington then referred the Board to the verbatim minutes wherein it states that this addition will not be used for a residence, but rather for storage, only. He reminded the Board that the main reason this project was sent to the Building Official was due to the fact the parking lot was in noncompliance with the approved site plan. The definition of a parking space is a permanently surfaced area. In reference again to the verbatim minutes it says they plan to provide a more defined parking restriction area other than pulling off into a s&P and grass area, causing this particular portion of the corner of Boston Road and U.S. 1 to be improved with a buffer system and to allow off-street parking with a defined area. Chairman Bennington said the original plans show a driveway with bushes. He went on to add that one of the conditions of approval, on page 3 of the minutes, the Police Department requested that a security light be installed on the northerly portion of the property, halfway between the east and west of the parking lane. They agreed to install this security light, according to the minutes. On page 4 at the bottom, Chairman Bennington read that they were making every effort to comply as close to the B3 zone as it is today as possible, and in turn to update the parking area for the existing situation which is basically a pUll-off area at this time. On page 6 it indicates 18 parking spaces provided and it will be located across the street, across Boston. In conclusion, Chairman Bennington read where Mr. Winter made a motion to give final approval to the plans subject to the Board of Adjustments giving a variance for the front yard and that it conforms with this plan as a whole. A discussion then ensued concerning the fact that the project was never done per the approved plans of this Board or the Board of Adjustments, the parking lot is not right, the light is not there, the bushes are not there, what bushes are there are dead and it was approved for a storage area and now they have an apartment. -6- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting June 11, 1984 ~ . ~. .' . o o It was the agreement of the Board members that the plans for this project can be stopped if final inspection is not given on the electrical. It was determined that the only way this can go before the Code Enforcement Board is if the Building Official sends it there. The Board members agreed that they would like this matter to go before the Code Enforcement Board. Chairman Bennington said the plans were approved for shell parking. The driveway was to have been approximately 100' off the highway. He further stated that the Building Official has asked the Board to approve the proposed change in the parking that was attached to his letter. The Planning Board is the only one who can change a site plan, once it is approved. He then read the section in the Code concerning this matter. The Board members agreed that if someone in the City does not make the people comply with the Code, then there is no reason to even look at the proposed site plans. There is no follow up on these approved site plans. It is up to the Building Official to see that these plans are followed through. The secretary showed the Board members a copy of the original application for the building permit for the addition. No plumbing or mechanical permit was requested. Chairman Bennington said that the Board of Adjust- ments may never have granted the variance had they known he was intending on using this addition for an apartment. The Board members agreed that they would not go along with the proposed parking area that the Building Official requested on behalf of Mr. Shawver. Mr. Chenoweth then made a motion that Mr. Shawver must be in compliance with the original site plan that was approved by the Planning Board, per the site plan and verbatim minutes of the 2-2-83 meeting. Mr. Finn seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. The Board members agreed to send the following projects to the Building Official that are not in compliance with the original approved site plan, for him to investigate: J. C. Carder Retail Boat Sales building - the corner was to have been taken off the building, there was to have been a sidewalk, a defined parking area, and the building is full of storage; BJ's Flowers - a driveway completely around the building and a clearly defined parking area, and they received a variance from the Board of Adjustments; Paul Loeffler's building on Park Avenue - the drainage is not in compliance, an architect's sealed set of plans was never provided. Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to the two letters received concerning approving site plans with stipulations; one from the City Clerk, Connie Kinsey, and one from Dennis Fischer, the Building Official. Both letters requested that the Planning and Zoning Board not approve any site plans that have stipulations with them. After a discussion regarding these letters, the Board decided that if they have cases where only a small stipulation needs to be complied with, for example, sealed sets of plans are needed or a buffer is to be shown on the plans, rather than make the applicant corne back before the Board in another two weeks, the applicant can complY. with the stipulations and turn same into the Planning and Zoning Board secretary and she will see that the plans are in compliance with the approval that was granted prior to giving the final plans to the Building Official. Letter from Councilman Jack Spencer concerning building height require- ments in Code. Chairman Bennington stated that the most a developer is allowed to build in the City is 4 stories, however, some of the zoning allows 8 stories by moving in the boundaries. Councilman Spencer said that in looking at the Code, there are a lot of different building heights in the zones. -7- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting June 11, 1984 I . f~ II . u (J In some instances the maximum building height is 35', some places it says 4 stories, one place in the Code it says "any height", in the RR- PUD zoning district. Chairman Bennington said there is presently no RR-PUD zoned land in the City. Councilman Spencer stated that there could be some of this RR-PUD land in the City if more property is annexed in. His main reason for bringing this before the Board was to ask them to look into the various different requirements in the zones regarding the maximum building height. Chairman Bennington advised the Board members that he was talking with Cou- ncilman Wargo concerning whether or not the Code addressed the install- ation of these new satellite dishes in people's yards. He referred the Board members to page 1631 of the Code that lists accessory buildings, utility sheds and detached garages, where this item probably should be added. A discussion then ensued concerning where a satellite dish could be placed on someone's property. Mr. Quaggin agreed to look into other cities Ordinances concerning the satellite dishes and report back to the Board. There being no further business to come before the Board, upon motion made by Mr. Quaggin to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Chenoweth, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M. Minutes submitted by: Susan Mista \ - 8- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting June 11, 1984