Loading...
05-21-1985 - Special ~ ~ CITY OF EDGEWATER Planning and Zoning Board May 21, 1985, Special Meeting Minutes Vice Chairman Wheeler called the special meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Shuffleboard Clubhouse. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Wheeler, Mackey, Finn and Poland. Excused: Mr. Bennington, Mr. Quaggin. Absent: Mrs. Thomas. Also present: Mrs. Taylor, Secretary. SITE PLAN REVIEW SP-8512 - James A. Rives - Request for preliminary/final approval for an office building and a used car lot at 103 Connecticut Avenue. Mr. Rives was present to explain his request. Mr. Wheeler read the department head comments. The plan met with the approval of all department heads. Mr. Mackie asked about the City Engineer's comments and Mr. Wheeler said it didn't give the City Engineer's comments. There is nothing from the City Engineer, he stated. J Mr. Mackie asked if the storage shed was going to be removed. Mr. Rives responded that he intends to remove the carport and the storage shed; this will provide him ample ingress and egress and a buffer zone away from the building. Mr. Mackie pointed out that the shrubs in the back belong to the other people. Due to the fact that this is a business going up against residential he recommended that the fence indicated on the plan should con- tinue on around. Mr. Rives said that if the fence continues around the back it completely obstructs all view of the property. Mr. Rives said that this property abuts and is contiguous with B-3 zoning on both sides and the rear. He said it was his understanding that if you but up against B-3 zon- ing you do not have to go into the extensive partitioning off. There are existing shrubs. Mr. Mackie said that the existing shrubs belong to the other man and they are not high enough to use them as a buffer zone. Mr. Rives said he 'proposes to buffer that so that the visibility is there. He pointed out that the plan indicates 13 sections of cypress fence along the back. Off to the immediate north of this property there is an outbuilding and several trees which do create a buffer. If he runs down about three sections of fence he will go up to where this shed and trees are, which should buffer it. He said he would do this if required; he wants it to look nice. In response to Mr. Finn's question, Mr. Rives said he will be doing whole- saling and retailing. There will be no repairs made on the lot. Some detailing will be done to clean up the cars. Mr. Mackie asked about the driveway going in and out; will that be hardtopped, he asked. Mr. Rives said he had not planned to hardtop. There was a dis- cussion about what a hard surface is. Mr. Poland said the City Council has talked about an impervious surface. It means hard shell would not be im- pervious. Mr. Rives said prior to going into this project he had talked to Mr. Fischer and Mr. Jones, and he understood at that time that the hard shell driveway would be considered a hard surfaced driveway. He pointed out that there is no definition of a permanent hard surface in the Code. He could not get the answers. Mr. Poland said he thought the intrepretation \that they were getting is that it had to be an artificial surface - it had to be impervious - either concrete or blacktop. The other members agreed that this was their impression. Concerning the slope of the parking lot, Mr. Rives said that it will slope from all sidffidown toward the middle. Mr. Poland questioned why he did not need storm water. Mr. Wheeler said they have received nothing from the engineer. Mr. Mackie said that is why he questioned this earlier - o o evidently this plan has not gone to the City Engineer. Mr. Poland noted that it says N/A. Why would they say that, he questioned. Mr. Rives explained that it is an existing structure, he is not increasing the size of the structure, he is not increasing the impervious area on the property. He is decreasing it the way the site plan is laid out. Mr. Poland argued that he is increasing the impervious area because he is changing the grass or lawn, which is not an impervious area, to a parking lot for the vehicles, which is an impervious surface. Mr. Rives asked why it had to be an impervious surface. Mr. Poland said there seems to be a question of intrepretation of what is considered a permanent hard surface. Mr. Rives said that he has asked for an intrepretation from the City Attorney, the City Clerk, the Mayor, Mr. Copeland, who has talked with Mr. Ferrara; it is an existing structure. Mr. Poland responded that the parking surface is an existing structure. When a residence is turned into a business you have certain parking requirements. You can't park on the lawn. Mr. Rives asked for an explanation of what they are telling him. Mr. Poland said what we are telling you is that you are before a volunteer board and you haven't been able to get an answer from the paid people. Mr. Rives said he was told to come to the Board before going back to the City Councilor anybody else. He said that he has done all the preliminaries prior to signing the contract and then was told that what he was told originally would not go through. Mrs. Bennington, in the audience, explained how the term, permanent hard surface came about. When the Planning Board sent the ordinance to the Council it had permanently shell. The ordinance was amended on the floor. It was the intention of the Council that it would be a permanent hard surface, meaning asphalt or concrete - not shell. Mr. Poland commented that permanent hard surface would require storrnwater calculations. Mr. Rives asked if they mean that all parking has to be permanently paved - even if someone wants to do bookkeeping for someone, he questioned if that person has to put in permanent hard surface and get stormwater approval. He asked if this is what the Planning and Zoning Board recommended. Mr. Mackie said that he is going from residential to business and the State requires water retention. Mr. Rives asked if a nursery went in would it require storm water calculations. He said he does not understand the logic - the requirement for the permanent hard surface. He reiterated that there is no definition in the Code for permanent hard surface. His contention is that what he is putting in is basically a permanent hard surface, and it is a surface that does drain water. Mr. Rives asked if the Planning and Zoning Board wants to see 150 feet of depth both sides of the highway which is zoned B-3 all concrete and asphalt. Mr. Poland said he believes that is what is required. Mr. Rives said he understood that the Planning and Zoning had not recommended this. He questioned Mrs. Bennington about this. Mrs. Bennington said she did not believe it was the intention of the Board to have the whole city covered by asphalt. It was the intention of the Council to make 'sure that any commercial structure that goes up or any improvements to commercial is hardtopped and to do away with shell. They are planning to pave all the streets - eventually. Why have shell driveways when you have paved streets. She said it is her understanding that whatever this Board decides is what he will have to do. Mr. Poland reiterated that to him it sounds as though this volunteer board is being asked to make decisions that paid City employees and elected City officials don't particularly care to make. Mr. Wheeler said he agreed with this statement. Mr. Poland said, in his opinion, Mr. Alvarez is the one who should make the determination, if there is an intrepretation to be made. He has the ordinances; he knows what the precedents are and what the rulings are in other cases. Mr. Poland said it appears to him, based upon the ordinances and what the Council's pleasure was, that the parking lot should be an impervious, or artificial, surface. Mr. Rives asked what he meant by parking lot. Does that mean customer parking and employee parking, he asked. Mr. Mackie said since there is an ordinance which they don't quite under- stand he thinks they should table this case. Mr. Poland said that perhaps the Board can get the information from the City Attorney. Mr. Rives said he was told that this Board would make the decision. Planning and Zoning Board - 2 - May 21, 1985 (.) o Mr. Poland said h.e felt this matter should be referred to the City Attorney for a clarification of what constitutes a permanent hard surface. Mr. Rives spoke to the members about his contract on the property. He explained that if this does not go through it will make the contract null and void. The closing date is June 7. Mr. Mackie said there is another meeting of the Board on June 5. The Board will get a clari- fication from the City Attorney and also have the City Engineer check it out. They can have all this information by June 5. Mr. Rives asked when he will know what the City Engineer requires. will he need to hire an engineer. Mr. Mackie said the City Engineer could check it out from the information on his plan. Mr. Poland disagreed, saying that if h~ is required to have concrete or asphalt, then it will have to have storm water calculations, which must be done at his expense and by his engineer. And it will have to be approved by the City Engineer. He said that pro- viding they get the information on the intrepretation from the City Attorney they could tell him on the 5th of June whether or not he will be required to have storm water calculations from his engineer. He said he felt that the Board could give Mr~ Rives conditional--approva1- pending st-orm water calculations from his engineer, which would give him sufficient information to know whether he should close. Mr. Rives told the members that this is costing him a lot of time and money. Mr. Mackie said that they'll have the information by the next meeting; this should not be anything to wo~ry about. Mr. Poland moved that the secretary write a letter to the City Attorney requesting an intrepretation of the parking ordinance, to determine exactly what type of construction the parking lot shall be, and whether packed shell shall be considered permanent impervious parking or whether it requires an artificial surface such as concrete or asphalt~ He suggested that they add to the letter that there is a specific deadline involved and that the Board requires the information prior to the June 5 meeting. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion, which CARRIED 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Wheeler explained there is one item to take up before the joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Board. He asked the secretary to read the letter to the Planning and Zoning Board from Don Bennington, Chairman. The letter read as follows, "A letter needs to be sent to the Council reo mini- warehouses in B-2, size requirements. It appears that the size requirements have been left out of the Code book through error or omission. The question to answer is, Was it this Board's intention to leave the mini-warehouse size requirements of 10 x 10 x 20 as was previously in the Code? It was my understanding that it was not the intention of the Board to eliminate the size of 10 x 10 x 20 of mini-warehouse in B-2." Mr. Wheeler asked for a motion on this. Do they want to leave it as is? Mr. Poland said he felt it was an error of omission. Mr. Mackie agreed. Mr. Mackie had two ordinances; the one was passed in 1979; the next, 84-0-14, is the new ordinance, which does not say anything about the mini-warehouse. The old ordinance calls for it to be 10 x 10 x 20. He said he doesn't know why the 1979 ordinance never got into the book. He suggested that the secretary type up a letter related to this and add a copy of the ordinance so they will have it in the book. He made this into a motion. Mr. Poland seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED 4-0. Mr. Mackie moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Poland and the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Minutes prepared by Joan Taylor '\ '- '1." ~ Planning and Zoning Board - 3 - May 21, 1985