08-09-1990
,
,
,"
...
.
u
o
C\\j_
CITY OF EDGEWATER
LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, AUGUST 9, 1990
6:30 P.M.
COMMUNITY CENTER
Vice-Chairman Don Bennington called to order a regular meeting of
the Land Development and Regulatory Agency at 6:30 p.m.,
Thursday, August 9, 1990, in the Community Center.
ROLL CALL: Members present were Mr. Bennington, Mr. Fazzone, Mr.
Garthwaite, and Mr. Hildenbrand. Mrs. Blazi, Mr. Hellsten, and
Mr. Klein were excused. Also present were Mark P. Karet,
Planning and Zoning Director, and Beverly Kinney, Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of June 27, 1990 were presented
for approval. Mr. Garthwaite moved to table, seconded by Mr.
Fazzone. Motion Carried 4-0.
Mr. Bennington requested to have a verbatim transcription of this
portion of the minutes.
Mr. Bennington:
Do you
here?
want to introduce
Mr. Vo 1 a and Mr......
the
one
over
Mr. Karet:
Tonight we have the Chief Vola, who is the
Fire Chief and manager of the building department.
In addition we have Mr. Jack Hayman. They are
both here to answer some questions that were
raised at the last meeting in reference to
the Titan Gym and the methodist church that is
currently being renovated. We're... they've
requested to go first, because Mr. Vola has to
leave by 7:00 to attend a budget workshop. So
with that, I'll turn it over to Chief Vola.
Chief Vola:
Unfortunately I wasn't here for the last
meeting so I'm picking up all this stuff second-
hand, and from reviewing some of your minutes,
but it appeared that one member, unfortunately
Mr. Klein is not here had some questions
and possibly some allegations in regard to the
permitting process in the construction that was
ongoing both at the Titan Gym and the Edgewater
Methodist Church. First thing, I guess, is
that the LDRA is charged to handle any development
in increase, that is basically triggered by an
increase in the footprint of the building. At
that point the building or the complex must go
back through site plan approval before any permits
can be issued and before any construction can be
ongoing. With the Titan Gym that did not
occur, before site plan review was not warranted
or indicated. The same is true with the methodist
church. Rather than an increase in footprint,
there is, in fact, a functional decrease in the
footprint of the building. The second thing
is that there was a question in regards to
the tenants signing permits rather than the owner
of the building signing the permits, and that's
one that can be argued back and forth, but the
fact of the matter is, is that we have taken steps
to ensure that does not occur again, that before
anyone pulls permits it will done through and with
the written permission of the owner. That was an
oversight on the building department's fault at
that particular situation at the gymnasium. There
1
~
o
o
was a question in regard to the firewall that was
constructed. What had occurred with that is
back in February they approached the fire
department and asked we would like to put a gym in
this building, here is a general sketch of the
structure, could you tell us what we would need to
put, to be allowed to put a gymnasium in it. As
my memory serves me, the structure is, was in
excess of 15,000 square feet in the building. Per
the Life Safety Code, which is a uniform fire code
adopted by the State of Florida, which means that
all buildings will comply with the uniform code
where it is applicable, irrespective of local
government's mandates. The state has pre-empted
local government's ability to alter from
the Life Safety Code. The Life Safety Code
required that this structure, as a place of
assembly, was in excess of 12,000 square feet,
therefore it had to be sprinklered. The
two gentlemen went back to the owner of the
building and said look, the fire department says
we have to sprinkle this. They came back to us
and said the owner, I won't repeat what the owner
said. The owner said that he would not do it,
~~ c...ov-.c,,~ -enco"ched that in no uncer ta i n terms, and
asked what alternative there was for the building,
so we went back into the Code Book and did some
scrambling around and found that the intent was
to provide on-site, built-in fire suppression
control for life safety in places of assembly, and
they used, uh, as the trigger point, 12,000 square
feet, so what we said was fine, a way to get
around this then is to subdivide this building by
an approved firewall which would be a four hour
rating with a parapet going up through the roof
three feet. O.k., we'll do that. How do we do
it? At that time the fire inspector was a
raw recruit. He had just finished his training,
and just finished his state exam, and submitted a
letter that indicated what would have to be done,
and part of that letter stated that a four hour
firewall consisted of 1/2 inch proprietary type
X wall board. There was a typographical error in
that he did not say 8 layers of type X wall board.
That was rectified by a phone call to the
occupants, or the applicants at that time. So
they said fine, we'll do that. They submitted two
numbers that are basically pre-engineered and pre-
approved by U S Gypsum Association, called wall
partition assembly rating numbers, WP numbers,
that were rated at four hours of fire protection.
They're rated by a series of fire tests, and
they..and what the American Concrete Institute,
the U S Gypsum Association, Underwriter's
Laboratories, Factory~hfnable to transcribe} they
have very specific tests that are either written
by testing laboratories, or in this particular
situation, by the American Society for Testing
Materials, ASTM, which gives certain testing
procedures for ratings. These ratings, these
assemblies, as written, and as designed were rated
at four hours of fire protection. That does not
require architectural seals. They are an adopted
and approved assembly, provided that they build it
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 1990
2
o
o
as it is specified, cause it is a proprietary
design, that it meets all the intent of the codes
written. They turned in their building
permit application. The building official went
through the structure and said wait a minute, the
weight of this thing which is four layers of 5/8
inch sheet rock is great for the floor slab to
hold is there a footer underneath this
section that... the building? So, made a couple
of digs under the perimeter of the building and
there was no foundation under there. We said this
will not work. You cannot put this unsupported
weight on the slab, it will bust the slab. So, we
went back to square one again. At that point we,
I called the State Fire Marshall's Office and said
this is the situation, how can we meet the intent
of the code, and the gentleman's name is Richard
Rue. He is the Code Analyst, and he said o.k.
given the state of circumstances that you have,
you need to do this, and those four items were
outlined in writing to the occupant, and basically
it boiled down to a two hour fire partition
with self closing doors, an approved alarm system
interconnected with smoke detectors, the occupancy
could not have any more than 299 people, which
made it a Class B assembly, and exit lights,
and, etcetera, to comply with the Life Safety
Code. They pulled the permits, the work was
done, and that's where the situation ended. The
building is, although it's not the optimum, it is
in compliance with the intent of the code, as
stated by the State Fire Marshall's Office. If we
have a question, or we have a problem, that is our
source to appeal to. If we are not sure, that is
our source to appeal to. So, that's what we've
done. And it was in our view that it was better
to have the building occupied and generating
revenue rather than being vacant and a fire trap.
As far as the allegation that they were
given privileged status, because some members of
the fire department and city staff then became
members of it, you'll pardon my expression, is
(expletive deleted) and I'll be quite glad to
explain that to Mr. Klein face to face, nor will I
tolerate those kinds of allegations. I'll be glad
to let him talk to my attorney. That's a personal
and professional affront, and I do not appreciate
it. I hope that puts the Titan Gym to bed.
As far as the...
Mr. Bennington:
While, while we're on the Titan Gym, can I
ask you a couple of questions?
Chief Vola: Sure.
Mr. Bennington: Number one, I know you came into this (unable
to transcribe) How can the size of that
building keep changing?
Chief Vola:
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're...
Mr. Bennington:
I know you don't.
square feet.
You said it's 12,000
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 1990
3
Chief Vola:
Mr. Bennington:
o
o
No sir. I said the overall building is in excess
of 15,000. With the fire partition that is put
up, the main center, the main hall is 12,000 plus
square feet.
Before I can get to where I was gettin
there, I have to say one more thing. You
said they only need site plan approval if
they're changing the footprint of the
building.
Chief Vola: That's my understanding.
Mr. Bennington: I don't interpret the code this way.
Mr. Karet: No, neither do I.
Mr. Bennington: But, nor does our attorney, and maybe instead
either of me or you making a legal opinion we
ought to get one from him.
Chief Vola: Right.
Mr. Bennington: Our code says if before the issuance of any
building permit, or any foundation permit,
or any tree removal permit, or any of those
things, they need site plan approval.
This is one of the ways that the city has
been using to bring these things up to code.
The same building, when the flea market
went in there was handled basically the same
way, and it backfired, and it ended up before
this board.
Chief Vola:
Mr. Bennington:
Chief Vola:
Mr. Bennington:
Chief Vola:
Mr. Bennington:
Chief Vola:
I would not know, I was not here.
And at that time they come up with some
as-built architectural drawings that were
showing the building just under 10,000 square
feet, which doesn't make sense.
No sir, it does not.
So that's where I'm gonna come there, so
it is my interpretation of the code, and my
opinion and the attorney's interpretation of
the code that is any time a building permit
is required in any zoning, except the ones
that are exempt which are mainly residential
and duplexes, site plan is required. I
have another question that may also be a
legal question. On the owner/builder versus
whatever...
Right
Can an owner or a renter do construction in
a commercial building. I didn't think so
(unable to transcribe) state certified...
No sir, that's up to the building official.
That is a latitude that the Building Code
allows the building official, and State
Statute 553 or 489, I don't remember which
one. I believe it's 553. At some point it
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 1990
4
o
o
states something about $25,000. valuation,
o.k., so at that point an architect and/or
contractor are required, beyond that is up
to the authority and jurisdiction, which
is the building official.
Mr. Bennington:
Is it determined by the type of structure of,
let's say a motel that had major roof damage,
but is under $25,000., do you mean an owner
could do his own repairs?
Chief Vola:
Provided that the building department
allowed that, yes sir. Now as you said, that
would be circumstantial. It would, whether
or not that was approved, you know, would
depend upon circumstance. To put up some 2
layers of sheet rock or wall, I would not
require it, a contractor to do that.
Mr. Bennington:
So, I think that probably we get
a legal opinion of the attorney on the site
plan approval again. We've had it verbal,
but I don't know if we could ever get him to
put it in writing.
Chief Vola:
Yes sir, I
advantageous
clear up a
just...
think that would be most
for all of us, because it would
lot of inconsistencies. It's
Mr. Karet:
Well, we're going to have an opportunity to
do that when we rewrite the Land Development
Regulations, we can clearly determine what
will, what will require site plan approval.
hopefully we will have new Land
Development Regulations within the next sixty
days.
Mr. Bennington:
That's what I wondered.
Chief Vola:
One other question and it was a
statement, or a question that was raised
in regards to a stop work order, and
the issuance of a stop work order, and
State Statute 553 grants the building
official, the building department exclusive
rights to stop work orders. I'm not
familiar with any other statute that grants
any other agency or official the right to
issue a stop work order with the exclusion
of the State Fire Marshall's Office.
Mr. Karet:
Local law can give other individuals...
Chief Vola:
Yes, but those are not on the books...
Mr. Karet:
Correct.
Mr. Garthwaite:
Alright, on that statement you're talking
about the church over here? Or...
Chief Vola:
I don't know. I don't know where the
question, came from. I just was told that
there was a question about the issuance of
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 1990
5
Mr. Garthwaite:
Mr. Hayman:
Chief Vola:
Mr. Hayman:
o
o
a stop work order or not issuing a stop work
order, and as I said right know the
ordinances as they're adopted in Edgewater,
and the building code, the only official
that is allowed to order a cease and desist
order on construction is the building
official or his representative that's
in the Building Code it's also a state
statute. The only exemption to that is the
State Fire Marshall's Office, and they had
better have just cause before they do it.
If I remember correctly, I think someone
brought up the fact that all that dirt was
being dumped over there, what is going on
with that?
I'd like to address that if I might, Chief.
name is Jack Hayman...
My
I've got to go.
I reside at 3003 Kumquat Drive in our city. I'm
here tonight on behalf of the United, Edgewater
united Methodist Church Building Committee, of
which I am co-chairman. It was brought to my
attention this week that Mr. Klein, and perhaps
other members of the Board were concerned about
two things regarding our church renovation and
expansion program. First of all, it was suggested
that we... that we might have some ulterior
motives for the fill that's going in the church
property, and it's also suggested that we had
changed, or therefore increased the footprint of
the building. I'd like to address the fill first.
As you go down north of our highway there in front
of our church you will see that the Martin
Company, I think it is, has the contract to change
the center median profile on highway 1. They
asked if we could use any of the excess fill dirt
that was coming out of that center median as they
narrowed it down, and the church, and
representing the church I said we'd be glad to
take any yard or so of dirt you were willing to
give us. That ended up to be approximately 140
yards of clean, fresh fill dirt, which we and the
Lord was real pleased to see. The intent of that
dirt is to provide the substraight for the future
growth and expansion of the church which will take
place within the next 2 to 3 years. The church
has a growth plan that will evolve over 3 years
that will cost some $750,000. and will
significantly enhance the aesthetic value of US
1, as well as the capabilities of our little
religious community considerably. First, the
first phase of that is the renovation of the
present structure which was erected over 25 years
ago, and it's a metal butler building. Now,
the structure its self is a nonconforming
structure, in that the setback line, I think, is
40 feet along US highway 1, uh, sets in our
reverend and secretary's office by some 6 or 7
inches. Now the building was there, I think,
before the 40 foot setback was established, but
that's' a mute point. We recognized early on in
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 1990
6
Mr. Karet:
Mr. Hayman:
Mr. Fazzone:
o
o
our preconstruct ion conferences with Mr. Karet and
his staff in a pre-site plan review with his
people that we did have a nonconforming structure,
and up front, what we were trying to do is seek
relief from that nonconformity as much as
possible. How we intended to that was eliminate
better than 5 feet of the nonconformity that
protruded beyond the setback line. Now, the
property with the building itself began with what
we call the first bent, which is the first steel
columns, that you saw at the front of the church.
They supported the first third of the roof load of
that church, and they were 5 feet in front of the
first wall of the church, or that westerly most
wall. So, in order to eliminate that overhang in
that steel structure we had to construct a 8 inch
masonry wall to transfer the load of the steel on
the roof to that. We didn't think the aluminum
wall in place was structurally strong enough to
carry the weight of the roof and the steel. We
did this, and in our pre-site conferences with Mr.
Karet and his staff, we discussed the pros and
cons of trying to do this without increasing the
footprint at all, and I think, correct me if I'm
wrong Mr. Karet, he agreed with me that we were
overall reducing the problem rather than trying to
increase the problem.
Right.
If you measure out from the foundation of the
western most columns, the steel structure of that
church back to what is now the new western wall,
you'll see we've decreased it by some 50 inches.
That does not include the additional 2 foot of
overhang that we had further going west that was
the drip line of the roof, which comprised the
overhang. You know, in doing this, and it's all
been cut away now, that you drive down US 1, you
can see a quite pleasing, very, I think, going to
be a very beautiful structure when we finish up.
I will commend Mr. Klein for his, his, his unique
observation, because a lot of people called me
and asked gee Jack how did you move the church.
Once we strip the steel away, as you drove by it
looked like we in fact had moved the church
forward considerabley, because we no longer had
the overhang, we no longer had the canopy affect
which led to the third dimensional view of the
church front. Until we started erecting the
additional canopy, which is in place right now, it
looked like we had in fact moved the church
forward. So I can understand what Mr. Klein might
suggest something like that. So any questions
that this board may have or anybody in the
community may have regarding the churches plans,
they're quite simple, in three years we expect
to spend $750,000. on a new sanctuary, which will
take place in permitting and site plan review
within the next 24 months. Yes.
I don't think that Mr. Klein meant that something
devious was going on in other words, I go by that
church every single day, two, three, four times,
and it's going to be a beautiful addition to our
city, no question about it, but what struck
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 1990
7
Mr. Hayman:
Mr. Fazzone:
Mr. Hayman:
o
o
him, and I think it would strike anyone else is
that you have a church that's rectangular in
looks, and all of a sudden see them 8 inch blocks
on one side, 8 inch blocks on the other side, and
therefore he came to the conclusion that hey
they're adding square footage to the entire
building, did they come for a site plan. That was
the question that came to his mind. And it wasn't
until he brought it out that anybody had talked
about it, but I don't think it was his intent to
think that something devious was going on, I don't
think so.
If I led you to believe that, that wasn't my
my intent here tonight. We in fact did add 7
1/2 inches to the westerly side of that building,
the masonry wall and the reinforced concrete steel
(unable to transcribe>, but that was, that is not
the front of the building. What was the front of
the building gentlemen, was the steel structure
that was 5 feet in front of that, and we've
eliminated all of that and we've come back to the
masonry line which is some 50 inches (unable to
transcribe>, so although, on the surface, yes we
did add 7 1/2 inches of masonry on the west side
of that wall, what we did do is cut away the steel
structure which was 50 inches beyond that point,
and therefore we have really, relieved the
aggravation more than created an additional
aggravation. I must concede that point in all
honesty, we did add 7 1/2 inches to that wall,
yes, but that wall wasn't the aggravation at all,
it was the steel that was 50 inches farther....
Well, he didn't know that.
Well, I realize.
understand that.
I
can see why he could not
Mr. Fazzone: There's no question about it, that that church
is going to be a welcome change on US 1.
Mr. Hayman: Well as far as the fill dirt goes, I did not have
a permit or approval of the City Engineer to dump
fill dirt at the time I got it. It wasn't
until that... the building official in passing
says, I guess you do have a permit for that, and I
said what permit, and I said don't go away, I'll
be right back, and I went and got one.
Mr. Garthwaite: Our biggest concern on that is if you'd
filled in that land we'd be creating a
pond at that intersection of the road.
Mr. Hayman: Yes.
Mr. Garthwaite: And that would be a mater....
Mr. Hayman: Yes, we did that, yes, the City Engineer
and I looked at the... I brought the City
Engineer a plat, which indicated all the
contours, depths and elevations. The
elevations we're talking about, the contour
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 1990
8
o
o
line is a 10 foot, 9 1/2 foot, 10 foot
(unable to transcribe) contour lines. What
we did in this retention pond that we, in our
proposed site plan is to the south of that,
and a little bit to the east of that. The
fill dirt that you see there did not alter
that proposed area, incidentally that's the
area we'll use right now. It has not been
altered at all. He was quite concerned about
that and I brought him a site plan with all
the contours changed on that. Once he saw
that and drove by the site and inspected it
himself he was satisfied.
Mr. Garthwaite:
You had mentioned when you first started
talking about being into the setback
from the right-of-way now to the western
wall how many feet is that?
Mr. Hayman:
It's 38 feet and inches, like 7 inches.
Before...
Mr. Garthwaite:
We're still nonconforming with the structure.
Mr. Hayman:
There's no question about that. That church
will always be a nonconforming structure.
Mr. Garthwaite:
Alright.
Mr. Hayman:
Absolutely.
We understand that.
Mr. Garthwaite:
(unable to transcribe) misunderstanding what
you were saying. I just wanted to make sure
that I understood exactly what you were
saying.
Mr. Hayman:
See, originally the, the intrusion into this
zone was not at the wall. It was 50 inches
further than that.
Mr. Garthwaite:
Now when you put up, do you (unable to
transcribe) put concrete block all around the
church?
Mr. Hayman:
No sir, just on that westerly wall to carry
the load of the steel.
Mr. Garthwaite:
I guess (unable to transcribe).
Mr. Hayman:
Well, what you're look, what you're viewing
is, a stucco application over wire which is
on steel. That's what you're seeing, and
that was applied to the skin, the exterior
skin of which is the metal building. It's
a butler building. That's what you see
there, and there will be approximately 5/8
Mr. Garthwaite:
I didn't look at it that close. It just
looked like there (unable to transcribe)
Mr. Hayman:
Well, it's masonry. That's correct.
to 3/4 of an inch of stucco on top of that.
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 1990
9
o 0
Mr. Garthwaite: O.K.
Mr. Hayman:
So are there any other questions.
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you
NEW BUSINESS:
SP-9004 Ponderosa Plaza II S.R. 442 between Guava Drive
and Fern Palm Drive: Present were Attorney Bill Hathaway, a
court reporter, Luis Geil, authorized agent,and Perry Barrett,
property owner. Mr. Bennington informed Mr. Geil he would need a
4-0 vote for this to be approved. Mr. Karet stated the special
exception, which had been previously approved, was still good and
the applicant was here for site plan approval. He added that a
site plan had been previously approved without the gas pumps
which are shown on this site plan. Mr. Karet stated the plan had
been reviewed extensively by staff, all previous problems have
been corrected and addressed on the site plan, and approval is
recommended. Mr. Fazzone questioned the need for the numerous
driveways shown on the plan. Mr. Karet stated that staff also
questioned this, but the plan meets code. Mr. Fazzone moved to
accept SP-9004, seconded by Mr. Garthwaite. Motion Carried 4-0.
SP-9006 Barnett Bank Branch Office Southern Out Parcel
of Florida Shores Plaza: Gary McDonald of KBJ Architects was
present as authorized agent. There was discussion regarding
watering of landscaping and sewer service ( lift station - which
will be maintained by the owner). Mr. Bennington discussed the
need for sidewalks. Mr. McDonald stated the bank does not feel
200 feet of sidewalk that doesn't go anywhere is feasible. Mr.
Karet stated all problems have been corrected and staff
recommends approval. Lighting was discussed. Mr. McDonald
stated that there would be typical downward lighting on several
poles, at the ATM, and over the after hours depository. Mr.
Fazzone moved to approve as presented, seconded by Mr.
Garthwaite. Motion Carried 4-0.
ZA-0290 Recyclinq in the PID: Mr. Karet stated that he had
contacted the county and an environmental specialist and found
out that there was no increased hazard in the recycling of
products already being produced in the PID. Mr. Karet
recommended approval. It was noted that Mr. Hamann, the
applicant, was not present to discuss what is involved in the
recycling process. The members were concerned about the
pollution and waste materials, and the possibility of repulping
of wood. After further discussion the members decided to table
this item for more information. Mr. Fazzone moved to table for
more information on recycling ie: pollution, waste materials
produced, and environmental impacts. Mr. Garthwaite seconded.
Motion Carried 4-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Planninq and Zoninq Director's Reports: Mr. Karet stated that
Attorney Watts and Winston Tomlinson were present and wish to
address the LDRA concerning the proposed restaurant at U.S. 1 and
Shangri-La Drive. Attorney Watts stated that any dispute
.-egarding the ownership of Shangri-La Drive was between the city
and Mr. Coleman, and he added that this should not hold up Mr.
Tomlinson's site plan approval. The members believed they should
have had more notice. Mr. Karet stated the item had not been
placed on the agenda because the information concerning the
ownership of Shangri-La Drive was given to the City Attorney's
office on August 7th, and the Planning and Zoning Department was
given the information just prior to the meeting. Mr. Karet
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 1990
10
.
.
o
Q
stated he was not requesting that the item be taken off the
table. After some discussion the members agreed not to take this
item off the table.
The members recessed at approximately 7:50 p.m..
called back to order at 7:58 p.m..
The meeting was
Chairman's Reports:
None
Aqency Member Reports:
None
There being no further business to come before the Agency, Mr.
Garthwaite moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Fazzone. The
meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:05 p.m..
Vice-Chairman Bennington reconvened the meeting of August 2,
1990, at 8:05 p.m., in the Community Center, on Thursday, August
9, 1990, to continue the review of the proposed Land Development
Regulations.
The members discussed the appeal process of any decision or
interpretation of the provisions or requirements of Articles I
and II made by the Development Administrator or the Technical
Review Committee. Mr. Karet stated that a registry of actions
will be posted of matters pending at various locations (ie: City
Hall, Library, and City Clerks Office), and there may be a mail
out on a request basis.
Mr. Bennington questioned whether they would hear appeals
regarding code violations. Mr. Karet stated that code
enforcement is not part of the LDRA's function. He added that
the Citizen's Code Enforcement Board does not interpret the
codes, its purpose is to enforce what is on the books.
The members discussed performance agreements and homeowners
associations. Mr. Karet stated that off-site improvements
required of the developer should have performance agreements, and
when property or facilities are not conveyed to an individual
owner, or unit of government, a homeowners association should be
formed. The members agreed to include wording that the city
will not release a performance conveyance until all improvements
are in and accepted by the city (proposed section 902.01 [c]).
Mr. Karet stated that the section regarding concurrency was not
adequate for the needs of Edgewater, and this area will have to
be expanded. There was some discussion regarding exemptions.
Mr. Bennington stated that low or moderate income housing
developments are listed as exemptions which would include mobile
home parks. Mr. Bennington was concerned that required
improvements would not be put in (ie: roads).
Mr. Karet stated that the Volusia Council of Governments may set
up a county wide concurrency program for transportation which
will help the city assess issues such as traffic impacts and
infrastructure deficiencies.
Mr. Garthwaite moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr.
meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Fazzone.
The
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 1990
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Beverly Kinney, Secretary
1 1
.
1
-1
./~...",
6w:'
o
N~ (fiv-cA.J,)
was a question in regard to the firewall that was
constructed. What had occurred with that is
back in February they approached the fire
department and asked we would like to put a gym in
this building, here is a general sketch of the
structure, could you tell us what we would need to
put, to be allowed to put a gymnasium in it. As
my memory serves me, the structure is, was in
excess of 15,000 square feet in the bUilding. Per
the Life Safety COde, which is a uniform fire code
adopted by the State of Florida, which means that
all buildings will comply with the uniform code
where it is applicable, irrespective of local
government's mandates. The state has pre-empted
local government's ability to alter from
the Life Safety Code. The Life Safety Code
required that this structure, as a place of
assembly, was in excess of 12,000 square feet,
therefore it had to be sprinklered. The
two gentlemen went back to the owner of the
building and said look, the fire department says
we have to sprinkle this. They came back to us
and said the owner, I won't repeat what the owner
said. The owner said that he would not do it,
enccuchcd that in no uncertain terms, and
asked what alternative there was for the building,
so we went back into the Code Book and did some
scrambling around and found that the intent was
to provide on-site, built-in fire suppression
control for life safety in places of assembly, and
they used, uh, as the trigger point, 12,000 square
feet, so what we said was fine, a way to get
around this then is to subdivide this building by
an approved firewall which would be a four hour
rating with a parapet going up through the roof
three feet. O.k., we'll do that. How do we do
it? At that time the fire inspector was a
raw recruit. He had just finished his training,
and just finished his state exam, and submitted a
letter that indicated what would have to be done,
and part of that letter stated that a four hour
fi~ewall consisted of 1/2 inch proprietary type
X wall board. There was a typographical error in
that he did not say 8 layers of type X wall board.
That was rectified by a phone call to the
occupants, or the applicants at that time. So
they said fine, we'll do that. They submitted two
numbers that are basically pre-engineered and pre-
approved by U S Gypsum Association, called wall
partition assembly rating numbers, WP numbers,
that were rated at four hours of fire protection.
They're rated by a series of fire tests, and
they..and what the American Concrete Institute,
the U S Gypsum Association, Underwriter's
Laboratories, Factor~(unable to transcribe) they
have very specific tests that are either written
by testing laboratories, or in this particular
situation, by the American Society for Testing
Materials, ASTM, which gives certain testing
procedures for ratings. These ratings, these
assemblies, as written, and as designed were rated
at four hours of fire protection. That does not
require architectural seals. They are an adopted
and approved assembly, provided that they build it
.>
r--
~ &.(.1'<. pt....
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 1990
~
2
~
\