Loading...
09-07-1983 u ~ CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 1983 Minutes Chairman Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., in the conference room in City Hall. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Opal, Finn, Chenoweth, Quaggin, and Hillerich. Also present: various people:;in the audience, a member from the press, and secretary, Susan Mista. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Opal made a Motion to approve the minutes of the August 17, 1983, meeting, seconded by Mr. Finn. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Chairman Bennington advised that Mr. Spooner from Briley, Wild was present to discuss the flood plain program and he would like to deviate from the agenda to explain this matter to the Board. All the members agreed to have Mr. Spooner first on the agenda. Mr. Spooner stated that for basis of insurance purposes, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has established flood insurance rate maps that are available from the government. The maps show the areas within the 100 year flood plain, the areas outside the 100 year flood plain and areas outside of the 500 year flood plain. He stated this is strictly for insurance purposes. Several things must be met concerning the areas in the 100 year flood plain. Several municipalities and coun- ties restrict development within this flood plain. These are set down in their Ordinances and the only way those can be altered is to have design engineers submit to the city or county how they are going to effectively drain such areas and still meet the requirements. He stated that basically the 100 year flood plain is for insurance and for the protection of surrounding vegetation. Professional engineers should be hired by any developer attempting development within that ar.ea. Mr. Spoonffstated that they would have to really look into the problem or situation quite deeply to make sure if someone were proposing development below the 100 year flood plain that no problems would arise with construc- tion of this development in the future. Mr. Spooner gave an example of many instances where the 100 year flood plain runs at an elevation of between 8 and 9 feet above mean sea level or the Halifax area. The center line elevation of the development for the streets would have to comply with the 8 or 9 elevation and from that, according to the city or county Ordinance, the pad elevations vary from 1 to 2 feet above that elevation. Mr. Opal requested that Mr. Spooner get some flood plain maps for the city of Edgewater. Mr. Spooner advised that he would try to get them. Chairman Bennington referred to the Ordinance on page 745, at which time he read: Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or errosion or in flood heights or velocities. He further stated that the local administrator, being the Building Official of Edgewater, is hereby appointed to administer and implement the provisions of this Article, listing the items he has to follow. He also stated they can go before the Board of Adjustments for a variance, provided they comply with 11 items in the Code. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Spooner, in his opinio~ they were developing in this flood plain area and they filled the land up to this 9' elevation, does this mean they need engineering calculations that state where this water is now going to go that is no longer going to be on their property? Mr. Spooner said they would have to submit calculations stating how they intend to handle the run-off - to retain it or what they intend to do with it. Q CJ Chairman Bennington advised Mr. Spooner that the part-time engineer, Sam Tucker, made a statement to the effect that if the cities did"not include this flood plain matter in their Ordinances, or did not enforce the Ordinances, that they could lose their right to the cheap flood insurance and possibly be "blacklisted" insofar as all federal grants are concerned. Mr. Spooner stated he did not know about federal grants, however, he said they would come down hard upon you as far as the insurance rates are con- cerned. Mr. Hillerich said that in other words, anyone wanting to build in Zone A, they will have to have a complete engineering study to be checked out to verify that their run-off will not interfere with any other property and not disrupt, by blockage, the over-all flow of the plain. Mr. Spooner stated that they would have to make provision to either take care of the water or pass it, not only development within Zone A, but development within any zone. Chairman Bennington stated that he understands that in Zone C they have to be required to retain I" of water on their property. In Zone B there is a 500 year flood. He stated that some areas on the map, in Zone C, are always under water when it rains and some areas that are in the Zone A are never under water. Leslie Ogram, a member of the audience, stated that he has a parcel of land less than a half acre. There are no current drainage ditches bordering this land and if he fills the land to where the building he proposes is to go, does he have to dig holes deep enough on this property to retain the water the fill would displace in this flood zone. Mr. Spooner advised that he is required to effectively handle the first inch of rainfall. He stated he has complied with that, he is in Zone A, he plans to fill a foot above the 9.31 elevation required. He asked if he is required to retain the run-off also. Mr. Spooner stated no, that his area would be serving as a holding pond for acres all around him which is not correct. Mr. Ogram said there isn't room on his property to retain what he would be displacing with fill. There are no canals or ditches to carry this water away. Mr. Spooner advised that the developers will have to bring in plans from engineers and they will have to take a hard look at the plans to see whether or not the requirements are met concerning this 100 year flood plain. David McCallister discussed the Florida Shores area and its relation to the flood plain program. He stated he believed it was in error to fill every little hole, to move sand off one ridge to a trough, that if you don't stop the natural flow of the water it will trickle normally and there would be no problems with flooding. He also said that he feels a person should be allowed to build on his own property if he has the facts and wants to take the chance and wants to pay a higher price for the flood insurance. Chairman Bennington stated he understood it to be exactly the way Mr. McCallister said; it was an agreement between the City and the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Most of the cities entered into it to get the people cheap flood insurance. Chairman Bennington advised that their Ordinance was enacted in 1980 and unless Council desires to get rid of it, they have to comply with it. SITE PLAN REVIEW SP-8317 - Larry E. Harris - Waco Mfg. Addition Darwin Schneider was present to represent Larry Harris. Chairman Bennington stated that the plans show 6' planted buffer of vibirnum planted 6' apart on center. He advised that Ordinance 83-0-14 states they are to be planted no more than 3' apart - center to center. He stated he would need the two sets of architect's sealed plans. Also, he advised Mr. Schneider that they need to have a screened garbage coll- ection area. Chairman Bennington questioned the parking area wherein -2- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 o o no handicapped spaces are shown. He said he was sure the state law requires handicapped parking spaces, however, he said he was not absolutely sure - the Building Inspector should know. This business is only whole- sale manufacturing - no walk-in traffic. Chairman Bennington stated they are in the flood plain area. Mr. Schneider asked what was required, they have retained the first 1" of rainfall, what else do they have to do. He said he contacted the engineers and they advised all that is required is to maintain the 1" of rainfall and minimum elevation. Mr. Schneider advised that the proposed parking will be paved, the parking in the back will be shell. Concerning the Tree Ordinance and Landscape Ordinance, Chairman Bennington advised that they were only required to put landscape in the back. He said that the trees will have to be shown on the site plan so they can be documented as to where they will be located. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion that this site plan be approved, subject to the Building Official's recommendation concerning the handicapped parking and ramps, that two sealed sets of plans be furnished, the buffer in the back be planted 3' apart, center to center, the trees be indicated on the final plans and the garbage area be screened and shown on the final plans. Mr. Finn seconded the motion. Chairman Bennington asked if there were any discussion, to which Mr. Opal stated that the felt Briley, Wild should check the plans concerning the flood plain matter. Motion FAILED 3-2, Chairman Bennington, Mr. Opal and Mr. Quaggin voted NO. Mr. Opal made a motion that the preliminary site plan be approved and the plans to go to Briley, Wild for their consideration of the flood plain matter. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SP-83l8 - J. C. Carder - Shopping Center Chairman Bennington requested that this site plan be typed verbatim. CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: SUSAN MISTA: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: SUSAN MISTA: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: SUSAN MISTA: CHA I RMAN BENNINGTON: MR. WALLACE: CHAI RMAN BENNINGTON: Next ones 8318 and I believe that at the last meeting we told him the only thing we needed was the Tree -- Mr. Wallace is here. Mr. Bennington? Yes. That's the one Mr. Spooner gave us the letter on. Yes, I forgot about that. engineering on this one. We also got a letter from Did everybody get one of these? Yes. I'll read it for everyone. Its from Briley, Wild and they have 8 items on here they want some answers to. I'd be glad to hear it myself, Mr. Chairman. It's all the same to me, you and him can talk. First question I'd like to ask, you have on your plan 51 trees. I can't find them. Are they all there? - 3- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. SPOONER: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: o o We have designated as your Ordinance instructed, it's on your plan indicating what your Ordinance number is, taking care of your crown cover as indicated in all defined planter areas, your parking areas of our tree designation insofar as the secondary trees to meet this requirement of 51.5-52 trees they will go somewhere outside of your retention areas in order to buffer your landscaped areas (inaudible). At this time until we do get to that point, we feel that as long as we do comply and designate with your Ordinance we have fulfilled your Ordinance. Okay, do you have a copy of this? Yes. I'd like to ask one thing before we get to it. Was a copy of the 9 page item sent to Briley, Wild showing computations and retention areas of 1, 2 and 3 telling the depths which will answer 90% - we are not asking for construction (inaudible), we're asking for compliance of your retention of your storm drain and your stormwater calculations, showing your percolation which takes care of your ground cover, etcetera, etcetera. She says, yes, they were. You still felt you need these things answered even after - or did you do this one? Uh-huh. You still - OK. What's your particular problem then Mr. Wallace? MR. WALLACE: .What's my particular - I'd like to go to the items with you for clarification because in my opinion what Mr. Spooner has offered here are good points, but they're not to the point that the criteria cannot be met or have been met. Its a matter of two engineering practices uh with two different opinions. We have uh going through item 1, if I may go through it with you. MR. SPOONER: Sure. MR. WALLACE: One requests a cross-section detail of the retention area. We have areas 1, 2, and 3. We also have our ground run-off showing our 4 to 1 slopes that we do comply with for the retention areas. Uh by the time we go to construction areas they will totally be defined along with our DOT requirements which is another item that is in engineering at this point. Two, request for vicinity map locating so that soil types may be verified. This again, in my opinion, is in an area looking at your elevations, right next to U.S. and highway 1 with existing elevations in 14, 13, and 15. You will read your soil analysis as your surface run-off with your percolation that was supplied with this information that gave you a run-down of the type of soil conditions in this particular area. Now, you got the same area running all the way north and south on the east, west and first ridge. On the percolation run-off circuits designed for --- CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: Wait a minute. A~e you on article 2? Yes. What's that got to do with the location map that was asked for? -4- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. WALLACE: '-> (.) I'm defining what the soil conditions are in case it was missed. (end of tape) You're welcome to go out there in the yellow sand and look at it. OK, but we have an engineer that has stated and dug with a post hole there, whatever your requirements will be we'll try to meet it but let's be honest about that shell ridge there. Okay. Okay. All right. Susan, I can't remember her last name - there it is, OK, Miss Mista, uh asked two weeks ago how far it was from state road 442. That information was given to the engineers so that location could be verified on it. As I understand it. I'd like to say one thing. Using that 2200 foot calculation from Indian River Boulevard, uh, looking at the uh soil survey, Volusia County soil survey map uh we have reservat- ions which I want to be verified. What reservations are you iliooking for? That that is not a type C soil. It's a filled in area where the percolation was taken. We did not go down to the stratta of a 20' soil test. We're looking at a one-story complex on a raised soil area with an elevation of 15-5 elevation of structure, 17-0. What exactly are you looking for? That answers my question. Okay, do you want core-boring, I mean, you know that's our very next step from our percolation indicating how the soil is and does have it's drainage at that point over a 2 hour to an hour and a half to 2 hour period. This is how that was come with (inaudible). What's the next question there has to do with uh --- Something about a 10 year storm calculation. All right. You'll look design frequency storm and rainfall - 25 and 100 year on page 2 for uh the 1.06 acres, in area number 1 indicating 12,300 cubic feet, 13,500 cubic feet at a depth of 1~ feet. We also have a design flow chart and we've added to it to show how this calculation at the times and seconds through your percolation that's part of the uh package. Okay. We go to sheet 5, area #3, there again on the 25 and 100 year 9 and II" rainfall. That particular area there says that area 3 will be 2' deep and 16' wide and 300' long. These areas in my opinion are defined for greater than water has been in some question in this particular area and at construction drawing plans, I'm sure that these same plans will be sent back to Briley, Wild in order for their review. We're asking for site plan approval and we feel that we have met this criteria. This is due to the elevation being out of flood plain area. MR. CHENOWETH: This goes with the first two? MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir, that has to do with area when half 1S done. MR. CHENOWETH: All right. MR. WALLACE: On item 5 MR. SPOONER: I f I may, back up to numb er 3, could I have your pamphlet there. My question concerned this curve here. - 5- Planning Commission Meeting ~Qn~QmhQ~ 7 1QQ~ MR. WALLACE: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: o o Right, that says 10 year storm at that point there. Cultiv- ated on the infiltration, OK, this particular part has to do with the percolation. These other areas here are defined in your areas of your 25 and 100 years. This is just general information. I shouldn't even probably have put it in the picture because it caused you some confusion, but in our own calculations, we look at a very, very close 10 year situation for above average. In other words, we may never get to this 100 year flood plain but in a 10 year program, we may have greater influx of lesser amount of rainfall but in large quantities of time so in our own realism, we see how that will handle in particular with our area with our trench drain situations and with our retaining area of our own area, insofar as our land area is concerned. That was just an added point there in this case you did ask about it, and I'm glad you did. We're more realistic on our 10 year on an every day program than we are of the 100 that has not been settled yet. Other than it is a composed figure that everybody is working with. It has to do again, like we said, insurances. May I go through one more with you here? Yes. OK, you asked about the uh cnoss-section on your infiltrations We have a cross-section shown on our perforated pipe, we indicate our aggregate side, which is #24Sl0 which is a (inaudible) nomenclature. With that information we also indicate a filter fifertype R is a type of filter system or equal, both sides so that we do not have anymore infil- tration from sewer conditions or leakage into this particular trench area so we don't clog it up. All right, on the uh then you will show a cross-section of the uh what we were asking about, was the paving and base -- Yes sir, that -- It will be supplied at the construction site. Right, right, say we have our basic infiltration at this point, now, the construction plans have not been modified to this point due tofue fact we are still under discussion, which I have turned in a letter to the young lady here on the DOT recommendations and we have submitted and we are in process of working towards construction drawings. In this particular instance, uh, we're looking at possibly a type 2 construction asphalt at this time which is an inch and a half asphalt base with an 8" uh limerock sub-base. If we decide to go to a concrete and at this time it is still a little premature due to pricing and getting the blessings of this Board and this community in order to put in this project, we may go .t6 a 4" concrete slab, we may gotto a 6 - 10 wire mesh with construction control joints, there again, 6 to 8" limerock sub-base. So, we're still open at this point and in going for site plan approval, in our opinion, it is slightly premature but its good points to bring up and we feel we can comply. Uh - number 7, will that be also addressed in the construc- tion site? What is number 7? Catch basin detail. Yes, it must be done. Yes. What type of p1pe is proposed for that filtration? Perforated uh 12" perforated corrugated metal pipe 1S what it normally is. -6- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. OPAL: MR. WALLACE: MR. OPAL: MR. WALLACE: MR. OPAL: MR. WALLACE: MR. OPAL: MR. WALLACE: o o What type of metal? Corrugated metal, the type that's uh -- Steel or aluminum? Pardon me? Steel or aluminum? Well it says probably uh due to that point there, it could be either or either, depends on whose brain it is at this time. In New Smyrna we're using corrugated steel. On one side on the beach side we used corrugated aluminum. It just depends on the area and the soil stratta, as I understand it. But either way it must be complied with. Is engineering content with these items being answered on the construction drawings or do you want them answered -- We don't mind submitting them at that time for your input and we do appreciate it. Does anybody have anything? Yes, I'm trying to figure out where the turn off is? Off U.S. 1. OK, we're looking uh they call it a storage lane, that's your first 12' being the length going south, which is the west side of your southbound traffic. At that point we do have a decelleration lane which tapers from 0 to 12' at that lane there. Across the uh highway -- Where's that at? Pardon me? Where is that going to be? Here's your entrance at this point here. The uh 12' length will be off in here, which is called a stewage lane and from there we taper on to just exactly like you have on your existing uh -- It doesn't show here, that's why I wanted to see it. No sir, and the reason for that is on my first conversation with you I brought to the attention of this Board that this was in discussion with the Department of Transportation at this time and it is still being in review with their engin- eering department and when those plans are submitted, uh, it will be in constructional stage indicating the decelleration lanes and a taper with acceleration lanes one to the south of the double entrance of this uh project. Now, uh, one other conversation I have had with Department of Transportat- ion when you brought it up last time and at that time I couldn't answer it but we will have a decelleration lane on the northbound side, which is where you brought it over across the highway here, it'll be over in this area here. We do know that, what I did was call them and ask them saying that I had a meeting with you folks tonight, and was there any further input that I could uh bring with me tonight and that's where we are. If there are any questions you can call DOT in DeLand, Bob Harrison. -7- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 CHA I RMAN BENNINGTON: MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. WALLACE: CHA I RMAN BENNINGTON: MR. SPOONER: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. SPOONER: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. OPAL: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. OPAL: o o The only:other items on the Department Head Comments are must comply with Landscape Ordinance, which you know about; stop sign to be supplied by owner; and that's basically it. They discussed the turn lane and uh at the meeting and basically the same thing is it's still being studied by DOT and they'll do whatever they tell them. Uh - Building Official stated that the engineer or someone should monitor construction of this project at different stages, it doesn't state why he feels that. Did he uh make any kind of comments about this? Just said it? Is that the last of the meeting there? It's in the center, just a comment he made, no explanation why. No, in conversation there, I felt that uh, at least in my opinion, his input was uh maybe not quite stated that way was who will be responsible to make certain that these items have been met at certain stages of construction, which you normally have and my comment toidiilm at that time was that in my opinion it's the Building Official's responsibility due to the 5 to 7 points where you do inspection on different projects. OK, anything of this size requires the engineering monitoring like a subdivision being put in require? Require what? You know like when they're putting in a subdivision and engineering goes out there periodically and checks to make sure they're putting, something of this magnitude require anything like that? Other than just as the construction being maintained? I would uh basically common sense go out and check period- ically, uh huh. Anybody have any other problems or anything with this? Uh from what I see here we have is this uh he submit or verify these 8 items from engineering on his construction plans and per recommendation of the Building Official and the City Engineers that they be periodically uh monitor the construction of different stages and I'd like to see in the motion that if this encourages any expense to the City that it would be paid for by the developer. Well, that's what I would do with this item, with the 8 items and also I'd add item number 9, the turn-off lanes and item number 10, DOT information and uh and that would go to the engineers and get an OK for this letter. At this point I'll make a motion of preliminary site plan, only, not a final - until we hear from Briley, Wild in regards to all these points. Uh, I just asked Briley, Wild if they had any problem with giving them an ?pproval now provided these items are met on the construction drawings, and they said no. That's all, that's all - I'd like to see it on paper ln answer to this letter here. -8- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. OPAL: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. OPAL: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. OPAL: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. CHENOWETH: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: Q o Well, uh, to me personally, I wouldn't know what it meant if I read it, it's his job, he knows. After all, we got the letter from Briley, Wild, let's follow through with that and the other two, I added number 9 and number 10, turn off lanes, as they should be and DOT infor- mation required. What was that, turn off lanes and what? Information from DOT that's been applied for. Doesn't that concern the turn off lanes? Well, it's uh you put it all together. Do ~e have a second? (Pause) Anyone care to second the motion? (Pause) That motion dies for lack of a second, do we have an alternate motion? I move preliminary and final approval, subject to the four items mentioned that are not on this list because I think they have been adequately answered by the explainer for the project, so subject to those uh three, I think it's 3 or 4 that you mentioned prior to Mr. Opal's motion, I move preliminary and final approval for this plan uh 8318, J. C. Carder uh shopping center. Uh, all I mentioned as I wrote it down here was that they comply with these items. MR. CHENOWETH: That's not necessary then because he already explained these items. CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. SPOONER: MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: Well, but he said he would be content with the answers on the construction drawings, in other words, he's not satis- fied with these answers, you still want answers. If I may add something here, I would like to get ln written form answers to the questions. Mr. Chairman? Yes. I think that's good because if we have any discussions we can handle that at that time with our engineers and Briley, Wild so we can handle it. Well, this is what we pay these people for, we're not engineers, we don't know the answers to these questions if you gave them to us, that's what we got him for. Uh - so that's provided that they submit these items and uh that it be periodically monitored by engineering and the cost incurred by the developer? MR. CHENOWETH: Subject to a written answer of the items. CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. CHENOWETH: Do you want me to make the motion again? Did you get that? -9- Planning Commission Meeting September 7; 1983 o o MR. CHENOWETH: Subject to the written explanation by the representative of project 8318 - J. C. Carder Shopping Center, move that preliminary and final approval for this project be granted. CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: Do you want to add to that this comment about the Building Official and the engineer stated that it would be wise to periodically monitor it? MR. CHENOWETH: Well, it's alll'right to add that, yes. CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. CHENOWETH: I don't see any reason for it, no. It's up to you, it's your motion. CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: Then don't add it. MR. CHENOWETH: No. CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. FINN: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. HILLERICH: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. HILLERICH: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. WALLACE: Do we have a second? I'll second it. Any comments? (Pause) The only thing that I find some difficulty with in all of this in referring to the Tree Ordinance at all, is that we actually have one idea. I realize it says here in accordance with the landscape p&an approved by the Planning Commission, there is no, in essence, landscape plan, there are numbers that says it will be complied with, but there is no landscape plan, ergo, how can the building official approve something we don't know exists? Good point. Mr. Chairman, may I speak on that item? Just a second. Your suggestion is that we be giving a land- scape plan, showing where this stuff is to go? Well, that's in our ordinance where it says that prior to issuance all landscaping improvements shall be in accordance with the landscape plan approved uh if we approve, if we're agreeing that 51.5 trees as Mr. Wallace pointed out is a sufficient number of the suggested size and type and agree with that (inaudible), then we're agreeing with that plan. I think we basically agree that we don't really know at this point, it's a guess until we do some more research into trees. I did ask him where the 51 trees were and he did say that they're not all on here. I think I found about 24, something like that. They are in designated planter areas in our dividers with our parking areas defined. Additional trees will border, which will be normal, in this particular area as you read all around your project boundary, it indicates dimensioning, talking about your planted buffer areas, screened areas etcetera, etcetera. And in compliance of whether you call it a woody or Florida grade A evergreen, they will be there in compliance with your ordinance. -10- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. WALLACE: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: '-> (J OK. You're uh combining then part of your trees into your landscape. Yes, in our defined areas. Well, I personally thin~ that as we go along we're gonna modify that ordinance uh - you know, we're starting with it, we're trying to work with it to figure out what we're gonna do. Any other comments? My only other comment is personally and since it was requested by the Building Official and I asked engineering and he said it was a wise idea and since I don't know the answer as to who has to pay for that I would personally like to see that in the motion, and if it's not in the motion, I won't vote for it. MR. CHENOWETH: I'll revise that motion to include that statement. MR. WALLACE: MR. CHENOWETH: I'll amend the motion. You could amend that, rather than --- CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. OPAL: CHA I RIvIAN BENNINGTON: BARBARA TAYLOR: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: SUSAN MISTA: MR. OPAL: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: MR. OPAL: SUSAN MISTA: MR. FINN: SUSAN MISTA: OK, do we have a second to the amendment? I'll second the amendment. OK, any other discussion to the amendment? Would you repeat the amendment? The amendment was to uh if any the cost being incurred by the engineers periodically of monitoring the construction, be paid for by the developer, if that is not already legally the case, I don't know, it may be. Roll call? Mr. Opal? Is that on the amendment? Yes, we're voting on the amendment now. Yes. My. Finn? Yes. MR. CHENOWETH: Yes. Mr. Chenoweth? SUSAN MISTA: MR. QUAGGIN: SUSftlN MISTA: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: My. Quaggin? Yes. My. Bennington? Yes. Now we vote on the original motion. MR. CHENOWETH: Why don't you read it? Can you read it so they'll understand what it is? SUSAN MISTA: Yes, the or~ginal motion stated to approve preliminary and final, subject to the written explanation by the represent- atives of J. C. Carder, that they comply with the items listed by Briley, Wild. -11- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 o (.) CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: Roll call? SUSAN MISTA: Mr. Opal? MR. OPAL: No. SUSAN MISTA: Mr. Finn? MR. FINN: Yes. SUSAN MISTA: Mr. Chenoweth? MR. CHENOWETH: Yes. SUSAN MISTA: Mr. Quaggin? MR. QUAGGIN: SUSAN MISTA: CHAIRMAN BENNINGTON: Yes. Mr. Bennington? Yes. MR. WALLACE: Thank you, gentlemen, for your time. SP-83l9 - Knight C. Smith - Storage Facility Chairman Bennington stated that this site plan was comIng back for compliance to the Tree and Landscape Ordinance. He stated to Mr. Wallace, who was representing Knight C. Smith, that they are proposing moving 3 palm trees and planting 4 others. Mr. Wallace stated that he wasn't sure if they were all palm trees or not. Chairman Bennington stated there was a tree right outside the fence and asked if they would be saving that tree. Mr. Wallace said that they would. Chairman Bennington then began a conversation regarding a book that was sent to them from the State, concerning trees for this area, with infor- mation regarding how much they grow per year, how tall they get, their crown cover, etcetera. Mr. Wallace suggested that the Planning Commission draw up a list of trees concerning this information for builders and developers in the area. Chairman Bennington said this book was good and possibly the builders could be supplied with a copy of said book. Chairman Bennington stated that Planning says he needs two sealed sets of plans and the landscape ordinance needs to be complied with. He said he shows landscaping on the plans and he assumes the Building Official will follow the Ordinance before issuing the certificate of occupancy to make sure it is put in properly. Mr. Quaggin made a motion that this site plan, as presented, be granted final approval. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SP-8320 - Earl Wallace for James Wagner - Apartment Complex Chairman Bennington stated to Mr. Wallace that he agreed with him concern- ing his comments at the Department Head meeting that a 2 hour fire wall should be established by the City on all multi-use buildings. He said the Building Official said that was not necessary because it was covered by the standard building code. Mr. Opal questioned the location of the septic tanks, to which Mr. Wallace showed him the location on the plans, indicating the size of same. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion to approve this site plan for final approval. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SP-832l - Earl Wallace for Helen Pleterski - General Store Chairman Bennington stated that this was a sketch plan for a general store in B-3 zoning, off Park Avenue. -12- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 o o Mr. Wallace stated it would be a wholesale/retail store and they would be adding land fill to bring the elevation up. He stated the elevation in that area is 8.7. Concerning the driveways, Mr. Wallace stated they would be using the existing ones that are there. The trees indicated on the sketch plan are there and they are taken from the survey. Mr. Finn made a motion to approve this sketch plan, seconded by Mr. Chen- oweth. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SP-8322 - David McCallister - Mobile Home Park Chairman Bennington stated this was a sketch plan approval of a mobile park at Mango Tree Drive and Hansen Drive. Chairman Bennington then called for a 5 minute recess. At 9:05 P.M. Chairman Bennington called the meeting back to order. Mr. McCallister stated he wanted site plan approval to build another trailer park on Mango Tree Drive. He then showed the Board where the park was to be located on his map, advising of the size of lots and coverage of the mobile homes on said lots. Concerning the absence of a rear exit in this park, Mr. McCallister advised that you can use the exit in the other park to get out, which is owned also by Mr. McCallister. He also advised that they are planting trees in there because there are none presently in that location. Mr. Garthwaite, a member of the audience, asked if the parks would be combined or are they to be considered two separate parks, to which Mr. McCallister advised that this one would be called Mango Tree Park and the other one will be called Park Avenue Estates. Mango Tree Estates and Park Avenue Estates, two separate parks. Chairman Bennington referred the Board members to Chapter 18 of the Code on page 1391. He stated under the mobile home 1 zoning ordinance it refers to 40 spaces being required and this is listed only under item D, which is a special exception if you wanted to put a retail and personal service store in it. However, when you refer to the Code book under the mobile park ordinance, it says you have to have 40 before you can be issued a license. Mr. McCallister stated you cannot put 40 on 5 acres and that is all the Code asks for. He said he thought the Code was saying if you have 40 spaces you can put a store in the park. Chairman Bennington said that it says you must comply with the mobile home park ordinance which lists several minimum requirements. He then read from the Ordinance the minimum requirements required. He read where it says there must be a minimum of 40 spaces per park. Mr. McCallister stated he would have city water, sewage, garbage collection. Chairman Bennington stated that sometimes Ordinances state that the strictest one applies, in reference to the 40 spaces. If that is the case in this instance, he questioned whether or not a variance would be required. He stated that a legal opinion would need to be obtained concerning this situation. He also advised that he would need an engineering study concerning the location being situated in the flood plain area. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion that this sketch plan be approved, subject to the legal opinion on the minimum 40 parking spaces, and an engineer's calculations concerning the area located in the flood plain zone. Mr. Quaggin seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Bennington advised the Board that there was a Mr. Jerry Winchell present who wishes for the members to look at plans he has for construction of a duplex. The area in question is located behind Fat Bob's Restaurant on Edgewater Drive. He stated that this matter was not on the agenda and it was up to the Board as to whether or not they would hear this case. It was the concensus of the members to look at Mr. Winchell's plans at this time. Mr. Winchell advised the members that he has a mortgage committment that he does not want to run out and he was not aware that duplexes were now going before the Planning Commission before issuing a building permit. -13- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 o Q Plans were then given to the Board members for their review. A represent- ative from the builder, Pilch Construction, was present to discuss the plans. Chairman Bennington stated that this property is located in B3. Mr. Hillerich stated that each unit calculates to be approximately 1391 square feet. The representative from Pilch stated that unit A is 1214 square feet and unit B is 1344. She stated that Mr. Winchell and his father will be residing ln'these units and they wanted them larger than what is normally built in a duplex unit. Chairman Bennington advised that first they will have to go before the Board of Adjustments to get a special exception to build the duplex in the B3 zone. He stated that is permitted as a special exception. The Planning Commission must give a favorable recommendation to the Board of Adjustments before they make their decision at a public hearing, which must be advertised in the newspaper. Per the drawing, the setbacks show only 32' and 40' is required. On the checklist items, number 7, 9 and 10 must be complied with. Item 7 states that applicant must show retention of 1" of rain water on the property, and due to the fact that that property does slope, they will have to show some type of retention that will satisfy engineering and the building official. Item 9 requires that any multi-family unit must sho.w a screened garbage collection area. If the special exception is granted by the Board of Adjustments, the setback requirements is 40' and the first 10' must be landscaped, with the exception of the driveway area. The Tree and Landscape Ordinance must be complied with. Before construction begins, a plan must be presented indicating where the trees are located on the property. There are mostly pines on this property and they are exempt. The Ordinances will explain what must be planted. The side setbacks are OK and the rear setbacks are OK. Chairman Bennington suggested that they comply with the aforementioned requirements and come back before the Planning Commission at their next meeting, which is Wednesday, September 21st, and then go before the Board of Adjustments meeting, which would be the next meeting after Planning. Chairman Bennington stated that he thought the new site plans should be required to show compliance with the Tree and Landscape Ordinance and this should be added to the Site Plan Requirements Checklist before Council approves the revised checklist that is presently before them. Mr. Hillerich stated that the Board needs to get information regarding the trees, their description, height, etcetera. Chairman Bennington advised that the secretary has ordered books from the State concerning Florida trees, shrubs, etc. He also said that the County Forester has provided a booklet that describes the Florida trees and the secretary can make copies of same for the Board members. He further stated that the County Forester has offered to come to the meeting and explain the various trees and shrubs that grow in Florida and they will ask him to attend one of the meetings. A discussion then ensued regarding the flood plain program and the pro- perty located in these areas. Mr. R. ~A. Coleman and his attorney, Mr. Bowman, were present to discuss his development of Shangri-La Subdivision wherein they are building duplexes and they have been advised that all duplexes must come before Planning before a building permit can be issued. They asked the Board why they have to do this since all of their plans were approved previously. When the subdivision plans were presented, all the drainage, etc., was approved by the City. Mr. Bowman stated this is a duplex subdivision consisting of 56 duplex structures. They have been told that even though they have been given site plan approval for the subdivision, every time they go to build oNe,~of the 56 duplex structures, they have to submit a new site plan, which is very duplicative and why do they have to comply with this request. Chairman Bennington stated that he understands what they are asking and why, however, he did not feel qualified to answer their question and said he would take the matter up with the City Attorney and give them an answer thereafter. -14- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 o o There being no further business to come before the Board, upon motion made by Mr. Quaggin and seconded by Mr. Chenoweth, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Minutes submitted by: Susan Mista -15- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1983 <.J 0 Date 5~tL/7t-.&F ~ / ?tf?3 ~ . ,Th?l/7/J/1;1 . {.. t? /)'l/??/.5.:5 d)/J //Z~:;t '7 /? /?7.