Loading...
10-05-1983 ~~. o o CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 5, 1983 Minutes , Chairman Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:05 P.M., ln the Community Center building. . : ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Opal, Finn, Quaggin, and Hillerich: Mr. Chenoweth was excused. Also present: Mr. and Mrs. Garthwaite, and secretary, Susan Mista. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Quaggin made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 21, 1983, meeting, seconded by Mr. Opal. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SITE PLAN REVIEWS SP-8326 - Lorin Coppock - 20th & Guava Drive - Paint & Body Shop Mrs. Wheaton of Wheaton Construction was present to discuss the plans. Chairman Bennington stated that this plan was before the Commission at the last meeting and she is now coming back for final approval, having complied with the changes that were required. He further advised that concerning the paint booth, he talked with Mrs. Wheaton and was advised that they are only contracting to build the structure. The owner knows that he will have to have the paint booth in and approved before he is issued a license to operate the business. He also said that the building has been moved back into the setbacks, changing the parking spaces. Mr. Hillerich asked if this plan was the one regarding the cost of the building concerning the required architect's seal on the plans. Ckairman Bennington advised that it was. He further said that he had asked the secretary, Susan Mista, to inquire from the bank as to how much they would loan on a building such as this. He previously calculated the price of building this structure according to a resolution that establishes the price~ that is charged for a building permit, which came to approximately $29,000. The bank advised they would value the structure at approximately $27 ,000. However, he stated they have a notarized statement from the builder stating that he is building same for less than $25,000. It was Chairman Bennington's opinion that the notarized statement is sufficient confirmation that the building will cost less than $25,000 to build and, therefore, an architect's seal is not required on the plans. A discussion then ensued regarding exactly where this property is located on Guava. Chairman Bennington showed the exact location of same on the zoning map. In regards to the Tree Ordinance, a discussion ensued concerning the amount of trees shown on the plans and the compliance of same to the Ordinance. It was decided that they need to plant five (5) more trees in the landscape buffer area to comply with the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Hillerich made a motion to approve SP-8326, with the understanding that there will be five (5) more trees planted throughout the landsca~d . buffer area. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Mr. Quaggin asked that .it be added to the motion that the spray booth must meet the Fire Code requirements. It was then determined that there is an Ordinance that covers that, wherein these requirements must be met before any occupational license can be issued. Mr. Quaggin withdrew his addition to the motion. Upon roll call, motion CARRIED 5-0. .,. o o MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Bennington stated he has a letter that was sent May 10, 1982, from the Planning Commission to Mr. Joseph Mitchell, Mr. Clay Henderson, Mayor and Council, concernin! Section 603.01 - R4 - Multi-family district. He read the letter to the Board members that this section should be changed as follows: Item A - Permitted Uses - at this time he advised that said letter never went to Council and changes were never made. He referred the members to page 1556. Minimum lot size area for minimum yard requirements - front yard 30', side yard 10', rear yard 20'. The recommendation was to change that to front yard 40', side yard 10', rear yard 25' and the reason was that on the next page under yard requirements for all multi-family it is 40', 10', 25'. When that change was made, the Commission thought all setback requirements were to be changed in R4, however, the duplexes were omitted. Due to the requirement of two parking ;spaces required for a duplex, it is almost impossible to get them in there with a 30' setback and a planter. Under item D concerning dimensional requirements - item D (2) - minimum lot depth shows none. The Commission wanted this changed to 100' minimum lot depth. The reason for the change was because in all multi-family developments and duplexes there is 110'. With no minimum lot depth requirements someone could come in - put in a subdivision and say it isn't duplexes but rather townhouses or triplexes and they would be allowed to have 60' deep lots, for example. Chairman Bennington suggested they also consider that there are three existing subdivisions approved by Council that are duplex subdivisions, approved with 30' setbacks. They may need to be exempted since they have plat approval. Possibly they should be notated in the change that they do not have to comply with the 40' change. Chairman Bennington stated the reason for the change is so that all R4 setbacks will be the same. Front setback changed to 40', rear to 25' and side to 10'. He said they could omit the minimum requirements for duplexes and put them under Item D. As it now reads, a duplex is given a special category and it should comply with the other requirements in R4 zoning, with the exception of leaving the 1,500 sq. ft. minimum living area and minimum lot size. Also, the townhouse lot depth will be changed from "none" to 100'. Mr. Hillerich reiterated that they want to have Susan send a letter to Council requesting that they change the wording under R4, Permitted Uses - Duplex dimensional requirements to be the same as is listed for the reason that the previous Commission sent this to Council and it was never received and same is needed to make it uniform to the present R4 requirements; also, change the dimensional requirements, Item D (2) under minimum lot depth from "none" to 100'. He further added to exempt any previously approved duplex subdivisions. Mr. Hillerich said he would like to have all of the above made into a motion. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Chairman Bennington stated that in the R4 zoning, single family houses are permitted with no requirements as to the size of same. Mr. Hillerich ques- tioned why they are permitted in this zoning at all. Chairman Bennington advised that possibly that should be taken into consideration, however, if they are permitted a requirement should be made on the size allotted. A discussion then ensued regarding whether or not single family dwellings should be allowed in the multi-family zon~ng districts. It was decided that a legal opinion would be needed as to whether or not single family dwellings can be removed from the multi-family zones. In the meantime, the members agreed that they would be considering what requirements would be placed on same if they cannot be removed from the multi-family zones and this matter will be discussed at the next regular meeting. Mr. Hillerich made a motion to have the secretary, Susan Mista, contact Mr. Alvarez, requesting a legal opinion as to whether or not single family dwellings can be removed from the multi-family zoning districts, particularly R4, R5, R5A and R6. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Hillerich asked if ther.e could be a time limit put on the site plan approvals. Chairman Bennington stated that was also a change that went to - 2- Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1983 . '. ,.- o o Council and was never passed. There was a one year limitation on all site plan approvals for the reason that new Ordinances are passed, new restric- tions are imposed or altered and if building had not begun within a year, they would be required to come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hillerich asked the s~retary to find the letter that was sent to Council concerning this limitatruon requirement before the next meeting. He also asked that the secretary find out if there is a time limit on the building permits that are issued. A discussion then ensued\iregarding the amount of time it takes in building a structure, including the necressary steps in securing funding, etc., and what problems may arise in putting a time limit on construction projects, etc. All the members agreed that some limitation should be put on approvals. Mr. Hillerich suggested they research this matter and find out if there is a limitation on building permits and how other cities are handling this situation. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Hillerich to find that information out for them and, if possible, report at the next meeting. Mr. Opal asked that the secretary get copies of the flood plain maps con- cerning the areas outside the Edgewater city limits, especially the property on the west side of Edgewater. He suggested that she could obtain same from the County Planning Department. There being no further business to come before the Board, upon motion made by Mr. Quaggin to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Finn, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M. Minutes submitted by: Susan Mista - 3- Planning Commission Meeting ('\,-..+.......h___ C 1(\07 (.) u Da te --Ol-+e b !i \C 6,Lgg-3- I .... .....L.. ...... ..... L. ... .. · T .. . . .,--,: I I I - - ---- -- ____H -- - - h1 - ----. -.. - -- 11 .. ....u Ju J j u= - - - - ___H___ -- - --- ---- -------- ----- - j - l ~ . ~ .-'=,- .'}- '-. - - '--~:+= .. ........ .. - ..._-.. . _J' ,':'-_~ j .. u___ ,ur' r... .... . .. . . .. . j .. _ u I. ..._. I _ _ _ 1_ -- --- . . . I .. ... . ..U,_ - - -- - - _J _ _____ __ I - - - -I - - --] - - -- - - __ _ J _J_ _ _ .0 __. __ l . . _.L J::H' L I .. II p