Loading...
06-15-1983 I o o CITY OF EDGEWATER Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 15, 1983 Minutes Chairman Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:05 P.M., in the Community Center Building. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Finn, Chenoweth and Opal*. Also present: Councilwoman Gigi Bennington, Robert Gaffney, Mr. Garthwaite, Susan Mista, secretary, and one member of the press. Mr. Quaggin was excused and Mr. Winter was excused. *Mr. Opal arrived at the meeting late. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Mr. Chenoweth and seconded by Mr. Finn to approve the minutes of the June 1, 1983, meeting. Motion CARRIED 3-0. Chairman Bennington advised the Board that Mr. Winter is apparently resigning. He is too busy with his business. SITE PLAN REVIEWS SP-8307 - Robert Gaffney Chairman Bennington read the l'etter from City Attorney Alvarez concerning this matter in regards to the parking requirements in this zone. In summary, Mr. Alvarez states that it needs to be determined, factually, whether the 7 parking spaces that Mr. Gaffney proposes on his site plan is an excessive number or not enough. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Gaffney how. he arrived at 7. Mr. Gaffney replied that he interpretted the code to read that they needed one parking place per unit, including the driveway to the unit, itsel~ being one parking space. He stated he would go along with the recommendation of the Board as to how many spaces he should have. Chairman Bennington stated the second item in the attorneys letter is in reference to the location of the parking spaces which is found in Section 606.01(e)(2) and 606.01(g). There is an apparent conflict in the two sections as to where offstreet parking can be located. Chairman Bennington then read the Sections to the Board. The attorney stated that the conflict appears to be in the enactment of Ordinance 81-0-3~ andold language which predates 81-0-36 but remains in the Code, apparently by omission. Ordinance 81-0-36 contains a repealer provision and to the extent that the second sentence in paragraph (g) predates and conflicts with Ordinance 81-0-36, it should be eliminated. The conclusion being that in a B2 zoning, parking will be allowed in the yard areas with the exception of the first ten feet abutting the front boundaries. Chairman Bennington stated they need to determine factually the parking. Part of the problem is that a building is approved for one type of business and then people come in for a license for a different type of business which would require more parking. He asked Mr. Gaffney what type of business will be going in the building. Mr. Gaffney replied that he felt it was the intent of the property owner that the building be used strictly for storage, there is no intention for having any retail operation. He said if necessary the owner of the property is willing to sign a statement to the effect that he will not lease to anyone who would operate any type of business that is in contrast to the current codes. Chairman Bennington said that the biggest problem in this case is the conflict in the Ordinance. He said if Mr. Gaffney feels he needs 7 parking spaces, then it be recommended to Council that they delete o Q Section (g) of the Ordinance because of the repealer provlslon the attorney found in Ordinance 81-0-36. He stated the attorney advised that if this plan is approved by the Planning Commission, as is, with a recommendation to Council to have that deleted, then Mr. Gaffney's approval will be based on affirmative action by the Council. Mr. Gaffney stated he would rather go with the minimum parking spaces and end the matter with this Board, so as to not tie up the project by having to go before City Council. Chairman Bennington advised Mr. Gaffney that if he did that, when the owner starts renting them out, the owner may be in a position that he will have to come back to the Planning Commission with an amended site plan. Chairman Bennington then read from the Code Book concerning offstreet parking. He stated that it needs to be changed, because it states that in Mr. Gaffney's situation they can't park in any required yard area. which includes his front 40'. Mr. Gaffney stated he would like to stay with the original pl'an. Chairman Bennington suggested that a motion be made to approve Mr. Gaffney's plan, with a stipulation that a letter be drafted to Council, attaching a copy of Mr. Alvarez' letter, advising that the last sentence of Section 606.01, paragraph (g) which says, "offstreet parking and loading areas shall not extend to or occupy any required yard area", be stricken. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion that Mr. Gaffney's plan be approved and that parking be allowed in the yard areas with the exception of the first ten feet abutting the front boundaries, with a stipulation that a letter be drafted to Council, attaching a copy of Mr. Alvarez' letter, advising that the last sentence of Section 606.01, paragraph (g) which says, "offstreet parking and loading areas shall not extend to or occupy any required yard area", be stricken. Mr. Finn seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 3-0. Mr. Gaffney asked if he could pull a building permit on this plan before final decision of City Council. Chairman Bennington stated he did not think so, that he would check with the attorney and find out. OLD BUSINESS Zero Lot Lines Chairman Bennington asked if any of the members had any ideas concerning Zero Lot Lines. He stated our Zero Lot Lines are only authorized in multi-family and business, industrial and PID. The Ordinance is written as a single-family Zero Lot Line Ordinance. which is not allowed. He questioned what the difference was in having 10' on each side of the house than having 20' on one side and none on the other. The reason the Zero Lot Line Ordinance was originally asked for and written was to allow people to subdivide multi-family units and sell them. Chairman Bennington referred to page 1636.2 in the Code Book, item 1 and item 5, and he said it is a foregone conclusion that they do not want Zero Lot Lines in single family. This Ordinance was written in 19b2 but before it was sent to Council they caught the problem and amended the Ordinance, but from the time it left the Board and got to Council, the amendment was dropped. Council approved the Ordinance without the amend- ment. The amendment was sent to Council this year and wa~ asked to amend the Ordinance to the amendment. Mayor McKillop kicked the Ordinance back because of the duplexes, which really has nothing to do with this Ordinance. Chairman Bennington said Mr. Garthwaite brought up a good point the last time this was discussed. The Ordinance reads now: The minimum yard shall be the same as for zoning classification in which the sub- division is located or proposed. Except the minimum side yard shall be -2- Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1983 o o either 0 or a minumum of 20'. The change we sent to Council that they kicked back read: The minimum yard shall be the same as for the zoning classification in which the subdivision is located or proposed except that the interior side yard may be 0 in the cases of structures which adjoin. He said he changed it to: shall be in the case of structures which adjoin. He added to that: by common wall and minimum outside set- backs shall be 20' - that is where the problem will be. His recommendation is that it should read: the interior side yards shall be 0 in the case of structures which adjoin by common wall. The other change is in Sec- tion 5: All parcels are to be equally divided. . We added to that: exclud- ing setbacks. Under Item 6 it reads: Each individual unit on the Zero Lot Line shall maintain its own septic tank and wastewater hook-up facilities. The Building Inspector suggested they add to that-electrical facilities separate, too. Mr. Chenoweth made a Motion that a letter be sent to Council concerning changes in the Zero Lot Line Ordinance which are as follows: The minimum yard shall be the same as for zoning classification in which the sub- division is located or proposed. Except the interiorside yard shall be o in the case of structures which adjoin by common wall. Section 5 shall read: All parcels to be equally divided, excluding setbacks. Section 6 shall read: Each individual unit on the Zero Lot Line shall maintain its own septic tank, wastewater hook-up, and electrical facilities. Mr. Finn seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 3-1. Mr. Opal voted NO. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Bennington said they received a letter from the department heads asking for two things; on building proposals of less than one acre, that a diagram of the land be required showing the elevation at critical points and a pattern, indicating by arrows, the flow plan of water. He stated that that was fairly easy. He asked the Board to look at page 1635 in the Code Book which states what is required for site plan approval. There are only 9 items listed and there are 11 things on the site plan requirements list. Section 715.02 which lists the 9 items does not con- form to the present list and Chairman Bennington felt 715.02 should be changed to conform with the list. He then read from the department head letter, paragraph 1, again, and suggested that be added to the site plan requirement list under Item 1. This will make it easier for the Building Inspector to check on the required 1" run-off of water. Mr. Chenoweth made a Motion that it be added to the Preliminary Site Plan Requirements list, under Item 1: On sites less than one acre, a diagram of the land is required showing elevation at the critical points, and a pattern, indicating by arrows, of the flow plan of water. Mr. Finn seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Chairman Bennington asked the Board what they thought about drafting a letter to Council, asking them to amend 715.02 to where it now conforms to the present Preliminary Site Plan Requirements list. That is Ordinance 80-0-59. Mr. Chenoweth made a Motion that a letter be sent to Council, asking them to amend Ordinance 80-0-59 to have it conform to the present Preliminary Site Plan Requirements list. Mr. Finn seconded the Motion. Motion CARRIED 3-1. Mr. Opal voted NO. Chairman Bennington advised the Board that the department head super- visors are requesting a new Site Plan Requirements ~ist be drawn up for commercial and industrial additions, only, that said list be more simplified. He said that Items 11, 10, 9, 8 and 7 will still be required. however, Item 7 could be deleted and covered under Item 1. Chairman Bennington suggested they send Item 2 of the supervisors letter back to them, asking them what they have in mind. Susan Mista advised the Board that she was at that meeting and the department head supervisors didn1t feel it was necessary to be required to show the 1" retention and the buffer in back and the garbage covered, etc., because they already have an existing building - all they want to do is add an addition. Chairman Bennington stated the problem is they may not have all these requirements if it was not required when they first built the building. In adding an addition, they are now required to conform. -3- Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 1983 o Q Councilwoman Bennington suggested that they send the applicant to the Building Official first, he can determine what is needed and then submit it to Planning. Chairman Bennington said that is what they are asking but he does not see how that will speed up the process. He said it can be left as it is and they can use their discretion. Mr. Chenoweth made a Motion that the Site Plan Requirement list remain the same.and it apply to new construction, commercial and industrial, as well as additions. Mr. Finn seconded the Motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Impact Fees Chairman Bennington referred to the letter they received from the attorney concerning the Impact Fe e.s . He then read from t h el e t t e r . From reading the letter, he stated they have to come up with a formula. The fees are collected by calculating the number of bedrooms or living units and are used for extra development construction - such as sewers, public safety facilities, recreation, etc. He feels the biggest problem in writing the Ordinance is that it,lwill have to say that if the funds are collected for recreational purposes, it has to be spent for that purpose and if collected for roads, it has to be spent for that purpose, etc. They have to come up with a formula and he doesn't know how to do that. They cannot put a percentage figure without stating the reason for said figure. The Ordinance should apply to everything built. He stated they needed to come up with a reasonable cost that each new bedroom in the City is generating and he does not know how they can do that. He suggested they ask the attorney how to establish this formula and after the attorney advises them on same, they call a joint meeting with the Zoning Commission to discuss the Ordinance. Concerning the letter from Briley, Wild regarding the Subdivision Ordin- ance, Chairman Bennington advised that the Zoning Board has already taken care of it. They have the Ordinance before Council, asking that only 4 homes can be built before a CO can be issued. He felt it was a recommendation to protect the City. The builder cannot build more than 4 until he has put all the improvements in. Mr. Opal made a motion that it be recommended to Council that the Sub- division Ordinance be amended wherein contractors and developers be limited to building four model homes prior to acceptance by the City of all municipal improvements, per letter received from Briley, Wild, dated March 15, 1983. Mr. Finn seconded the Motion. Motion CARRIED 4-0. Chairman Bennington advised the Board that he received a note from Joan Taylor that Mr. Darwin Schneider will be at the meeting to ask the Board some questions concerning a site plan submitted in II zone. Mr. Schneider asked what the critical elevations are. Chairman Bennington advised that the Building Inspector suggested that a point be designated on the property and given an artificial number. Where your drainage areas are going to b~ you number them. If your highest point is 100 and if one area is 51 lower, that number is 95; if another area is 21 lower, that number is 97, etc. The critical spots are the high spots, low spot~ or corners. Indicate by arrows the direction of the water flow. Show the depth and size of the swales. Mr. Schneider asked questions concerning the width of the driveway requirements, buffer requirements, whether or not the refuse area can be located in the setback, parking requirements, paving requirements for driveways, landscape requirements. The Board answered all questions presented to them by Mr. Schneider. Mr. Chenoweth asked what takes place at a public hearing concerning the upcoming July 13th hearing regarding the FEC project. Chairman Bennington advised that FEC will have a representative, explaining what they intend to do, the public is invited to attend this hearing, by publication. He stated he intended to have a workshop prior to this hearing, however, due to some of the members not being in town, not enough members will be able to attend a workshop. A discussion then ensued concerning entrances to the proposed Edgewater Industrial Park, and the problem with channeling the traffic on Park Avenue. -4- Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 1983 o Q Chairman Bennington advised the Board that there was a note from City Clerk, Nancy Blazi, asking whether or not the Planning Commission wanted to request Council to have Briley, Wild present at the special meeting and public hearing for the FEC project. He stated that they charge $80 an hour for their services. The Board members decided it was not necessary that they be present at this preliminary hearing. Councilwoman Gigi Bennington stated that possibly by the time of the July 13th hearing the City will have their own part-time engineer who could attend this meeting. Mr. Opal made a Motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Chenoweth. The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Susan Mista -5- Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1983 (.) o ~ \/, V>' S +\- f' Date t.a... Y\. rUV\.q Col"'-~ ~M- -t~ !::'::> ~ .se\xl ~.D-l. 3).0-- c::d.1 I I I 1