Loading...
05-18-1983 o o CITY OF EDGEWATER Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 18, 1983 Minutes Chairman Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. in the Planning Co~mi~sion Office, [ity H~]l. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Opal, Finn, Chenoweth, Quaggin, and Winter. Also present: Councilman Spencer, Mayor Ledbetter, Carmen Montesano, Earl Wallace, Susan Mista, secretary, and one member of the press. Mr. Garthwaite was also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Mr. Chenoweth and seconded by Mr. Opal to approve the minutes of the May 4, 1983, minutes. Motion CARRIED 4-1. Mr. Winter voted no as he was absent from the May 4th meeting. Chairman Bennington advised that all members of the Board were there and Mr. Quaggin would not be voting. . SITE PLAN REVIEWS SP-8307 - Robert Gaffney Chairman Bennington stated that Mr. Alvarez has furnished the Board with a legal opinion concerning this matter. Secretary, Susan Mista, read the Memorandum from City Attorney, Alvarez, dated May 18, 1983, concerning SP-8307 - Robert Gaffney, into the minutes. Mr. Winter stated that since they we~e just presented this, it should be studied more thoroughly by each member and tabled to the next meeting. Chairman Bennington said that on page two it states that this is some- thing the Board needs to determine factually. They need to call Mr. Gaffney back to find out why seven parking spaces were given. They need to determine the parking space issue, factually, before they can decide what to do. Mr. Winter made a motion to .call Mr. Gaffney, asking him to come back before the Board at the next regular meeting, before making a decision. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SP-8309 - Carmen Montesano - Sketch Plan Approval Mr. Opal advised the Board that he knows the layout of the place. Mr. Bennington stated that the plan meets all the setbacks. They have the Department head comments and summary of the Department head meeting. He added that the only thing he could see a problem with, the land is over an acre and requires a topo. From what he saw from the land he has, he is just moving the back wall 20', enclosing the sides and putting on a roof. It is his opinion that the Board should not force Mr. Montesano to spend that kind of money for this purpose. He is not exceeding his land coverage, there is plenty of land for water retention - a topo is not a cheap expenditure. Mr. Winter made a motion to accept the plan, as stated, the addition to the building, as outlined, giving preliminary and final approval. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SP-8310 - J. E. Wrono -,Preliminary/Final Report Earl Wallace was present, representing J. E. Wrono. o o Mr. Bennington stated that under the department head comments the building inspector advised that a topo be required. He advised it was not required as it was under an acre. Mr. Wallace advised the Board that stormwater calculations have been taken. On the map in the upper right corner it gives you area, usage, cross-section, run-off, based on a 2~urain flow on a two year average. It gives the size of the retention areas on either side. Mr. Bennington stated the Board was going to start requiring that they show that they can retain the first one inch. He said that he does not understand this. The retention area is running the whole length of the property. One is 20 some feet wide, the other is about 18. He stated the next thing was the police department stated they needed access to the rear of the building from 25th Street for emergency and security lights. The Chief has agreed that the access is sufficient and the security lights are OK. Mr. Wallace added that with no more swale area in the calculations, that even with a 111 run-off, as long as you have a good piece of land wher.e you have not a maximum usage of land cover, that the lands, with care, can absorb 111 under normal conditions. Mr. Bennington stated all the buffers are in and parking. He could not find anything wrong with it. Mr. Opal questioned the septic tank on the south end. It is in the retention area. He stated the sewage will all come right up to the top. Mr. Wallace stated that with as much land area as they have in ground absorption, they could eliminate the easterly portion of the retention and still maintain the 111 minimum ground absorption. Mr. Bennington asked if they had to do a perk test before the se~tic system is put in. Mr. Wallace answered that this was established by the Health Department; that it would be tested by the County. Mr. Opal asked if the septic tank could be moved elsewhere. Mr. Wallace advised that he understood that all septic tanks in Edgewater were to be in the front yard areas in case the City was ever in a position to cause sewer hook-up in lines running north and south. Under the pavement he felt it would not be advantageous due to the fact that you could get no air for your absorption; on the side of your structures, you are breaking away from what the Health Department will allow you to do. This was worked out with the utilities and they are in agreement with the front yard in case there is ever a sewage hook-up. Mr. Bennington stated that the perk ability test would determine if the sewage would come up. He asked how deep the drain fill pipes were. Mr. Wallace answered that normally they are two feet below the road, below the retention area. He advised that they are two to three feet above the road level at this time. Mr. Opal stated that he questioned the septic tank because he went out and looked at the site and it looked like the retention area, when the septic tank is filled, it will go right into that area. He fears that that will all come to the top when there is a lot of water. Mr. Wallace stated the biggest problem with septic tanks is the individuals tend to cut back and not use the proper square footage for lineal footage of drain pipe in ground absorption. Mr. Opal stated the septic tank is 1,050 gallons with two families on one tank. Mr. Wallace asked if he is asking them to put in a 1300 gallon .tank. Mr. Opal advised no, couldn't it be put somewhere else, away from the retention ar.ea. Mr. Wallace said it was put in the best area that they could determine. They do comply with the Health Department, as well, at this time. Mr. Winter suggested that the Board accept it as long as it com~orms with the master plan. Mr. Garthwaite suggested the Board ask the City Engineers if possibly it would be better to move it into the parking area. Mr. Opal stated possibly putting the trench in deeper - below 21 - the deeper you go the better it is. -2- Planning Commission May 18, 1983 Meeting Minutel o o Mayor Ledbetter agreed with Mr. Wallace, stating most of the people who have trouble with their septic tank concerns the shortness of their fill line. Mr. Winter stated that they were not engineers. Everything was in compliance and all they were here to do was determine if it was, in fact, in compliance - and if so, they have no alternative but to approve it - unless something is obviously wrong. Mr. Winter made a motion to accept the preliminary and final report on J. E. Wrono's SP-8310, as long as it complies with the comp plan. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-1. Mr. Opal voted no. NEW BUSINESS Tree Ordinance Review Mr. Bennington asked if anyone found anything they would like changed. Mr. Chenoweth stated the word "residence" on the front page should be hyphenated in a different place, it is possibly a typographical error. Mr. Winter felt there should be something to govern straight ground coverage, they should not be able to remove all ground coverage, that should be determined as well. Mr. Bennington advised that under item F where there are such lots where no trees exist - in order to establish a 25% crown cover in ten years, shall be planted. They also have a percentage of maximum they can remove. Mr. Winter stated the grass should be replaced, not leaving it in shell. Mr. Bennington said that the landscape ordinance draft is finished and there is supposed to be a clause in there that says they have to sod the swales before they can build. Mr. Winter felt that anything other than legal parking area should be landscaped or sodded. Mr. Bennington advised that that was covered in the landscape ordinance. He stated on the next to the last page under Section 6 he wanted Item A changed back to 20' instead of 501. Mr. Winter suggested it be brought down to individual lots, the requirement is 1 and 20 - on larger subdivision plans)that they stick ,/ with 1 and 50. Mr. Bennington stated that with this ordinance, each lot in a subdivision will have to have this percentage of coverage of trees. In Section 5 it says on any one lot. Mr. Spencer had a question under Item D in Section 3 concerning a tree worthy of preservation. He felt this was a very indefinite kind of thing. Later on it describes a tree with a certain diameter and more specifics. He stated a tree worthy of preservation did not add a whole lot. Mr. Bennington read the section from the Ordinance to the Board. Mr. Spencer stated if the intent of that paragraph was not to require the developer to retain trees that are diseased or rotten, then he can remove those, then that is fine. But it wasn't clear to him what the intent was. He stated that it was also not clear to him under Section 5 where it indicates that this Ordinance pertains to only those areas where site plans are required. You have to get to page 2 before you find that this does pertain to a single family dwelling lot. Mr. Bennington stated this is under Section 4, at which time he read this part of the Ordinance. Mr. ~ehnington stated that this was at the front, but when the draft was written he started out with what the Ordinance said in Section 1; Section 2 - the intent of the Ordinance; Section 3 - definitions; Section 4 - who is required to comply with it. Mr. Spencer suggested that it be put in the title, in the first box, where it applies to developments requiring Site Plans. Mr. Bennington suggested Section 4 be put between Section 1 and 2; Section 1 states this Ordinance shall be known as the Tree Preservation Protective Ordinance of the City of Edgewater; Section 2 will state who has to comply. Mr. Winter said to make it Section 3. Mr. Winter made a motion to make Section 4, Section 3 - immediately after the definition; and make Section 3, Section 4. Under Section 6, subsection A - change 1" to 20' rather than 1" to 501. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS Concerning reviewing the letter from Briley Wild concerning the subdivision ordinance, Mr. Bennington r,ead from the Ordinance. He stated apparently it has been the policy that as long as they have -3- Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 1983 o o their performance bond posted, they can proceed. He stated on Page 1738, Item B on issuing permits, at which time he read the section to the Board. He stated Briley, Wi19 says they can build them but they cannot get a CO. He suggested to start the change under Section 1 to read: however up to and including 4 but no more than 4 model homes may be erected concurrently with construction of the required improvements if a bond has been posted as provided for in these reg- ulations; however, no COs shall be issued until approval and acceptance of all municipal improvements by the City has occurred. He stated that could comply with Briley, Wild's request. They are saying, as he under- stands it, that the builder is using the money that would normally go into the required improvements, to put up homes and selling them and this would stop them from doing this. They couldn't build more than 4 until they got all the improvements in. Mr. Winter asked what brought this on. Mr. Opal advised that he wanted to read the letters that we~e in after this, after March 15th. He wants the 2 letters to find out what it is all about. It is specifically Pelican Cove West, which is what they are referring to in the letter. Mr. Bennington advised that they do not say what they are referring to. He stated the letters Mr. Opal is referring to were written to the Council in reference to the required improvements in Pelican Cove West. Mr. Opal stated that concerns this matter here and he requested at the previous meeting that they be furnished copies of those letters. Mr. Opal made a motion that the two letters sent to Council be presented to the Board. Mr. Bennington suggested the Board send a letter to Briley, Wild, asking them why they were doing this. Mr. Opal stated the other letters would explain it. Motion died for lack of second. Mr. Winter made a motion that the Board write Briley, Wild, asking them the reason for the letter, why it was initiated, and why they think the Board should act upon this in this manner. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Bennington stated that the Building Inspector made a statement concerning the two items on the checklist that should fall under the Planning Department regarding site plan 8309, that the first two items on the checklist should fall under Planning instead of under him. He is referring to all site plans. Mr. Opal advised that they did not get a response from the building inspector regarding the retention area in the back of the Gaffney proposal. He was to check it out and give a report to the Board. Mr. Bennington stated that he would not do that until after the Board makes the final decision concerning the legal opinion. He felt that the building official should check to see that the retention areas are adequate. Under Public Works there is an item for retention areas. All that is on the checklist is NjA, which he felt was incorrect inasmuch as NjA, if meaning IInot applicablell, it is, in fac4 applicable - even though they are under an acre, they still have to retain the one inch run-off. Mr. Bennington stated they need to decide whether or not they want to spend the city's money and have all of the plans to go to the City Engineer or if the Building Inspector and Public Works Department should see that the sites under an acre have adequate retention. He felt that the Building Inspector and Public Works Department should be informed that, under the Ordinance, IInot applicablell is not a proper answer to retention areas. Mr. Opal reiterated that concerning the Gaffney site plan, there are no indications as far as feet are concerned for retention area and there is a fifteen foot alley there. Mr. Bennington asked if he wanted the Building Inspector to report to the Board, at the time Mr. Gaffney wi 11 come before the Board at the next meeting, concerning whether or not the retention area is adequate. Mr. Opal advised he was supposed to have checked that and reported to us. -4- Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 1983 o o Mr. Bennington advised Mr. Opal that there were two conditions concerning the Gaffney matter. One condition was that legal said it was all right with the way they had it. The other condition was that before the Building Inspector issued a permit, that he determined that the retention areas were adequate. There is no reason for that to come back to us, unless you want that information. Under the Public Works Department section of the checklist, Mr. Bennington felt that the word "adequate" should be added to retention areas, and advise them that "not applicable" is not a proper answer. Mr. Winter made a motion the word "adequate" should be added concerning the retention areas on the Public Works Department section of the site plan checklist~ and inform ithe Department that "not applicable" is not a proper answer. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Opal made a motion that the Building Inspector report to the Board, in writing, as to whether or not the retention area is adequate concerning site plan SP-8307 - Robert Gaffney - said report to be made prior to the next regular meeting. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Garthwaite questioned the Board on site plan SP-8309, Mr. Montesano1s plan, you requested a sketch approval, don1t you need a plan showing the electrical outlets, ventilation fans, drainage - how he will handle it. Mr. Winter advised that that is all determined by the Building Inspector. He has to build according to the codes. Mr. Garthwaite stated there was an add in the paper on their warehouses, speaking of plenty of parking for visitors - indicating the warehouses were going to be turned into businesses. They are building them for warehouses and turning them into businesses. Mr. Garthwaite asked the Board what can be done. Mr. Bennington stated that if they build them as a storage warehouse, the parking requirement is minimal. When they convert them to a business, they have to come into City Hall for a license; they are to state if they have adequate parkin~ and there shouldn't be adequate parking, and no one should issue them a license for retail business. Mr. Garthwaite asked if they shouldn't be asked to come back to the Planning Board if they are going to open up a business, and prove to you that they do have adequate parking. Mr. Bennington advised that if they can't meet the parking requirements, they would have to come back. Mr. Opal stated the way he understands it they issue the license even though they know it is wrong. Mr. Garthwaite felt that if someone comes in to get an occupational license, wherein they are changing the use of the building, they should be required to come back before some Board for approval. He felt it should not be left up to the Clerk to issue the permit for the license - the Board should approve it first. Mr. Opal suggested that when a storage bin is converted to a business, they should first go to the Zoning Board or the Planning Board before the license is issued. Mr. Bennington suggested that be given to the Council. Not only is parking involved, there are several things involved, for example, not enough bathroom facilities for a business, etc. Mr. Spencer felt that the City Clerk should be informed that when a mini warehouse is being converted to another use, it should come back to the Planning Board. There are quite a few things that need to be checked and she should not have to review all of those. Mr. Bennington asked how it will be determined if the particular address they are converting was originally built as a warehouse. Mr. Spencer said the code states that the building official is to check to see if the facility is adequate or proper for a new business. Mr. Finn added that the problem is all over in converting businesses. Mr. Opal stated that the same situation is ~ing on at Park Avenue. Mr. Bennington advised that something needs to be done but he does not know what. Someone needs to determine whether these situations need to come before this Board or not. -5- Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 1983 o o Mr. Winter made a motion that before any existing business be changed for any reason whatsoever, that approval must be had by the Building Official, including change of use, that it must conform or come before the Planning Board with a new site plan. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Bennington stated the letter from Zoning regarding the video games, he agrees with everything they are doing except concerning the number of machines allowed as a principle use- it was agreed that any number over two would be considered principle use. Three or more would be considered principle use. It stated that a principle use application should go to the Board of Adjustment for special exception. He felt that anything under permitted use should go to the Planning Board. It also stated that an accessory use application shall go to the Zoning Commission, wherein it is associated with the principle use and it, too, should go to the Planning Board. Mr. Winter felt it was a very poor by-law. Mr. Benning- ton advised that they are limiting principle uses to B3 and B5. The only exception he feels is that principle use application should go to the Board of Adjustments, and be written as a special exception, and accessory use should go to the zoning commission - it should not go to the Zoning Commission, it should go to the Planning Commission - both of them should go to the Planning Commission, unless the first one be changed to a special exception. He felt a letter should go to Council, advising them of this. Principle use and accessory use should go to the Planning Commission, unless it is a special exception. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion concerning -ttle game room proposed ordinance changes by the Zoning Commission, a principle use application shall go to the Planning Commission, unless it is written as a special excpetion; that an accessory use application shall go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Winter seconded the motion. Motion CARRrED 5-0. Mr. Bennington advised the Board there are a lot of seminars for work- shops of Planning and Development concerning small cities, towns and rural counties. He stated he would leave all the information with the secretary for the members to view, if interested. Mr. Bennington advised that the Council sent back the zero lot line ordinance. It is not on this agenda but will be on next agenda. He asked that everyone study some more on zero lot lines. Dan Nolan left some information with Mr. Bennington on landscaping, zero lot lines, Ormond Beach Planned Unit Development Ordinance, etc. Copies of all this information will be furnished to the Board members. Mr. Winter motioned that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Mr. Opal. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. Minutes submitted by Susan Mista Planning Commission Meeting 5-18-83 -6- Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 18, 1983 o <.) Date_f\A-D~q~3 4-\ 4-1