Loading...
03-06-1985 o 0 CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MARCH 6, 1985 Minutes Chairman Don Bennington called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., ln the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Wheeler, Poland, Quaggin and Mackie. Mr. Finn and Mrs. Thomas were excused. Also present: Joan Taylor, secretary, and one member of the press. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes of February 20, 1985, seconded by Mr. Quaggin. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SITE PLAN REVIEWS SP-8429 Revised - Earl Wallace for Pilch Cotistruction - Tourist Court - 335 North Ridgewood. Mr. Wallace was present to discuss this site plan. He explained to the Board members that this project was presented to them in May, 1984, as a tourist court and office complex. Mr. Pilch has decided to hold back on the office portion of the project, which the Board had given final approval to. The engineering calculations were approved at that time, also, and they have now decided to construct the tourist court, only. The third building has been deleted from the original site plan. There are two phases of this project and they are requesting final approval of both phases together; however, they only plan on constructing phase 1 and phase 2 will come at a later date. Mr. Wallace explained to the Board members that the structure will be two stories, noting that the parking requirements have been ~et according to the Code. There will be twelve units per structure and two structures will be built. A discussion then ensued concerning whether or not this structure should be termed a tourist court or 'multi~family unit. A tourist court only requires one parking space per unit and one for every two employees. Concern was shown reg~rding the units being efficiency type apartments which could be rented for several nonths at a time. The question arose, also, as whether or not this type project complies with the zoning. It was determined that this was a per~itted use and did meet the zoning requirements for B3. The Board members were concerned about the parking insofar as what will happen if the units eventually turn into apartment or condominium units, then the parking will be insufficient the way it is laid out on this site plan. . Concerning the engineering approval of the stormwater calculations submitted last year, .Mr. Wallace stated that Frank Marshall drew up the plans and they were approved by the City Engineer. Chairman Bennington noted that one of the buildings has been removed from the site plan and three-fourths of the drainage system. Mr. Wallace explained to the Board members how the system on the revised plans would take care of the water run-off. It was Mr. Mackie's suggestion that the Board approve the site plan for preliminary approval ~nd send same to the engineer for approval of the stormwater system and the building official to review same and note any problems he might have with it, then send it back to Planning and Zoning for their final decision. Mr. Wallace noted that there is a letter from the City Engineer, approving this project. Mr. Poland stated that the letter was written in June, 1984, and was for the entire project. ~ o Mr. Wallace again explained to the Board members how the stormwater system has been designed. Mr. Poland expressed concern that the total impervious area for this project is more than 22%, as indicated on the plan. Mr. Wallace said there is a trench drain to take up that impervious area. Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to the letter from Connie Kinsey, the City Clerk, concerning stormwater calculations, noting that the procedure will be if the Board chooses to give preliminary and final approval to a site plan at the same meeting, there will be a delay while the engineer appoves or disapproves the stormwater system. The letter also stated if only preliminary approval is granted, there will be ample time to receive approval from the engineer, prior to final site plan approval. Chairman Bennington stated that this Board has no intention of holding someone up so that they cannot get financing for their project by not approving their' site~plan. He sa~d the Board is only to determine whether or not the site plan meets the requirements of the Code. Mr. Mackie advised the members that he had checked with a bank concerning contractors getting the financing for projects and he was told that no financing is given to anyone until the bank receives final approval from the City or County or whomever is required to give same. He said it is not true that a builder has only a short period of time insofar as finan- cing is concerned. A discussion then ensued concerning whether or not the Board should give preliminary and final approval on site plans at the first meeting, or if they should only give preliminary approval at the first meeting and require them to come back for final. Chairman Bennington said each case has to be looked at individually. If someone complies with all of the Code requirements, you cannot refuse final approval and make them come back in two weeks, if there are only a few changes that need to be made. Final approval could be given, subject to the changes being shown on the plan, or subject to any conditions the Board feels necessary. Mr. Poland made a motion to give this site plan preliminary approval, pending updated stormwater calculations being reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-1, Mr. Quaggin voted NO. SP-8505 - Wheaton Construction Co. for TARMAC - 2 Storage Buildings - 200 North Flagler. Chairman Bennington advised that this site plan has been pulled from the agenda at the request of the City Attorney, to give him time to discuss this plan with the City Engineer. SP-8507 - Luis Geil for Corbett Smith - Industrial Complex - West Marion Avenue. Mr. Geil was present to discuss this site plan. A discussion then ensued concerning how to figure the parking spaces needed in a complex s~h as this when you do not know what type of business will be occupying the building. Chairman Bennington said the Ordinance states that the developer is to put in enough parking spaces that he feels will be necessary to comply with the requirements. Mr. Geil stated the units would be individually owned, not rented. He said they wanted to make a buffer between the residential and industrial zoned property by putting some mini-warehouses or very small shops in that area to separate the noisy area from the residential property. Chairman Bennington questioned whether or not the site plan needs to comply with the Subdivision Ordinance due to the fact it is a condominium type situation. Hecthen read the definition of a Subdivision from the Code book. Mr. Poland said it sounds like a Subdivision to him. -2- Planning & Zoning Board Meeting March 6, 1985 o o The Board members then discussed in further detail the parking require- ments and how to determine how many are needed for this project. Mr. Geil stated that if the project had to meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, it may be that they could not proceed with the plans as submitted due to the more stringent requirements of the Ordinance. He said that the size of the units would be limited, which could cause some people who wouldn't need a large unit not to purchase same and other people may need larger units but wouldn't want to purchase two. Chairman Bennington said he did not think there was anything in the Ordinance that would limit the size. He said the Ordinance was primar- ily for the ground and not the buildings. Chairman Bennington noted that a buffer would be required wherever there is residential property, and he indicated on the site plan where the buffer is to be located. Mr. Geil stated there is a fence along the Shangri-La Subdivision property line and his client would plant a land- scaped buffer. The Board members discussed the traffic going into and out of this area; the retention system that has been designed for the complex; and the matter of the parking spaces required, which cannot be determined without knowing what type of business will occupy these buildings. There being no further discussion concerning this sketch plan~ Mr; Geil thanked the Board members for reviewing his sketch plan and said he would look in to the parking situation to be sure the requirements are met before a site plan is submitted, and he would need to know the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance to see if the plan complies with same. He then left the meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Review letter f~om R. A. Coleman concerning changing lot~ in Shangri-La Subdivision. Mr. Coleman was present to discuss this matter. He explained that on the end of Shangri-La that goes in to Village Inn, on Shangri-La Circle there are five building lots and he wants to decrease it to four and increase the size of the other lots. On Paradise Lane there are four lots that he wants to increase the size of the lots to three lots. He advised that he would be building larger duplexes on these lots and has, in fact, gotten the contracts on them already. All of the Board members agreed that Shangri-La was a very nice Subdivision the way Mr. Coleman has it laid out. None of them could see any reason why he could not change the site plan to allow more space on the lots that he requested be made larger. Mr. Wheeler made a motion that the site plan for Shangri-La Subdivision be changed to reflect the drawings Mr. Coleman has submitted. Mr. Poland seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Review letter from Dennis Fischer, Building Official, regarding sidewalks in Pelican Cove West Subdivision. Mr. Wheeler said that in his opinion Ed Hall is responsible for the block that he bought in Pelican Cove West and built houses on in regards to installing sidewalks. Chairman Bennington said it was his opinion that Mr. Hall would not be responsible. Mr. Poland said Mr. Carter should have put in the contract with Mr. Hall that Mr. Hall would be responsible for the sidewalks. Chairman Bennington then read the definition of a "subdivider" that is listed in the Code. It further states that the subdivider is responsible for the improvements to the land and in this case it would be Mr. Carter. It was the decision of the Board members that the City Attorney should clarify this matter, advising as to who -3- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 6, 1985 o o IS responsible for putting the sidewalks in Pelican Cove West Subdivision. Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to the copy of the letter from the past City Engineer, Bill Cross, which sets out the exact blocks that are to be sidewalked. Mr. Fischer noted in his letter to the Board that he could not find where this matter was ever approved. It was Chairman Bennington's recollection that when the preliminary approval was given was when they had to vote on whether or not he would be obligated to put in the sidewalks. And they voted that he did have to put the sidewalks in. The Subdivision Ordinance states they have to be put in on one side of the street. It was Chairman Bennington's suggestion that this be referred to the City Attorney to determine who is liable for the sidewalks. Mr. Poland questioned the item in Mr. Fischer's letter re- garding the time limit on when the sidewalks are to be installed. Chair- man Bennington read from the Code concerning a Performance Bond which says after the City Engineer approves of the improvements, the bond can be returned to the developer. The Board then went into a discussion concerning when this site plan was approved and what requirements were put on final approval. It was deter- mined that installation of sidewalks was one of the stipulations put on approval because they are required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Review letter from Connie Kinsey, City Clerk, concerning stormwater calculations. Chairman Bennington stated that the Board discussed this letter when reviewing the first site plan on the agenda this evening and he asked the Board members if they wished to go over the letter again, or was it clear to them what she meant. The Board members agreed they did not need to discuss this '.letter any further. NEW BUSINESS Discuss conditions needed for satellite dishes. Mr. Mackie said he had talked to some people in the area who had these dishes and he learned they do not like to put them in the front yard because of aesthetic purposes, they cannot put them on the side of the house because most setbacks are only 10', the dishes are usually la' x la' in size with the smallest being 6'. Chairman Bennington read a newspaper article to the Board concerning satellite dishes that the Planning:and Zoning Commission of the City of Aiken tried to ban satellite dishes from being installed in the front yards and the judge hearing the case ruled against the Commission. The City had tried to regulate the satellite dishes prior to the judge's ruling. The Board went into a lengthy discussion concerning where the dishes should be allowed and what restrictions should be imposed on same. All of the Board members agreed they should be only allowed in the back yard. It was noted that there are several businesses selling them at the present time and there are no restrictions concerning the installation of same. It was the Board's decision to send suggestions to the City Attorney and request that he prepare an Ordinance to include that the satellite dishes not be allowed in the front yard, a minimum of 5' from the side or back property line, get a recommendation from the City Engineer as to whether they should be allowed on the roof of a building and any other restrictions the City Engineer feels should be given. -4- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 6, 1985 o o Review memo concerning action taken at last meeting on Fence Ordinance - Section 706.00. William Cichewicz, a member of the audience, asked the Board if he could speak to them about this matter. Chairman Bennington agreed to let him speak. Mr. Cichewicz said he had some input on this subject. He said he was a resident of Edgewater and has a business in the City. He in- formed the Board he is now involved in possible litigation concerning a "spite" fence which the Building Department issued a permit for. It was his suggestion that in reviewing the Fence Ordinance the Board make some provision or regulation for "spite" fences. It was his opinion that if you allow an 8' fence on a residential lot, you may be allowing an aggravated situation to occur between property owners. Concerning spas and/or hot tubs that are situated just outside a home and requiring a taller fence for privacy, Mr. Cichewicz suggested allowing an 8' fence or enclosure directly around this spa or hot tub which is located next to the outside of the house. He also suggested that the restriction be a minimum of 4' high if installed on the property line, l' off the pro- perty line the fence can be 5' high, 2' off the property line the fence can be 6' high, etc. Mr. Cichewicz thanked the Board for listening to him and he then sat down. Chairman Bennington said he did not know what a "spite" fence was. Mr. Mackie said it was a fence from one neighbor to another, starting as 6' and they can go as high as 10' or 12', if you don't want to talk to your neighbor, put up a "spite" fence. Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to Section 706.00 of the Code concerning Fences, Walls and Hedges, page 1631, Rear and Side Yard up to a dwelling line - 6' - this is what they discussed at the last meeting changing to 8'. He further stated they decided to drop the wording "not concrete" and add "may be opaque"; leave the front and side up to the front property line 4' and add to that, it cannot be opaque over: 2~' above the crown of the road; put no restrictions on how close to the property line you can install the fence. He then drew a diagram showing what was discussed at the last meeting concerning the changes they agreed upon. He said that their intention was to help the Building Department by clarifying the Code concerning the problems they are having. One problem is with the wording "not concrete", another problem is that a lot of commercial builders request an 8' fence in the back yards to protect against vandalism - it was the Board's opinion that residents should be allowed to fence 8' in their backyard, only. Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to the Code concerning putting up a fence around a swimming pool which states a fence, wall or acceptable screening is required around a pool at least 4' high, not more than 6' high and cannot be readily climbable by small children. It was his opinion that a small child can walk through a screen. If the Fence Ordinance is changed to allow 8' high in the back yard, this Oridnance on swimming pools will need to be changed because it only allows 6' tall. Mr. Quaggin suggested consulting the Florida League of Cities, requesting sample ordinances concerning this matter. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to table this matter until they can get some information from the Florida League of Cities to review. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. William Cichewi~z, a member of the audience, asked the Board to determine the proper number of parking spaces is required for his business which is located on U.S. 1 and is a retail store, with 3 other rental spaces plus 2 apartments - one being a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom. He stated he occupies 840 square feet of retail space, the store next to him has 500 square feet, the other separate building has 22' x 9', the rest is either storage or actual office space in the building itself. Chairman Bennington said if he were coming before the Board with a site plan, concerning the apartments the Code says 4 spaces -5- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 6, 1985 o o for two apartments - 2 per unit, the rest of the area is figured on the square footage that you are using for retail sales which is under retail sales establishments in the Code. He further stated that Mr. Cichewicz' structure is' nonconforming and may need to be figured differently, but that is the way it would be figured if this were a new sketch or site plan, if the setbacks were met and if all other zoning is met. Mr. Cichewicz said the way he reads the Code and the number of parking spaces he has been assigned are two different numbers and he wants the Board to determine how many he needs. Chairman Bennington said you have to look in to what kind of businesses are there. Mr. Cichewicz said to assume there are three retail outlets. Chairman Bennington said the Code calls for one parking space for every 200 square feet of gross space plus one for every company vehicle. A.discussion then ensued concerning the stipulation being on gross space and retail space. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Cichewicz what exactly he is asking the Board, to which he replied he wants to know exactly how many parking spaces that his property is required to have. Mr. Poland said he felt the Building Inspector should be the one to answer the question. Chair- man Bennington said he could only tell him what is required if this were a site plan coming before the Board for approval. Mr. Poland said there would need to be 8 plus 4 spaces for the apartments, for a total of 12 parking spaces. Mr. Cichewicz said he has 14 parking spaces at the present time. Mr. Cichewicz thanked the 'Board for hearing him and advising him of the number of parking spaces that he needs. There being no further business to come before the Board, upon motion made by Mr. Wheeler to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Mackie, the meeting was adjourned at 9:21 P.M. Minutes submitted by: Susan Mista -6- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 6, 1985