11-16-1983
o
.0
CITY OF EDGEWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 1983
Minutes
Chairman Bennington called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M., ln the
Community Center.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Opal, Chenoweth, Quaggin and
Hillerich. Mr. Hillerich arrived at 7:12 P.M. Also present: Susan
Mista, secretary, 2 members of the press and various members of the
audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Mr. Chenoweth and seconded by Mr. Opal to approve the minutes
of the November 2, 1983, meeting. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Mr. Hillerich
had not arrived to vote on this motion.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Bennington said that the guest speaker, Steve Edgar, the County
Forester, was not present to speak at the meeting.
SITE PLAN REVIEWS
SP-8337 - Sam Hatoum - 24 Unit Rental Complex
Sam Hatoum and Parker Mynchenberg, Mr. Hatoum's engineer, were present
to discuss the plans.
The secretary presented the Board members with revised site plans along
with a letter from Scott Spooner of Briley, Wild. Mr. Mynchenberg advised
that the revised plans show the stop signs and a note that the Police Chief
has requested security lights be installed after construction is completed.
He added that theresalso a couple of modifications. After meeting with
the City Engineer they added an additional retention area. He also stated
that they went to City Hall and were given a street address for the
project, that being 321 Canal Road. The units will be Building A, B, and
C with numbers for A 1-8, B-9-l6, and C 17-24.
Chairman Bennington asked if this were to bea two story building, to
which Mr. Mynchenberg replied, yes, eight units per building, a total
of 24 apartments.
Chairman Bennington questioned Mr. Mynchenberg regarding when Mr. Hatoum
had presented a proposed nursing home to be constructed on tliis site and
the matter concerning Mosquito Control regarding this area. Mr. Mynchenberg
asked if this concerned them having jurisdiction of the ditch along Canal
and Chairman Bennington advised that that was what they were told. Mr.
Mynchenberg advised that there is an existing run-off from the site; the
ditch will not see anymore water than it is seeing now. There is an
elevation of 15 at U.S. 1 down to 4~ at Canal Street. That is the way
all the water is flowing now and it will continue to flow in the same
direction. He explained to the Board members how the retention area would
handle the water.
Chairman Bennington questioned the Slze of the apartments. Mr. Mynchenberg
stated the living area is 1178 square feet; the patio area is 187 square
feet on the lower units; lot coverage based on the zoning line is 22.7%.
Chairman Bennington questioned the trees on the property that have the
white streamers hanging on them. Mr. Hatoum advised that those were
attached when they did the topo. They plan to save as many of them as
possible.
o
Q
Mr. Mynchenberg said they only show the trees on the site plan that will
remain. He showed on the plans where the buffer hedge will screen the
parking area so the cars cannot be seen.
Chairman Bennington asked what is considered the front of the project.
Mr. Mynchenberg said Mr. Hatoum's property fronts on u.s. 1, however,
there are two typesof zoning, commercial and R5, with the new mailing
address it now fronts on Canal. The lots themselves, where the parking
is, you park in front of your unit. Chairman Bennington stated the project
should have a front setback of 35'. Mr. Mynchenberg stated that meant
from the front of the building, if you face any line, the front of the
building needs to be 35'. The rear setback is from the rear of your unit
to the property line, to another unit side setback - you're talking about
the side of the unit. He said they don't refer to the front of the project
itself, just about the units. There is 48' from the front to the zoning
line.
Chairman Bennington said the buildings should be separated by 30' and the
plans only show 25'. He showed on the plans where there is only one point
that shows 25' - the rest recesses back 5' in both directions. Mr. Mynchen-
berg said if there was going to be a problem, he could change it to be
3Cl ' ~. 1.1.
Chairman Bennington questioned whether or not these are to be rental, to
which Mr. Mynchenberg advised, yes. Chairman Bennington said the Ordinance
requires deed covenants from the developer. This shall be supplied, in
writing, all covenants and restrictions that will govern the maintenance
of the common open space and other aspects of the multi-family dwelling
project. Mr. Mynchenberg stated that Mr. Hatoum is the only owner, he
is responsible for all the maintenance. The common areas Chairman Benning-
ton is referring to are in a condominium type project. There is no common
area in a single ownership project. Chairman Bennington said the Code
states mUlti-family projects, period. Mr. Mynchenberg said that the
common areas in a condominium type project would be the swimming pool,
picnic tables, etc., and someone has to maintain it because no one in
the project actually owns that area so you have covenants and restrictions.
In regards to deed restrictions, in this project the people are not getting
a deed to these units. Chairman Bennington read from the Code concerning
common open space area: "All land areas that are not subdivided into
individual building lots shall be considered common open space. Common
open space areas must be suitably! landscaped and improved for aesthetic
or recreation purposes and it must be maintained by the project management,
or conveyed to a non-profit '..organization, such as a homeowners assoc-
iation." Mr. Mynchenberg said it is not talking about an apartment complex.
Chairman Bennington said it states or maintained by the project management.
He said he has to supply, in writin~ all covenants and restrictions that
will govern the maintenance of the common open space. Mr. Mynchenberg
said there will be no covenants or restrictions .in this project. A lengthy
discussion continued regarding this matter. It was decided that this
section regarding common open space would be referred to the City Attorney
for clarification.
Chairman Bennington advised Mr. Mynchenberg that all utility:~lines must
be underground. If less than 4' underground, they must be encased ln
concrete. Mr. Mynchenberg agreed to comply with this requirement.
Mr. Opal referred to the roadway that comes to U.S. 1. Mr. Mynchenb erg
stated that it was a driveway, not a roadway. He advised that Mr. Hatoum
did not want to have a str~ight through road where people could take a
short cut to Canal, going through the complex. They have put an entrance
on the south side, come through the parking area, and out an exit/entrance
on west or east - that is the reason for the jog in the driveway, which is
a private driveway.
-2- Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1983
Q
o
A discussion then ensued regarding the sewer system which goes under
Canal. Mr. Mynchenberg explained how the system works, using the 30"
concrete culvert.
Chairman Bennington advised that they need a landscaped buffer, la' in
width along the side lot line and 20' in width along the front lot line.
He said the plans show a 5' buffer on the side and none in the front.
Mr. Mynchenberg asked if they would be buffering U.S. 1, to which Chairman
Bennington said Canal would be the front, that is the address. He also
s~id he would be buffering half of the retention pond. He further stated
there is only a 25' setback there now and 35' is needed, that being the
front setback. Mr. Mynchenberg said he thought that meant the front of
the units. Chairman Bennington said it says a 35' setback with a 20'
buffer. Mr. Mynchenberg asked if the 20' buffer meant a total mass of
bushes for 20' or an open area for 20'. Chairman Bennington stated the
lands~aped area must be 10' in width along the side lot lines and 20' in
width along the front lot lines. He said he is sure it doesn't mean 20'
of plants. There is a problem with the sides, there is only 5' with
pavement in the rest. Mr. Mynchenberg said he could pull the driving lane
along the south side up toward the building and provide 10'. On the north
side where the other driveway is he said he could pull that closer to the
building, also.
Chairman Bennington stated he could see that they need the parking, need
the retention ponds, everything has to be moved east at least 10' to 15',
the buildings will still remain in the multi-family zoning. He sees no
problem with the parking in the B3 zoning because the Code states you can
go off the side if you own the property if you cannot meet the requirements.
He said he did not know if the City would need something to protect the
retention ponds. Mr. Mynchenberg explained that the retention areas have
been calculated so that no more or less water will be realized in this
area.
Mr. Mynchenberg again questioned the front setback stating he t~ought
it meant from the front of the building. He said that is how he interprets
it to mean. Chairman Bennington referred to the Code concerning cluster
housing developments and property line setbacks. The line is to be measured
along a line parallel to the street which the building fronts. Mr.
Mynchenberg said this fronts a private drive. Chairman Bennington stated
they are talking here about building separations. Mr. Mynchenberg said
the unit by Canal fronts on the driveway in front of it, not Canal.
Chairman Bennington said the rear door fronts on Canal, and the project
front would also be Canal. Mr. Mynchenberg stated that the girl in City
Hall said they could have either a U.S. 1 address or the address on
Canal and if they chose the U.S. 1 address they would only need 25' for
a setback, which did not make sense to him. Chairman Bennington said
it all depended on how you interpretted the Code. Mr. Mynchenberg stated
he laid out the project so that the front of the units did not face the
street, leaving the rear of the building facing the street and requiring
a 25' setback, as ppposed to a 35' setback.
Mr. Mynchenberg stated they would grant an access easement to the apart-
ment complex for the driveway. Everyone agreed that that would be a good
idea. He also stated that they would record a document concerning the
rear of the property that states that that parcel of lan~ which will be
defined on the survey, will be used solely for stormwater retention and
perpetutuity.
Concerning the question Chairman Bennington raised regarding Mosquito
Control permits, Mr. Hatoum gave Ohairman Bennington a copy of the letter
from Mosquito Control concerning the previous proposed site plan and
Chairman Bennington read same into the record. The letter stated that
the drainage system was to be referred to Briley, Wild for approval.
Chairman Bennington stated that Briley, Wild has been working with Mr.
Mynchenberg in this regard and there appear to be no problems with same.
-3- Planning Commission Minutes
November 16, 1983
. '
o
Q
Chairman Bennington stated that they would ask the City Attorney for
an opinion concerning the deed covenant; all the utility lines must
be put underground; the whole project must be moved east 10'; and an
easement for the east driveway and the retention area. Mr. Mynchenberg
again questioned the 35' setback, he stated he wanted to be sure he had
to have a 35' setback before he moves the entire project to accommodate
this requirement. . Chairman Bennington showed Mr. Mynchenberg in the
Ordinance where it requires a 35' front setback. He stated he still
feels they are talking about the front of the unit, not the project
front yard or project rear yard. Chairman Bennington asked if the Board
wanted to give this question to the City Attorney for clarification. Mr.
Mynchenberg suggested that if the City Attorney said he needed 35', he
would shift the buildings another 10'. . Everyone agreed with his suggestion.
Chairman Bennington stated that they would ask the City ~ttorney if the
deed covenants apply, and if the project is the front and does it need
35' for the front setback. He further advised Mr. Mynchenberg that an
architects' sealed set of plans is required before pulling the building
permits.
Chairman Bennington reiterated the five items that needed to be complied
with: the deed covenant question and front setback question to legal;
all utilities to be underground, (Mr. Mynchenberg said he would put a
note on the plans to show that specification); the easement granted for
the retention area and the east driveway; buffers - 20' in front and 10'
on sides; and two sets of sealed plans from an architect for the structures.
Mr. Hillerich questioned where the front of the property is in relation
to requiring a 20' buffer. Chairman Bennington stated that the motion
should read that the front buffer to be 20', if that is determined to
be the front. Mr. Mynchenberg stated he would bring the pavement in 10'
off of the north and south property line.
Mr. Hillerich made a motion that this site plan be given preliminary
approval, subject to the five items previously being stated to be
changed. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
SP-8333 - Earl Wallace for B. J. Morton - Retail Sales/Storage Addition
Earl Wallace was present to represent B. J. Morton concerning this site
plan.
Chairman Bennington read the Department Head Supervisors comments into
the record. A discussion ensued regarding the landscaping shown on the
site plan. Mr. Quaggin suggested that a one way sign be added to the
driveway area. Mr. Wallace agreed and stated it would be added to the
building, itself, with an arrow. He stated he would put a stop sign at
the exit, as requested by the Chief of Police.
Mr. Chenoweth made a motion to approve this site plan for final approval.
Mr. Opal ~tate~ he felt this should go back to the Board of Adjustments.
You can reduce a non-conforming lot but they are increasing it. Mr.
Hillerich seconded the motion.
Chairman Bennington advised th~t the Board of Adjustments gave this back
with the angled parking stipulation which was nearly impossible to do.
The Planning Commission discussed the conditions on the side and determined
that they were not increasing the non-conformity. A discussion then
continued regarding the non-conformity problem with this property.
Upon roll call, motion CARRIED 4-1. Mr. Opal voted NO.
SP-8338 - Earl Wallace for Pilch Construction - 5 Unit Apartment Complex
Mr. Wallace was present to discuss these plans.
-4- Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1983
o
o
Chairman Bennington questioned the three oak trees sitting on City property
in front of the property. Mr. Wallace stated they would work around them.
Mr. Opal asked Mr. Wallace when this property was zoned R4, to which Mr.
Wallace replied that he did not know. Chairman Bennington said the old
zoning map showed the whole section as R3 and the new official zoning map
shows it as being R4. He said that should be looked in to to see if it
is really R4. Chairman Bennington questioned Mr. Wallace concerning the
existing trees in the back. Mr. Wallace stated that they will all stay,
they provide a buffer to the railroad.
Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to the Ordinance under R4,
Item G, Page 1556.2, open space: 60% of the project shall be retained as
open space. Open space does not include any land area devoted to building,
streets or access drives. The open space may include properly landscaped
parking lots when the same are recommended by the Planning Board and
approved by the City Council. Open space must be suitably! improved for
aesthetic and recreational purposes and it must be maintained by the
project management or conveyed to a non-profit organization, such as a
homeowner's association. Or there shall be provided. by the developer a
trust fund for perpetual maintenance of the area.
Chairman Bennington stated that there has to be 60% open space that cannot
include the parking lot unless Planning recommends it and it is approved
by Council.
A discussion then ensued concerning the surv~y of the property, wherein
there are trees in the center of the survey stakes. Mr. Wallace said he
could change the parking to the left to allow the trees to remain.
Mr. Quaggin questioned the fire walls between the units. Mr. Wallace
explained there would be a double-wall system.
Chairman Bennington suggested a planter be put between the parking area
and the trees be saved. He also questioned the zoning, when it was
changed to R4. A lady in the audience who identified herself as Elizabeth
Griffith, stated she used to serve on the Zoning Board and she remembers
when this property was rezoned to R4. She said it was a year or more ago.
Chairman Bennington stated that a legal opinion needs to be obtained
concerning Item G on Page 1556.2 - does this site plan need City Council
approval - does it pertain to this project or not.
Mr. Chenoweth made a motion to approve this site plan for preliminary and
final approval. The motion died for lack of second.
Mr. Opal made a motion to give preliminary site plan approval to this
plan. Mr. Hillerich seconded the motion for discussion.
Mr. Hillerich stated that they were assuming the zoning is correct; Mr.
Wallace will check the trees to see if he can adjust the driveways and
if they do not have to be adjusted to any great extent he will put in
the small planter between the parking; we will check out the Ordinance
to see if the 60% applies to R4 multi-family of this size. Chairman
Bennington stated it says it may include a properly landscaped parking
lot, when approved by the City Council. Mr. Wallace asked that this
plan be given final approval with the stipulations so that there won't
be a delay if this plan does comply with the Ordinance. Chairman
Bennington said his opinion was that he did not feel comfortable with
the plan right now and would prefer to get a legal opinion concerning
that section of the Code before final approval is given.
There being no further discussion, upon roll call, motion CARRIED 5-0.
SP-8339 - Earl Wallace for Frank Hall - Shopping Plaza
Earl Wallace was present to discuss these plans.
At 9:15 P.M. the Board took a recess. The meeting was called back to
order at 9:25 P.M.
-5- Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1983
. .
o
o
Chairman Bennington referred the Board to the letter from Scott Spooner
of Briley, Wild. Mr. Wallace responded in saying that he had spoken with
Mr. Spooner that morning and explained to Mr. Spooner that the stormwater
calculations were not included due to the fact that this project will be
built in phases and final stormwater areas will be done in three segments.
He stated he advised Mr. Spooner that he would sit down with him, prior to
any work being done on the project, and go over the computations to come
up with a workable solution to comply totally with the stormwater management.
Total underground absorption will be required in this project and they
will be retaining and maintaining their own water.
A discussion then ensued concerning the shell drive, parking requirements,
entrances to the project.
Chairman Bennington stated that the area is zoned B3 and the definition of
a shopping center is a group of commercial establishments, planned,
developed, owned and managed as a unit, with offstreet parking provided
on a site of at least two acres and related in its location, size, and type
of shops to the trade area which the unit serves. He said these shopping
centers are authorized only in B5. Mr. Wallace said it was not a shopping
center. Chairman Bennington read from the Code concerning the B5 district.
Mr. Wallace said it was just a shopping area, could be defined as a series
of strip stores on u.S. 1, there are a series of retail and wholesale stores
and they call it a "plaza" with spanish design in a B3 area.
A lengthy discussion then ensued .regarding the definition of a shopping
center and whether or not this project falls in that category._
Mr. Hillerich said that this area is not large enough to fall into the
requirements for a shopping center, that being 2 acres or more. Chairman
Bennington said the Code does not say you cannot design a shopping center
on one acre, it only says you have to have 2 acres to build it. Chairman
Bennington pointed out that on the plan it calls for 5.5 parking spaces
per unit and the only district requiring that many is for B5 - shopping
center district.
Fran .Verduzco, a member of the audience, asked to speak to the Board.
He advised he was the previous owner of Walt's Party Story and now owns
the property adjoining it and he said that by putting up building A and
entering it on U.S. 1, you will be travelling over underground gas tanks;
also when the traffic comes back out they will have to use the side streets
which will create a traffic jam. Mr. Opal said all that has to be done
is to take out the gas tanks. Mr. Redusco said there is a gas station
there at the present time and the station would have to be removed prior
to the project being completed. Mr. Wallace responded that the gas tanks
will not create any problems, they will compensate for these tanks and
take care of them.
Chairman Bennington advised that compliance with the Comp Plan has to
be taken into consideration, also. He referred the Board members to
page 1-8 on Land Use and read this portion of the Plan to the members.
The goal says to ensure compatible, convenient, and economical patterns
of land use and development which are sensitive to citizens need and
enviornmental quality and the city's support capacities. Objective-
prevent incompatible mixes of land use by ensuring that the type, scale,
distribution and density of the development is consistent with the
surrounding areas. Policies - Commercial, industrial and other traffic
generated activities should be located in areas with direct access to
the arterial street systems to minimize non-residential traffic to local
residential streets. Encourage commercial users to locate the centers
of concentrated activity convenient to residential areas by not allowing
unplanned commerical enroachment in a residential area. Encourage
businesses to locate in planned commercial centers by offering bonuses
and lot coverage as an incentive for common parking areas:in architectually
unified structures. He stated his opinion after reading that portion of
the Comp Plan is that this tells them to take these areas and zone them
-6- Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1983
... p ..'
o
Q
for a shopping center. However, you could get into a:1problem with the
size not conforming and then the entire section would have to be rezoned
as a shopping center. Mr. RedusGo said he would lose money if his pro-
perty were rezoned to B5.
Mr. Hillerich stated he did not see where this project did not comply
with the Comp Plan, assuming the stormwater drainage is worked out with
the engineers. If it is taken at B3 and as a group of retail/wholesale
stores, rather than a shopping center which is not allowed anyway, there
are more than the required parking spaces, there are two accesses to the
north and one access to the south and one access to u.s. 1, which would
not create more traffic problems in the area, there are cross-overs at
both streets on both ends of the property.
Mr. Hillerich made a motion that this site plan be given preliminary
approval, subject to the stipulation that all the items in the letter
from Scott Spooner be complied with, and all the comments from the depart-
ment head supervisors be complied with. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the
motion. Motion CARRIED 4-1. Chairman Bennington voted NO.
OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Bennington brought up the matter of only 7 plans being required
to be submitted on the Site Plan Requirements List. He said with five
members and an alternate, the department head supervisors requiring one,
that leaves the Planning office with no set of plans. If the plan requires
review by Briley, Wild, there are not enough sets to go around. It was
his suggestion that the requirement ;be changed to 9.
Mr. Chenoweth made a motion that the Site Plan Requirements List be
changed to requiring 9 sets of plans. Mr. Hillerich seconded the
motion. Motion CARRIED 4-1. Mr. Opal voted NO.
Concerning the workshop that is needed on the Tree Ordinance, Chairman
Bennington advised that the Planning Commission received a letter from
the Edgewater Businessmen's Association and from the Industrial Board
that they would like to attend the workshop. He advised the secretary
to schedule the workshop the first part of December and notify the
people interested in same of the date and time.
Chairman Bennington then read a copy of the letter from Lorin Coppock
to J. C. Carder concerning his building single family residences in
Pelican Cove West. The letter advised Mr. Carder to stop building these
residences and contact the Planning Department to schedule a meeting
with the Planning Commission to review these altered plans prior to
completing construction. The secretary advised the Board that Mr. Carter
had not contacted her concerning this letter.
There being no further business to come before the Board, upon motion
made by Mr. Quaggin to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Opal, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
Minutes submitted by:
Susan Mista
-7- Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1983
(.)
w
Date
L/9/V/YJ,,-yG
Ct'~////~;s/Cvr/
Alee:I//rq.
7:o() /'?.4f.
-y
",'
\~ ' I
-- I
---y-
4 I 4-l 4-\
---- ~--- ------ ---
j h.
I
I
_ _..1 __._ __ _ ___
] -
] . __ hd. _ _ _ _ _.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- - n_ __ hO_ 0 - ___ 0- ___ __. _.__. ___ __ - - _j _, _
nun__ L. .n... .. .. . .. U '1_ ~_I HU
r...~. ....~u~.:.~_.uuul :....:n".rn...n.~ ... U .u :.~ :r:u n: un ~:=..u..j ..u_.= '
.... . . ..:: _n .... : . .... ... ...1 ... I. .... I. .....u
.. ....... j .nnn.j .. I j
.. - -- ._~~~_._~. --- .~h_ J u_ _ _ .-_ - ~_- ]. . j
.--.. -
I
UUu Ii
I I
I I
I
I