Loading...
01-18-1984 o Q CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 1984 Minutes Chairman Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., in the Community Center building. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Opal, Chenoweth, Finn and Quaggin. Mr. Hillerich arrived late. Also present: Dan Nolan, Mike Finn, Bill Rossiter, Mr. Garthwaite, Mr. Amaral, Reverend Siano, Dennis Fischer, Build- ing Official, Frank Marshall, City Engineer, secretary, Susan Mista, one member of the press and various members of the audience. APPRO~AL OF MINUTES Mr. Opal made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 4, 1984, meeting, seconded by Mr. Finn. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Chairman Bennington advised that they needed to vote on the Workshop minutes of December 8, 1983, concerning the Tree Ordinance. This item was not inc- luded on the agenda. Mr. Quaggin made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 8, 1983, Workshop. It was noted that there were only three members at the Workshop, Mr. Hillerich being one of the members and he was not present to second the motion. Therefore, motion DIED for lack of second. REVIEW SITE PLANS SP-8353 - Edgewater Alliance Church - 310 North Ridgewood - Addition Chairman Bennington advised the Board members that Reverend Siano would not be able to attend the meeting until 8:05 P.M., due to conducting services. Mr. Quaggin suggested that this matter be tabled until Reverend Siano arrives. There were no objections to this suggestion. SP-8355 - J. C. Carder - 2305 S. Ridgewood - Boat shed, storage, sales Dan Nolan was present to represent J. C. Carder on this site plan. Mr. Nolan presented the Board members with a letter from Mr. Carder, confirming that the structure will be used for boat sales. He also presented the Board members with revised site plans, showing the parking spaces, compliance with the Tree Ordinance and front and rear buffers. It was noted by Chairman Bennington that the comments made by the Department Head Supervisors on the Checklist were made before the meeting on January 16, 1984. He also stated that the application was turned in for a boat shed and storage and it has now been changed to boat sales, that being a permitted use in the B3 zone. He questioned Mr. Nolan as to how the front of the structure changed from being on U.S. 1 to Pelican Drive. Mr. Nolan advised that they never said U.S. 1 was the front. There is an accessway culvert in the front on Pelican Drive and there will be a concrete walkway installed with parking facilities along the front. Chairman Bennington asked whether or not the piece of property in the front on Pelican Drive and the adjoining property was County, to which Mr. Nolan advised that it is. Chairman Bennington stated that there is 82' setbacks from the street and 65' is County property. Mr. Nolan advised that the property is zoned single family, R3. Chairman Bennington questioned if there would be any problems including the County property in the setback and the City having no zoning control over same. Mr. Nolan said he checked with Ron Yates at the County Zoning office and was advised there would be no problems. He further advised that Mr. Carder bought the property just to square off his property, it being only 50 by 65 and it is not large enough o Q to put any type of building or structure on under County zoning. The minimum lot width in R3 is 85'. Mr. Nolan explained that the parking spaces were computed according to the Code requirements of one space per 200 feet of area under roof, for a total of 10.88 spaces for the 2176 feet and they show 11 spaces. He also advised there is a planted buffer shown on the east side, the trees in the front are existing and will not be removed. In regards to the 27" shortage on the rear setback, Mr. Nolan advised that Mr. Carder has been trying to contact the owner of this property who is presently in Venezuela. A lady in the audience, whose property abutts Mr. Carder, stated she has been in contact with the owner of that piece of property and he told her that this land is in Probate and cannot be sold at the present time. She also said that Mr. Carder had not tried to contact this man, according to what this owner told her. Chairman Bennington pointed out that all the land north and east is residential, some of it being zoned in the County. Mr. Nolan stated that there is a trailer park on the property to the west. A discussion then ensued concerning how the property owned by Mr. Carder is zoned and the zoning of the property adjoining Mr. Carder. Chairman Benning- ton stated he still was unsure of the legality of using the front part of the property as a setback, being that it is zoned in the County and the rear of the property does not meet the Code requirements for the setback and Mr. Carder will either have to purchase this piece of land or go to the Board of Adjustments and ask for a variance to meet the Code requirements. Chairman Bennington questioned the type of buffer to be u~ed:on the east side. Mr. Nolan stated it would be a planted buffer. Chairman Bennington asked if it would be a 6' solid screen type, to which Mr. Nolan said that it would. Mr. Nolan advised that if Mr. Carder cannot purchase the land in the rear, he will probably tear the wall down to comply with the setback. Chairman Bennington asked Dennis Fischer if this type of business would require handicapped facilities, including parking and bathroom facilities. Mr. Fischer advised that it would be required insofar as the office, enclosed area is concerned. This is required in all commercial establishments. Con- cerning parking facilities for handicapped, some type of accessible thresh- hold, ramp type, would be required for doorways and some type of ramp for accessibility to the doorway from the parking area. Mr. Opal questioned Mr. Nolan as to why this plan did not come before the Planning Commission before it was built. Mr. Nolan said that the previous Building Official inspected the structure and the plans and issued the build- ing permit. Mr. Opal would have to ask him that question. Mr. Opal said that a stop work order was issued on this project, to which Mr. Nolan replied that it was issued due to the question of the setback requirement. A discussion ensued concerning the address of this structure being 1 Pelican Drive. Mr. Nolan explained that Karen Rickelman at City Hall gave him this address. Chairman Bennington read from the Code Book on page 1623 concerning off- street parking areas. It states that parking areas shall have access to a street or outlet and it is his opinion that it means direct access from that piece of property - not through another piece because that property could be sold and then the access would be through someone elses property. Mr. Nolan stated that you cannot get to the structure from U.S. 1. Mr. Nolan asked the Board to keep in mind that a permit was issued, through no fault of Mr. Carder, and, therefore, they are allowed to build this structure until such time that a stop work order is issued. The stop work order was issued due to non-compliance with the setback, not because of the nature of the building. According to the plan that was submitted, the land use, buffer, parking, boat sales facility - all conform to the Code require- ments. The question as to the front, rear or side is not spelled out in the -2- Planning Commission Meeting January 18, 1984 o o Ordinance and it is up to the individual rear. Chairman Bennington said that the enter the property off a u.s. 1 address. was referring to. Mr. Nolan stated that allowing access from Pelican Drive. as to what is the front, side or way it is designed, you have to He showed on the plan what he the parking could be moved, thereby Mr. Nolan said that as far as he understood, the only problems are with the rear setback and accessibility to the structure from Pelican Drive. Chairman Bennington added that he does not know the legal answer to the question about using the county zoned property as part of the front setback. Mr. Nolan suggested that his conversation with Ron Yates at the County Zoning Office be verified by calling Mr. Yates, thereby answering this question concerning the front setback. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion that this site plan be given preliminary approval, subject to changing the parking to allow access to Pelican Drive and tearing down the wall in the rear to comply with the setback requirements. Chairman Bennington asked if Mr. Chenoweth wanted to include in his motion to find out whether or not the front property that is zoned in the County presents any problem with the setbacks. Mr. Chenoweth agreed to include that in his motion. Mr. Opal said the plan does not conform and should not be given preliminary approval. Motion DIED for lack of second. Mr. Opal made a motion to reject the application and have new, revised plans submitted. That a legal description be obtained from the County regarding the zoning and where the front of the building will be. Motion DIED for lack of second. Mr. Opal made a motion to table this site plan. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Opal to give reasons as to why this plan should be tabled, that the applicant has a right to know the reasons and the Board members should know why, also. Mr. Opal said it was not up to snuff, he asked questions that have not been answered. Chairman Bennington said they have a legal survey. The only change in the drawing is to move the parking and the access. Mr. Nolan said they will not go for a variance, they will tear the rear wall down to comply with the rear setback. There is a possible problem with the property in the front being zoned in the County and being included in the front setback. He said he tried to call the County Zoning Office and could not reach the man in the office. Mrs. Bennington suggested that either the City Administrator, Building Official or City Attorney contact the County concerning the front setback question, and have the answer to same submitted in writing from them. Mr. Nolan suggested that the Board table this to the next meeting. He will submit a new plot plan and the City will have time to check on the legality of the zoning on the front parcel, the plot plan will show the change in the parking and entrance on the front side, and tear down the wall. Upon roll call, motion to table CARRIED 5-0. SP-8400 - Mike Link - N.E. Corner 26th & Guava - Retail/Wholesale Appliance, Communication Devices & Home Furnishings Business - Sketch Plan Approval Mike Link was present to discuss his sketch plan. Mr. Opal questioned as to whether or not this business was a permitted use in the B2 zone. After reading the Code Book and discussion among the Board, it was decided that it is a permitted use in the B2 zone. Chairman Bennington said he did not see any problems with the plan; the set- backs are OK, parking OK, water retention problem is OK. Mr. Link asked if he could get preliminary and final approval at this meeting. Chairman Bennington said no, the City Engineer will have to look at the site plan when it is submitted and he will have to submit plans with an architect's seal on same - everything else seems to be OK. Mr. Quaggin questioned how high the ceilings will be as they are designated as being "lofted". Mr. Link advised they will all be 14' tall. -3- Planning Commission Meeting January 18, 1984 ~ o Mr. Quaggin made a motion to grant approval of the sketch plan. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. At 8:10 P.M. Chairman Bennington asked for a five minute recess. The meeting was called back to order at 8:16 P.M. SP-8353 - Edgewater Alliance Church - 310 North Ridgewood - Addition Reverend Siano and two members of the Church were present to represent this plan. Reverend Siano stated that they have brought in revised plans, showing park- ing and additional shrubbery and trees that were required. He said that his engineer, Mr. Amaral, had submitted revised water management calculations. Reverend Siano, in answering the question asked by Chairman Bennington, said that the Church's property ends at the end of the parking lot area. He further advised that they have changed the parking spaces to be 10' by 20', as required by the Code and they have 66 spaces and only need 40, with the seating capacity of the Church being 160 seats in the sanctuary. Chairman Bennington stated it is required that there be a buffer between the Church and any residential zoning and it cannot be a fence. Mr. Opal questioned the side setback on the south end of the parking lot. Chairman Bennington read from the Code Book wherein it states that the parking lot can be in the setback. Dana Armstrong, a member of the audience, stated that the driveway can be in the setback, not the parking area. Chair- man Bennington said the Code does not state that. Dana Armstrong then began a discussion concerning the problem in the area with drainage and the water from the Church property running onto his property. Chairman Bennington read the section from the Code concerning the setback requirements and the definition of a setback. Chairman Bennington advised the Church members that they are required to have a 10' buffer at the property line adjoining the residential property, whether there is a building on that portion of property or not. He further stated that there is a serious drainage problem on this property. Frank Marshall advised the Board that he felt the engineer for the Church, Mr. Amaral, was taking care of the stormwater management problem, that the Church has advised that they plan to add a second phase at a later date and would handle the problem with the run-off from the parking lot at that time. It was a great expense to take care of this problem, however, there is plenty of property on this parking lot to adequately handle the run-off. Chairman Bennington advised that they are required, by the Code, to take care of the first I" of run-off on their property. Mr. Amaral questioned whether or not this applied to buildings that were built prior to enactment of the Ordinance. Chairman Bennington said that the Code states you cannot increase the non-conformity of a non-conforming structure. Frank Marshall stated they are not increasing the non-conformity. Chairman Bennington said that the drainage problem that exists in this area is being created by the run-off from the Church property. Mr. Amaral stated he has talked to Mr. Marshall concerning correcting the problem of the stormwater run-off from the parking lot. They can install a subsurface drain on the north side, if the City would allow a subsurface drain in the parkway between the edge of the pavement of Mockingbird Lane and the edge of the parking lot pavement. This would be an exfiltration system that would take care of the run-off from the parking lot. Frank Marshall agreed with Mr. Amaral's suggestion and said it would take care of the problem if installed properly and sized properly. Chairman Bennington asked if part of it would be on the City's right-of-way. Mr. Amaral said yes. -4- Planning Commission Meeting January 18, 1984 o o Frank Marshall said it could be sized and some of the run-off that runs off of Mockingbird Lane into it and it would then infiltrate into the ground instead of running into the ditch. He said the Church would have to ask the City for the drainage easement. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Marshall if the system Mr. Amaral is referring to will control the problem, to which Mr. Marshall replied that it would. Chairman Bennington questioned the parking spaces as being 8~' long by 15'. He said he went out and measured them. Reverend Siano said that they have been corrected to comply with the Code and Towers Paving will resurface the lot and restripe it. Mr. Opal said that they need to go to DER for permits and inspections. Mr. Marshall said that DER did not need to get involved in this project. Chairman Bennington stated that if the drainage problem is taken care of to Mr. Marshall's satisfaction, the only problem remaining is the buffer in the rear. A discussion then ensued regarding the type of buffer that would be put up in this area. Mr. Amaral suggested a screen fence. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion that this site plan be given preliminary approval, subject to the drainage on the parking lot being approved as presented to the City Engineer and a buffer being installed on the west side of the parking lot. Mr. Finn seconded the motion. Mr. Opal askedLthat the motion be amended to include getting approval from DER regarding the drainage problem. The amendment DIED for lack of a second. Mr. Hillerich asked if this project complied with the Tree Ordinance. Chair- man Bennington stated that there is not 25% crown cover on this property and unless part of the parking lot is torn up, they will be unable to comply with this requirement. However, he stated that they have to be reasonable in dealing with this matter - the Ordinance was written so that people could not go in and take all the trees down and not be required to replace some of them. Upon roll call concerning the original motion, motion CARRIED 4-1. Mr. Opal voted NO. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Opal said that a lady telephoned him and said that the Building Official had come out to her home concerning a complaint that he had received regarding her cutting down a tree on her property without getting a tree removal permit. He said he thought the Tree Ordinance did not affect any single family residences. Chairman Bennington advised that the Tree Ordinance only applies to those -site plans requiring site plan approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Opal said the Building Official advised this lady that he received orders from the City Clerk to go out and check into this matter. Someone had complained to City Hall about it. He asked if a complaint was filed. Mrs. Bennington suggested that Mr. Opal bring this matter up at the City Council meeting under "Miscellaneous". Chairman Bennington read the letter to the Board members from the secretary, Susan Mist~, concerning resolution No. 80-R-135, wherein an agreement was made between New Smyrna and Edgewater regarding future property annexation. Due to the fact that recent newspaper articles indicate New Smyrna Beach is considering annexing property into their City, Chairman Bennington asked the secretary to get a copy of the resolution passed by New Smyrna concerning this matter and to write them, reminding them of this resolution. He further stated that it was his understanding they were considering annexing property to the west. Mr. Hillerich began discussion concerning the authority people have to fill a piece of property to bring up the elevation, without having stormwater management calculations reviewed by the City, etc. In doing this, the run-off water can go anyplace off of the property, causing problems with -5- Planning Commission Meeting January 18, 1984 o ~ adjacent property owners. Frank Marshall advised that the Ordinance allows for a permit, they are required to apply for a stormwater permit. In the past such permit was never issued and never required by Edgewater, however, in the future, when an applicant comes in for site plan approval, he will have to abide by the Ordinance in furnishing these calculations. Chairman Bennington said that if someone is filling land without a permit, he is in violation of the City Ordinance and a complaint should be filed with the Code Enforcement Board. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M. Minutes submitted by: Susan Mista -6- Planning Commission Meeting January 18, 1984 u o Dat~~Y\...u a. V"j 16/ ICfeL+ +. ~V\..I'\-L~ Co ~lvU s-s{o ~ \ "Pi"'- 4-\ .