Loading...
10-19-1983 o Q CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 1983 Minutes Chairman Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:12 P.M. ln the Community Center building. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Opal, Chenoweth, Quaggin and Hillerich. Mr. Finn was excused. Also present: Susan Mista, secretary, Earl Wallace, one member of the press, Leslie Ogram, Darwin Schneider, and William Burton. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Quaggin made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 5, 1983, meeting, seconded by Mr. Hillerich. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SITE PLAN REVIEWS SP-8313 - C. Leslie Ogram - Commercial, Electrical, Contracting Business Mr. Ogram was present to discuss his plans. The only problem left on this matter was stormwater calculations by Mr. Ogram's engineers concerning his location in the flood plain area. Mr. Opal noted that he needed verification or certification from the Health Department concerning the septic tank. Chairman Bennington referred the Board to the letter from Mr. Ogram's engin- eers, Baskerville-Donovan Engineers, stating that they recommend 10' elevation and the flooding he will have will be minimal and will not cause much run-off onto someone elses property since his elevation now is 9.5 to 9.7. He also referred the Board to the letter from the Building Inspector, Lorin Coppock, stating he reviewed the engineers letter and his opinion is that this site plan should be granted. The land in question is less than a half acre and Mr. Coppock has stated he is qualified to review the flood plain program concerning small areas. Chairman Bennington also stated he did not feel that an applicant needed to have Briley, Wild review the stormwater calcul- ations if he has had his engineer do a study of same and the City's Building Inspector approves it. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion that final approval be granted this site plan, based on the report submitted by Mr. Ogram's engineers. Mr. Hillerich seconded the motion. Mr. Opal questioned where the water was going to go when it overflowed. Chairman Bennington stated he has some water retention on his property and if and when this 100 year flood hits the water will not go anywhere, it will just sit there because there will be water everywhere. Mr. Opal agreed with him. Upon roll call, motion CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Opal then made a motion that the Building Official be provided with a certificate from the Health Department concerning the septic tank before a building permit is issued for Mr. Ogram's plans. There being no second to Mr. Opal's motion, Chairman Bennington passed the gavel to Mr. Opal, and seconded his motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SP-8317 - Larry E. Harris - Waco Mfg. Addition Chairman Bennington stated that this addition was before the Board for final approval concerning the flood plain calculations. He referred the members to the letter from Briley, Wild. Secretary, Susan Mista, informed the Board that she received a telephone call from Scott Spooner of Briley, Wild that afternoon, advising that Mr. Harris presented the corrected plans to him that morning, however, there were two discrepancies concerning two elevation changes. These discrepancies will be corrected and Mr. Spooner o o suggested the plan be approved, that he would send a letter to the Building Official after he receives same and no permit would be issued until that time. Chairman Bennington asked if Scott Spooner was satisfied with every- thing that he stated in his letter, except for the two elevations, to which Susan Mista replied, yes. Mr. Opal questioned Mr. Copeland's involvement in reviewing the site and his comments on the swale keeping the water from running onto Park Avenue. Mr. Schneider responded that Mr. Copeland was familiar with the area and is in charge of maintaining portions of same. Mr. Quaggin asked for two sealed sets of plans. Mr. Schneider stated that the plans do have an engineer's seal on them, the architect was out of town and could not be contacted to seal same, however, he stated he wo~ld have them sealed if the Board required it. He -stated they did add two handicapped parking stalls on the revised plans, along with the water retention area. Mr. Hillerich made a motion that final approval be given this site plan, pending the response from Briley, Wild that the elevation changes are met and this information sent to the Building Official. Mr. Opal suggested that the architect's seal be required also. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Mr. Hillerich modified his motion to include the architect's seal. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SP-833l - Earl Wallace for Richard Spangler - 29th - 30th & India Palm - Duplex Chairman Bennington stated that the plans meet the setbacks, it provides proper parking facilities, proper landscaping and 6 trees provided in compliance with Section F of the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Quaggin questioned the 20 x 20 parking area. Mr. Wallace explained that it was a 20 x 20 concrete pad for parking. Mr. Quaggin questioned also whether or not there was a rear exit, to which Mr. Wallace replied, no. He stated you don't back directly out into the roadway, there is definite traffic control within the property lines. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion that this plan be given final approval. Mr. Hillerich seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SP-8332 - Earl Wallace for Ed Hall - 21st & Hibiscus - Retail/Storage Facility Mr. Opal questioned Mr. Wallace if this was going to be storage or a retail unit, to which Mr. Wallace replied_it is a retail used area. He stated that the storage area was a stockroom attached to the retail establishment. Chairman Bennington questioned if each unit was one unit, to which Mr. Wallace replied, yes. He showed on the diagram how the structuves are laid out. The restroom facilities are located in such a manner that they comply with the Ordinance for men and women. Chairman Bennington asked the Board members to read page 1623 of the Code concerning parking requirements, wherein he stated this section was ques- tionable as to the meaning of same. He said he states 12' for a double, which is entrance and exit, and 20' for a single - one way. It could be a misprint or it could mean two 12' for double, which is 24'. It states residential has to have 9' wide driveways and a minimum width of 12' for double accessways and 20' for single accessways serving multi-family and non-residential. He assumes 9' is for residents and 12 and 20 for business and multi-family. However, there has to have commas in that section of the Code to make it say that. Mr. Hillerich stated he thought it meant 9' would be required for a circular or U-type drive, which would be a directional drive. A 2-way drive that you back in and out of becomes a double access, which is 12'. Commercial, multi-family and non-residential are 20' - that was Mr. Hillerich's interpretation of that section of the Code. Chairman Bennington stated that that portion of the Ordinance needs to be cleared up. A lengthy discussion then ensued concerning the driveway requirements. Mr. Wallace suggested that there be a one way traffic pattern - one way in and one way out - exit and entrance sign. There would be traffic control that way. -2- Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1983 o Q Mr. Hillerich agreed with Mr. Wallace's suggestion. Chairman Bennington stated if the Code was misprinted and should have said 12' for single and 20' for double, it would make more sense. Chairman Bennington stated that he has a problem with the existing building concerning the parking requirements. Under B2, retail stores would be almost any of the permitted uses listed, on page 1597, and the Ordinance for issuing a license says that before the City Clerk can issue a license for a business, both the City Clerk and Building Official must verify that that building complies with all zoning for that type license. Mr. Opal questioned as to whether or not there was plumbing in the buildings, to which Mr. Wallace replied, yes. He said the new plumbing will tie in to the existing septic system. There will be two systems on 5 lots. Chairman Bennington referred to the 1748 sq. ft. storage unit on the corner and asked if it would be used strictly for storage, to which Mr. Wallace replied, yes. He further stated that that area could never be used for retail because it could not comply with the parking requirements. Mr. Wallace said the units are less than 600 sq. ft. each. Chairman Bennington voiced concern over the fact that there is nothing to prevent that building to be rented out for storage purposes. Mr. Wallace responded that it would be very costly to rent this building for storage purposes. Chairman Bennington stated there is a business in everything except this building and it could be rented out as storage and that size structure is not authorized in B2 zoning. Mr. Wallace said it should have been stated as "stockroom", rather than storage. Mr. Hillerich suggested taking the center retail building out of the middle and situate it on the northwest corner, moving your plumbing. This would c~eate a central storage between the two retail buildings. Mr. Wallace said that this situation is one in which everything revolves around the center of the complex. . A discussion then ensued concerning moving the buildings around so as not to create a storage building that is not authorized in B2 zoning as a separ- ate structure. Mr. Wallace referred to the plans and explained to the Board how he could add an additional retail store, thereby eliminating the problem of renting the areas as storage, not being in compliance with B2 zoning. His suggestion did not solve this problem, in the Board's opinion, and discussion continued on how this problem could be solved. Mr. Hillerich made a motion that preliminary and final approval be granted to this site plan with the stipulations that a retail establishment will be added to the north end of the L-shaped structure, the remainder to be designated storage for the four retail outlets in that structure, security lights be provided and a sealed set of plans. Mr. Quaggin seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-1. Mr. Opal voted NO. Chairman Bennington asked for a five minute recess at 8:55 P.M. The meeting was called back to order at 9:00 P.M. SP-8333 - Earl Wallace for BJ's Flowers - Addition Mr. Wallace gave a letter to the Board from a neighbor of BJ's Flowers. Chairman Bennington read the letter to the Board which stated that they have no objection to BJ's building past !their rear yard setbacks. The letter was signed by Bill and Frieda Hutchins. Mr. Wallace explained to the Board that the owner of BJ's, Mrs. Morton, is in need of expanding her facility and she has a non-conforming lot of record and a non-conforming structure of record since 1958 when the Department of Transportation took part of the right-of-way along that portion of the property. Mr. Wa1lace continued to explain to the Board members, referring to the drawing plans, how the structure will be utilized for retail and storage or stockroom areas. He explained that the retail store room and proposed additional retail store room space gives a total of 660 sq. ft., requiring 3.30~parking spaces. Taking the remainder of the area that will be used for stockroom and storage area, there is required one company and one employee vehicle, or 2 required by the Code. A total of 5 required parking areas is needed. -3- Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1983 o o Mr. Wallace then presented a letter to the Board from the Board of Adjust- ments, dated August 12, 1983, which the secretary read to the Board. The letter stated that the Board of Adjustments approved Mrs. Morton's variance to the rear yard setback with the stipulation that diagonal parking be provided on the south side and a circular type drive around the building back out to U.S. 1. They refused the variance concerning the front setback in that it does not comply with the Code requirements. Mr. Wallace stated that there is no way they can put that type of parking in the rear, even if it is one way, there being only 24' to the side lot line, the cars would have to sit within 5' of the structure. He stated that they al tered the original plans and in conformance to the ci t)i:.',s Ordinances they came up with only requiring 5 parking spaces for this addition. He stated there is a restriction of the B3 usage in this situation.and he has designed this building around the usage. He asked the Board for their guidance as to what she can do before she spends a lot of money. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Wallace if the Board of Adjustments specified this parking, to which Mr. Wallace replied, yes. Chairman Bennington stated that they have granted a variance to the rear and put an impossible condition on it. He then read the Code concerning non-conforming lots of record and non-conforming structures. The Code states that a structure cannot be altered to increase its non-conformity and by granting the rear variance, the non- conformity is increased in this situation. The Code also states that new structures shall be allowed to be constructed to conform to existing dwellings. It was his opinion that this is not a non-conforming situation. A discussion then ensued regarding whether or not this property is non-conforming and whether or not the structure is non-conforming. They also discussed whether or notl)a variance is required. It was the Board's opinion that a variance is not required in that this plan is not increasing the non-conformity in the front. Mr. Hillerich made a motion that the sketch plan be approved in that it does not disturb the non-oonformity situation. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-1. Mr. Opal voted NO. Mr. Hillerich suggested that Mr. Wallace meet the requirements of angled parking in the rear to comply with the variance granted by the Board of Adjustments. NEW BUSINESS S ecial Exce tion ap lication b William A. Burton to 0 erate auto re alr, tune-up, brake repair, engine repair and bo y work ln 1-2 zone. Chairman Bennington stated that he did not think Mr. Burton needed a Special Exception. The 12 zoning requirements state you can do anything permitted in II. II says you can have a paint and body shop. You can do boat repairs, farm repairs, and under "accessory uses" it states any accessory use custom- aiily incidental to a permitted principal use. Mr. Hillerich stated that an accessory use to a paint and body shop is not engine work, however, it is automotive related. A discussion began concerning whether or not this situation could be classified as an accessory use to paint and body shop. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion that no Special Exception is required by Mr. Burton to operate his proposed business in an 12 zone. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS Bill Porter presented an application for change of zoning from MHl to MH2 and the Planning Board has to say whether or not this complies with the Comp Plan. Mr. Porter explained that all the property surrounding his is zoned for mobile homes and he didn't think it would be a good idea to ask for the property to be zoned industrial. He advised the Board that it was his -4- Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1983 o o intention to sell the lots, rather than renting them. Three sides are zoned for mobile homes and the one side is zoned industrial. Chairman Bennington advised that if the zoning is changed Mr. Porter will have to comply with the Subdivision Ordinance. He read from the Ordinance that a minor subdivision is a division or redivision of a parcel of land and single ownership, the entire area is two acres or less and is not more than 3 lots. Mr. Porter stated the property was short of an acre. Chairman Bennington advised Mr. Porter uhat if there were 3 lots rather than 4, he would not have to comply with all the subdivision requirements. The only requirements he would have to comply with would be that all lots have to front on an existing public street, does not involve construction of any new streets or road to change existing streets and does not require the extension of municipal water or sewer. Mr. Porter said there is existing water on the street and if they would let him, he would run a line to it. He thought there was a pressure sewer in that area. Mr. Porter stated that he would split the lots and make 3 rather than 4 so that he would not have to comply with all the requirements of the subdivision Ordinance. Chairman Bennington said he could see nothing in the Comp Plan to discourage this rezoning. Mr. Hillerich made a motion to forward this application to Zoning, advising that there is no problem with the property and that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. At 10:15 P.M. Mr. Opal asked to be excused and he left the meeting. OLD BUSINESS Review Tree Ordinance Chairman Bennington referred the Board to the letter from the secretary concerning problems she is having with the Tree Ordinance. In answer to question 1 regarding who the Ordinance applies to, Chairman Bennington read from the Ordinance under Section 3 that states it applies only to a development requiring site plan approval by the Planning Commission. Rl, RIA, R2 and R3 do not apply, they are not listed under the section for site plan requirements on page 1635 of the Code Book. In answer to question 2 regarding whether or not the Ordinance ~pplies to existing developments, Chairman Bennington said no it does not apply to existing developments. In answer to question 3 as to who will inspect the property to see that it complies with the Ordinance and who will issue the permit and the charge for the fee. Chairman Bennington stated that the Landscape Ordinance answers one of the questions wherein it states that the Building Official shall verify compliance with the Ordinance. It was the opinion of Chairman Bennington that the Tree Ordinance and the Landscape Ordinance should possibly be combined into one Ordinance and they need to have a workshop on the Tree Ordinance to discuss crown cover require- ments, etc. After a lengthy discussion concerning the fee to be charged, it was the Board's decision that a fee of $25.00 be charged for the permit. This would cover the time spent by the Building Official to inspect same arid the staff to do the paperwork that is required to enforce this Ordinance. The Planning Department will issue the permit. Chairman Bennington suggested that in the future when site plans are sub- mitted the applicanu be required to show on the plans his compliance with Section 6 of the Tree Ordinance. If said plans do not show these specific- ations, the secretary was instructed not to accept them until the trees are shown. -5- Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1983 o o Requirements of single family dwellings in multi-family zones. Chairman Bennington read the answer from Mr. Alvarez to the question if single family dwellings can be removed from the multi-family zones, including R4, R5, R5A and R6, to which Mr. Alvarez replied that he did not recommend that it be removed inasmuch as it would be zoning by exclusion. A lengthy discussion then ensued regarding building single family dwellings in the mUlti-family zones. Concerning platted subdivisions for duplexes, the problem has arised where developers want to put single fam- ily residences in same. It was the opinion of Chairman Bennington that they be required to bring the entire subdivision plot back to Planning to have it changed or take it to Council. However, there are R4 zones in areas that are not platted subdivisions where a single family residence is authorized and the size of same is not indicated. There are no size requirements for them. The Code now reads 1,500 sq. ft. which is for each duplex in R4. Nothing is allowed less than 1,200 sq. ft. Chairman Bennington stated that the Zoning Commission is supposed to be changing the Code in situations such as this, however, the Planning Commission can take recommendations regarding amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Bennington advised that the requirements for duplexes are 1,500 per duplex, townhouses are 1,800 per unit, apartments are 750 per unit, R2 is 1,050, R2B is 1,200, RIB is 1,300, RIA is 1,300 and R1 is 1,300. Mr. Hillerich stated that the purpose was to keep single family dwellings out of the multi-family zones. It was his suggestion to make the minimum size requirements large so as to deter a developer from wanting to build single family in these zones. Mr. Hi1lerich made a motion that the minimum size requirements of the single family dwellings in R4, R5, R5A and R6 zones be 1,500 square feet, this figure being compatible with the requirements of the multi-family dwellings. Mr. Quaggin seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. There being no further business to come before the Board, upon motion made by Mr. Hillerich to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Chenoweth, meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Minutes submitted by: Susan Mista -6- Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1983 . " ~ ... o o Da te 0 tl~tQ.J_~63__ ~ ,~ ~ ~ l' J . ~~~:u'j. ~ j~~' . J 40 .~ . ~1~~ ~ C-~"'~~ ]f~' 3~i +~ ~il~ ~ ~r' ~ i~~,' ..:J N ~_.a~. ~ ~ j~1 it~jirj iji 'j:hLti~ 1 Ji ~ .~.~a.L.-#. .-i.. ~~ -~i- .-'{.. ..(\.,~ -~ T . k.~. .'.- "1'~. = ~ :=~'~===~-=-f~.~.: ~~':f 1- .~~ n' '. ~N.- ,. . 1.' ..'{. "..1- -Y..4"-' --1- .-1~ -.Lf- . IL .- .' .... ~-l{-~ .~ -----f-...'- ~ ._~ ?-'.+ n' =1: -; + ._~Q. . ld t. .-1-.. - . .-.4. t.....'f-.-1~.f- I . . '1~','l~f<i I.. I... ,--I ... mo. . 'Jim. li~j ~.,~, ... . j _ ~~r'~ . " ..j . i' -- .laT" .. i .. -.. ' t:,,: ~ .J'.-~-.l'..' a.. .1------- --- -- --------- ---______.1 __00 ----- .J~A~[..i.. ....~ ... .... r'. .... ........-j-... ~o~ mi. J' -I I-~ 1 \ I - - - -00- - - --- -- j - - - - -- m ____un -- -- -- - J - - - - -- - j -- - 00 - - ---- I -- -- - -- -- -- - - - - --- h_ - - - - ---- - --- J I - - __ _ __ __ _ ,_ no _ _ __ ---_I - -- 001 n - - - -- f -\ - - -- - -- - --,- - __ I __ , _ _ __ ____