Loading...
05-04-1983 o o CITY OF EDGEWATER Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 4, 1983 Minutes Chairman Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:04 P.M., in the conference area of the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Bennington, Opal, Finn, Chenoweth and Quaggin. Excused: Mr. Winter. Also present: Mr. and Mrs. Garthwaite, Paul Loeffer, Paul Zimmerer, Jack Spencer, Councilman, Susan Mista, Secretary, Susan Wadsworth, Secretary, and one member of the press. Mr. Gaffney arrived late. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Mr. Quaggin and seconded by Mr. Opal to approve the minutes of the April 20, 1983, minutes. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBER Susan Wadsworth swore in George Quaggin as alternate member of Planning Commission. Mr. Quaggin asked, in the absence of Mr. Winter, if it were alright for him to vote at this meeting. Mr. Bennington advised him that it was. SP-8307 - Robert Gaffney - Preliminary/Final Report No one was present to represent Mr. Gaffney. Mr. Quaggin motioned to table SP-8307, seconded by Mr. Opal. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SP-8308 - El Toro Enterprises - Sketch Plan Approval Mr. Paul Zimmerer, applicant, and Mr. Paul Loeffer were present regarding this matter. Mr. Zimmerer wanted to know what the Board thinks about his plan before going to an architect and expending monies if the Board doesn't feel it will be approved. Mr. Loeffer advised that this was a two story building to be put on Park Avenue, about 1500 feet on Mango Tree Drive between Park and the railroad. It is a site that has been cleared off. Mr. Zimmerer stated he planned to build approximately half of the building at this time. Mr. Loeffer stated it would be a commercial building, the property is actually not wide enough for industrial. The building will be for shops, auto repair shop, or body and fender shop with offices upstairs. Mr. Zimmerer stated it would be four sections of shops on the lower level and four offices and one or two apartments possibly on top. The property is 225 by 140 and he does not own the adjoining property. There is railroad property behind same. Mr. Bennington advised that the first difficulty is that this is permitted as a special exception, meaning you will have to go from this Board to the Board of Adjustments to be granted. Mr. Loeffer and Mr. Zimmerer want this Board's feelings on it before they get more involved in getting drawings, etc. Mr. Zimmerer advised that he would be owning them, himself, renting same, not selling them. Mr. Bennington advised that the setbacks were fine. If they have a special exception, with the size building in reference, and all require- ments are met, it would meet the zoning, as far as this Board is con- cerned. Preliminary site plan approval is needed before they can go before the Board of Adjustments. which means furnishing everything on the requirements list, except for the sealed architect's seal of compliance which is not needed until final. Mr. Bennington advised that they were required to retain one inch of rainfall and meet parking requi rements. o o Mr. Bennington suggested that they check with the city attorney to find out where they stand concerning the ordinance regarding multi-family type housing in business zoning. He also advised that if the plan meets the oridnance, there would be no problem having same approved by this Board. Mr. Robert Gaffney arrived at the meeting. Mr. Finn motioned to take SP-8307 off the table, seconded by Mr. Opal. Motion CARRIED 5-0. SP-8307 - Robert Gaffney - Preliminary/Final Report Mr. Bennington went over the Site Plan Checklist from the Department Heads and read the comments from the Department Head meeting concerning this matter. Mr. Opal asked about the alleyway - how many feet are there for retention? Mr. Bennington advised this print does not have a measurement.on.1t for the rear setback. He figured it to be 121.by measuring the 10' parking spaces and moving it over. Mr. Bennington asked Mr. Gaffney how deep and wide the retention areas were. There is a shell driveway, 7 shell parking areas; the water retention that you have to retain is the first one inch of runoff from your building and your driveways so the driveways should absorb it. Mr. Bennington advised there is approximately 4,050 square feet of roofed area. The retention area looks to be approximately 6 by 60. Mr. Opal asked if a 61 retention area would be enough. Mr. Bennington stated he has approximately 1,010 feet retention area a foot deep. The Building Inspector knows about the one inch runoff and he will have to check this out to ensure that the retention areas will handle the runoff. Mr. Opal stated he figured there is about a foot and a half retention area in the back. You have your septic tank and your line, and there isn't much room in there. Mr. Opal advised that the retention area in the back end needs to be checked out, otherwise it seems to be OK. Mr. Bennington stated a motion should be made that the building inspector make sure the retention areas are adequate and that all legal instruments that are required are in order. Mr. Garthwaite asked whe~e the site is located. He was advised it is located at 20th Street and Hibiscus. He questioned as to whether the parking areas were away from the setback areas. This is under B2 on page 1599, Offstreet Parking, subparagraph G, the last sentence states the offstreet parking and loading areas shall not extend into or occupy any required yard area. Do these parking areas clear that? B2 is the only one requiring this. Mr. Gaffney stated he felt they made the best possible use of the parking without destroying the aesthetics of it. It will be an attractive site. Mr. Bennington advised you have to have 10' by 40' for each parking space, which you do. And Mr. Gaffney stated there is 10 by 20 to back up into which is provided in the driveway. MrJ Bennington stated the code says one parking space for each employee and one for each company vehicle. He asked if these were warehouses. Mr. Gaffney said yes and no company employees will be there. Mr. Bennington questioned why Planning said 7 parking spaces were required. Mr. Gaffney stated that six were required and the way he read the code and the way the residential code is that one of the parking spaces can be the driveway itself. So actually there are two parking spaces per unit, if you count the driveway space itself. Mr. Bennington stated it doesn't extend into the buffer area but it does extend into the setback. Mr. Finn questioned the plan stating wholesale/retail/commercial. Would you be selling from there? Mr. Gaffney stated anybody operating a business out of this particular location would have to go through the same channel as anyone else in applying for a license. He will not have any control as representative of the owner over what is allowed in there. That is up to the statutes of Edgewater. Mr. Bennington discussed under Dimensional Requirements, front yard setback 40', which it is; the first 10' abutting the front boundary shall not be used for offstreet parking but shall be used for landscaping and egress or ingress. Under G the ordinance says offstreet parking and loading shall not extend to or occupy any required yard area. That is a conflict. The latest ordinance passed says it can't extend into the 10', which it doesn't. He could have his parking in the shell drive - he sees no problem with it the way it is. -2- o o Mr. Garthwaite stated that if you sell or rent these spaces and people come in and put in a retail business, that requires 4 parking spaces. He understands Mr. Gaffney is not responsible for that or the owner of the building but if you come back to the city, the city has problems. Mr. Bennington advised the city can't issue a license unless it meets the requirements. Mr. Chenoweth made a motion that the plan, as presented, with the parking and everything included, as is, be approved - subject to the Building Inspector's further consideration of the retention area in the rear, pending legal opinion of the parking under Dimensional Requirement, B2, Item G, and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Code. Mr. Opal seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS Zero Lot Lines - Further Study and Update Mr. Bennington stated that his personal opinion has not changed, that he believes it was the intention of the Board when this ordinance was originally written to allow people to divide and sell off the family housing to individual owners. There were two problems the way same was written, Item 1 and 5. Zero lot lines are only permitted in multi-family, business and PID zoning - not permitted in single-family zoning. Item 2 could be deleted totally in that it talks.about single units. Mr. Bennington stated that his change is that the minimum yard shall be the same as the zoning classification in which the subdivision is located or proposed, except that the exterior side yard shall be a minimum of 20' and the interior side yards shall be O. The interior wall shall be a minimum of 2 hour separation, which is what Mr. Bradshaw said is required if sold as individual uritts. Mr. Opal's opinion is that it avoids division of setbacks. Mr. Bennington added that under Item 5 where all parcels are to be equally divided, it should be added - excluding set- backs. A discussion then continued concerning the matter. Mr. Opal made a motion to eliminate Zero Lot Lines, Section 718.00. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-1. Mr. Bennington voted no. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Bennington stated there is a memo from the Volusia County Council of Governments concerning Update 182. He then read the letter to the Board. Tree Ordinance Mr. Bennington stated the draft of the new Tree Ordinance is close to what was stated before. He then read the Ordinance to the members. - Mr. Jack Spencer questioned the Board concerning a tree worthy of preservation. He stated it would be difficult for someone to go to a building site and say that some tree will last longer than the concrete block building that is going to be erected there. He ~uestioned how a builder would be able to determine that. The Ordinance exempts certain trees and states a scale for the sizes, etc. Mr. Bennington advised that the Board changed the size from 111 - 50 to 111 - 20 because Mr. Wallace advised that the 50 would be too small to see on the drawing. He advised that the Board also voted to add a section on Enforcement, which is number 8. Mr. Opal made a motion to tabl e the Tree Ordinance until the next meeting and to furnish members with a new draft for review. Mr. Finn seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Preliminary Site Plan Requirements Mr. Bennington advised that changes should be made on the Preliminary Site Plan Requirements. Under Item 3 there should be an addition to show the loading areas, where required. Also, under Item 7 it should be - 3- o o added that all applicants must show water retention of the first one inch of rain water. Mr. Opal stated the Board should act on the preliminary first, before the final. He doesn't feel enough time is given between the preliminary and the final, they should be separated. Mr. Bennington then read from the Code Book regarding this matter. Mr. Bennington questioned the matter of driveway permits, why the state was only issuing 16 and why they would not issue 20 to comply with our Ordinance. Mr. Spencer advised that the Chief of Police, Earl Baugh, was to find out this information and report to the City Council at the next meeting. Mr. Bennington advised that Joan Taylor, the secretary, called::the state and was told that 16 is all that is given. He felt that 16 was not safe and the Ordinance calls for 20. It also means that everyone building on u.S. 1 must go before the Board of Adjustments to get a variance. The Ordinance cannot be amended to read 16 as this only applies to the state highway. Mr. Opal felt that the preliminary should be separated from the final before permits are given to avoid possible problems that may arise in the future. Mr. Bennington stated that the final would have to be given before any permits are allowed, anyway. He added that a motion could be made that when asking for a preliminary and final, if you donlt feel it is proper - don't give him final. Mr. Opal feels driveway permits should be added on the checklist. Mr. Opal made a motion to add to the building official IS column, a stipulation wherein driveway permits are required by state or other sources, if needed. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Opal made a motion to add under Item 3 of the Preliminary Site Plan Requirements, loading areas, if required; and under Item 7, applicant must show retention of one inch rain water. Mr. Chenoweth seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0. COMMUNICATION Mr. Opal reviewed his letter regarding verbal abuse of Board members. He advised that he sent the same letter to the newspapers - the Observer, Sentinel Star and Daytona Journal. He stated that it was very unfortun- ate for someone to cause such problems at the meetings. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Garthwaite asked the Board regarding the Zero Lot Lines, if the motion previously made wipes out townhouses, duplexes and cluster homes. Mr. Bennington advised no. Mr. Opal read an article from the Orlando Sentinel concerning the water problems around U.S. 92, the zoning involved and what the legislature is doing to help correct the problems. Mr. Bennington read a letter from Briley, Wild concerning the subdivision Ordinance, dated March 15, 1983. He stated he did not understand what they wanted. Mr. Opal thought it would be a good idea for all members of the committee to receive a copy of that letter. Mr. Spencer advised that he felt the intent of the letter was to prohibit the developer to put up more than four homes, without approval. Mr. Bennington suggested this matter be put on the next meetings agenda, thereby furnishing a copy of said letter to all members. He suggested that everyone review the Subdivision Ordinance and see if the Ordinance can be rewritten. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Minutes submitted by Susan Mista Planning Commission Meeting 5-4-83 -4- . ' , o u Date ~j 4) IClg,~ A-\ 1 .j d?'~ ~"j-~V ~. I . I