Loading...
04-06-1983 " Q u CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 6, 1983 Minutes Chairman Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the conference area of the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Opal, Winter, Bennington and Chenoweth. Excused: Mr. Finn. Also present: Mrs. Winks, Secretary Mrs. Winks explained that Mr. Henry, new member appointed by Resolution 83-R-26, has submitted his resignation. He had never been sworn in. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Mr. Winter and seconded by of the March 16, 1983 meeting. Mr. indicate who voted IINolI on SP-8227, SP-8303, J. Arnette and L. Jarvis. voted IINolI on SP-8227 and SP-8303. voted No, because he was not at the Mr. Chenoweth to approve the minutes Winter asked that the March 16 minutes Gas Lite Square Subdivision, and Let the records show that Mr. Opal The motion CARRIED 3-1. Mr. Bennington March 16 meeting. SP-8229 - Amended Site Plan - Ed Hall, Professional Plaza, U.S. 1, in a B-3 Zoning District. There was no representative present for Mr. Hall. The secretary reported that Mr. Hall had been advised that SP-8229 was scheduled for tonight's meeting. Mr. Winter noted that the rules of the Board state that a representative must be present before the Board can listen to or consider a case. He moved that SP-8229 be tabled until a representative can be present; the motion was seconded by Mr. Opal and CARRIED 4-0. SP-8304 - Robert Richards, 2724 Hibiscus, Warehouse Addition, B-2 - preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval request. Mr. Ogil Reed was present to discuss the plans. He noted that the address should be 2724 Hibiscus, and not 2427 as shown on the agenda. Mrs. Winks presented the Department Head comments and Mr. Bennington read them, noting that the lot size is 120' x 223' and not as shown by the Building Official comments. Re. Public Works comments, Mrs. Winks explained that presently the garbage and trash is being picked up at the road. The plan shows an actual trash pick-up area on site. Mr. Copeland approves of this. Mr. Reed was present to discuss the plan at the Department Head Meeting and there were no further comments from them, and they see no problem with the plan. Mr. Reed explained that it was a concrete block building; the addition is 1380 square feet; the existing building is 2100 square feet. The members reviewed the preliminary site plan requirements and determined that the plan does meet all requirements and also meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. A buffer is shown, although it is not required. Moved by Mr. Opal, seconded by Mr. Chenoweth, to approve the preliminary and final site plans for SP-8304, noting that it does meet all the require- ments of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion CARRIED 4-0. Mr. Bennington commented that the new Department Head Comment Sheets are a great improvement over those used formerly. Mr. Ed Hall arrived to the meeting at this time. Mr. Winter moved to take SP-8229 off the table and the motion was seconded by Mr. Chenoweth. The motion CARRIED 4-0. {.) Q SP-8229 - Amended Site Plan - Ed Hall, Professional Plaza, U.S. 1, B-3 Zoning District Mrs. Winks read the following letter into the records. The letter was addressed to the Edgewater Planning Board. "Dear Members, attached you will find a revised site plan for our project known as Edgewater Pro- fessional Plaza, which we are resubmitting for your approval. Also attached you will find a copy of a driveway permit and sketch from the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, which is the reason for having to revise our site plan. We orginally requested three openings onto U.S. Highway No.1, which were denied by the D.O.T. We then received the sketch plan showing what we would be allowed to do. See attached sketch. There- fore we feel that this revised site plan should not cause any major problems and hope for a quick decision on this. The water retention areas and the swales behind the building are already in, and together with the shallow swale we intend to have put in onthe east end of the project will, in our opinion, keep any problems due to surface water from occurring. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, Ron Lucas for Ed Hall!' Mrs. Winks produced the driveway permit and the sketch, as well as the amended site plan. Mrs. Winks did get further department head comments on the amended site plan, which states that if the front spaces for parking are not sufficient and can't be used, there will be a reduction in parking and this should go to the Board of Adjustments. There was a lengthy discussion as to whether or not the parking was adequate. Mr. Bennington noted that the back entrance is shown as 24 feet, in and out. The front entrance is 16 feet. He stated that all offstreet parking, including entrances and exits and maneuvoring and parking areas shall have an access to a street or alley with a minimum width of 9 feet for access way serving residential uses and a minimum width of 12 feet for double access ways, and 20 feet for single access ways; he interpreted this to mean a double access way would be 24 feet and a single access way would be 20. The permit from the DOT is for 16 feet. Mr. Hall said that was all the DOT would give him; he would have put in 40 feet. Mr. Bennington said that if that is all the DOT will give then something will have to be changed, as the ordinance calls for 20 feet. The 16 ft. one way access does not comply. Mr. Winter felt that if the ordinance is wrong then they should change the ordinance, but they were creating a hardship for Mr. Hall. He felt that a motion should be made to accept the amended site plan. Mrs. Winks called attention to Sec. 700.01, which calls for 400 square feet of parking area for each required parking space. The motion was made by Mr. Frank Opal to send the plan to the Board of Adjust- ments to check into the offstreet parking, especially Sec. 700.01, page 1622.17. Mr. Hall asked to be excused from returning to the Planning Commission if the variances are approved by the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Bennington asked Mr. Opal if that was the intent of his motion. Mr. Opal said no, he did not want someone else making a motion for him. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Winter made the motion that the Commission accept the Amended Site Plan as put forth, that Mr. Hall go before the Board of Adjustments. They will deter- mine whether it is his actions or the actions of the D.O.T. Mr. Bennington reminded the members that the D.O. T. did not cre'ate the parking problems. Mr. Opal amended the motion to include Sec. 700.01 be considered. Mr. Winter said he would support that amendment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Chenoweth. A member of the audience commented that the County did not direct that the swales be put in. When they came the swales were in. Upon roll call vote, the motion CARRIED 3-1. Mr. Opal voted No. Mrs. Winks asked which motion passed. Mr. Bennington said both; the motion passed 3-1; the amendment passed 4-0. Mr. Opal said that was right. Mrs. Winks told Mr. Hall to come to City Hall to schedule the meeting with the Board of Adjustments. SP-8305 - Bill Perry, Knapp and U.S. 1, Lounge and Auto Parts Addition, B-3 Preliminary/Final Approval Mr. Perry was present to explain his plan. Mrs. Winks read the Department Head Comments. She explained the question concerning the Public Works comment Planning Commission, April 6, 1983 - 2 - Q Q reo commercial vehicle access. Mrs. Winks explained that Mr. Earl Wallace was present at the Department Head Meeting and he stated that the deliveries were made in the morning hours when the lounge is not open. Even if cars are parked in the back there is sufficient room for the trucks to make deliveries. There is 25 feet from the parking to the back of the building. The department heads were satisfied with that. Mr. Bennington called attention to the ordinance which says that spaces required for one use cannot be assigned to another use. He noted that if the spaces shown for the Trolley Stand are to be used for the lounge, they cannot also be used for the hotdog stand. Mr. Perry explained that the Trolley Car business is not open at night and that is when he needs the parking. He explained that he had bought that land for parking; he has a long-term lease on the bar. Mrs. Winks read the letter from Frank Elliott dated 4/1/83 indicating that he was the owner of the property at 515 No. Ridgewood and that Mr. Perry has his permission to obtain a building permit to remodel the building. He submitted a copy of his deed with the letter. Motion was made by Mr. winter for preliminary and final approval of SP-8305 for the addition as outlined on the site plan, noting that it meets all the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Chenoweth. The motion CARRIED 4-0. OLD BUSINESS Annexation - Meeting with Messrs. Clark and Alvarez. Mrs. Winks said that she had talked to Mr. Clark today. person; he would like to postpone the annexation matter. voluntary annexation and lacks one person. He is lacking one He is going for Zero Lot Lines - Referred back to Planning by Council for further review. Mr. Bennington said that the reason this matter was referred back to Planning is because of the new concept of a duplex that has been built. The duplex in question is two individual units built on a lot that are spaced about ten feet apart; there is a solid wall down the center line. The buildings are attached in the front. The question is, would the zero lot line, as amended, cover that type of structure. He stated that the way the old ordinance was written is it says the minimum side yard shall be either zero or a minimum of 20 feet. A builder could interpret that as meaning it could be either zero or 20 feet, and he couid opt for the zero and build to the property line. Planning's amendment leaves the first part as it was that the minimum side yard shall be the same for the zoning classification except that the interior side yard may be zero in the case of structures which adjoin. He referred to an Orlando Sentinel article regarding zero lot lines; their comment on zero lot lines was where two structures could be built, either on or near the side or rear lot line; the purpose for this was to get more units per acre. He said that the purpose of zero lot lines is so that a piece of property can be divided equally down the center line to be sold to two distinct individuals. The direction he got was, do they want to amend it from what it says now, "interior side yards may be zero in the case of structures which adjoin", or do they want to amend it just to be, "interior side yards may be zero", or whatever. Mr. Winter said they could pretty well determine when they get the site plan what type of building they are going to put up. Mr. Bennington said they approve a plan for a subdivision as a type of subdivision. As each unit is built the builder goes to the building inspector and pulls the permit. Mr. Bennington reviewed the definitions for multi-family, noting that at this time there is no definition for duplex. Mr. Bennington said he believed Planning's concern is, under zero lot lines, do they want Council to amend the existing ordinance to protect the city from the statement that says, "except that the minimum side yard shall be either zero or 20". It doesn't say the interior yard. Mayor McKillop explained the duplex with the wall dividing them, and said that the developer had invited the Commission to look it over. Mr. Bennington said that zero lot lines does not necessarily apply to duplex. It could apply to selling individual sections of a building. He advised Planning Commission April 6, 1983 - 3 - Q u that Zoning is updating its definitions and could include duplex; it was up to Planning to clarify what a zero lot line is. It was noted that any zoning change recommendations need to go to Council in May. Mr. Bennington said that a recommendation for a change to that ordinance could also be presented to Council, to perhaps increase the number of months changes can be presented to six instead of four. Mr. Winter motioned to table the subject of zero lot lines for at least two weeks so that each Commission member could study the matter further; to get in touch with Mr. Finn so that he could also do some research, and it could be formulated at the next meeting. Mr. Opal seconded the motion and it CARRIED 4-0. Mr. Bennington read the following statement for the record: Comprehensive Plan now assumes a new legal status. The act sets out the legal status of the Comprehensive Plan. After Comprehensive Plan or element or portion thereof has been adopted in conformity with the Act from that point on all developments undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by a governmental agency relating to land covered by such a plan or element must be consistent with the plan or element as adopted. All land development regulations, zoning, ordinances, subdivision regulations, construction codes and the like must be consistent with the adopted compre- hensive plan or element or portions thereof. To put it bluntly and in another fashion, building permits cannot be issued to private persons wh6rethe develop- ment proposed does not conform to the comprehensive plan. Government cannot elect structures or public improvements that do not accord with the compre- hensive plan. Any land use regulations, zoning and the like must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan can no longer be ignored. The ordinance that sets up the Planning Commission says, "The Edgewater Planning Commission shall have the following powers, duties and responsibilities. The Commission shall have the primary responsibility for determination that land development orders and land development regulations are consistent with the Edgewater Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Bennington said that that tells him that no variance can be issued, no special exception can be given, or no building permit can be issued until the Planning Commission says it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Winks said that the Florida Statutes says that the Comprehensive Plan should be updated once a year; it has not been done since 1981. There was some question about who approved the Kayo Service Station changes. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Bennington reported that they will be receiving a package from the City Attorney concerning the duties and powers of the Zoning and Planning Commissions and some sample ordinances. The Zoning Commission will receive the same thing and a meeting will be held with the City Attorn~y. Mr. Siciliano, Chairman of the Zoning Commission, advised that he will discuss it with his board and decide if they wanted to have a joint workshop with Planning. The Commission reviewed the By-Laws of the Planning Commission. (See attached copy of By-Laws.) With reference to Article IX, G. Mr. Opal felt that there should be more than three people voting on site plans and final site plan approval. He recommended that the word "All" be deleted. Mr. Chenoweth said it could be taken out; it served no purpose. All members agreed to delete the word "All". Mr. Opal wished to see paragraph H changed. He felt that there should be an approval or denial by at least four (4) people on the Board. He said that "providing there is a quorum present" should be stricken. Mr. Bennington said he didn't agree that it was right to allow three people to hold a meeting and require four votes. Mr. Opal said he was talking about site plans. Mr. Bennington said that any time they met, other than a workshop, they were voting on issues which were making a change or approving a site plan. Mr. Opal felt that the whole paragraph pertaining to a Quorum should be removed, and if there were only three people present, they should require a unanimous vote. Mr. Opal made a motion that when there are three members present to make a quorum there has to be a unanimous vote. The motion died for lack of a second. Planning Commission, April 6, 1983 - 4 - o o MISCELLANEOUS Some discussion was had regarding how a certain building addition got approved. Mr. Bennington suggested the secretary check to see if a Building Permit was issued. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Joan Taylor Planning Commission, April 6, 1983 - 5 - v ~ J- Z yf I..,) rJ;;:: . ${}/)r ~~ . ufI'/~. ~aP~' 0r~t 1oi;'jy~ r~"" ~~ H y. H 'I y~r"JJ1 Y P't !&fetL y O-y My If fI~ !~ ~ Y '/ ~ Y .:i y <-h i~r ~~. 'I y / ~9' ~ ,-J-/ Lj-6 '-/-0 I , (€J (0 113-1 ~ . 80~ ~~<-7f (.) ;J 0 r:.J 1 ppvJ!.v," % .Jf;, iJ< 1~J-o ,JV~ H '! (OnaL ql/ ~!J-y ~~ Y l ., · 'f> ~-f -t~-f' r; ~ 'tf $~H y ~~J Y tJ~ 'I ~if&vY !'/7lvlJ ~ I, I q30 p~ . II II I /~l) 7tJo.o/ -(.;J ( ('" 13 () /-) ./ 5P~ <6~~ ~~ H 'I y y y tJ-{) f\ )'''' r /i /L-A) ;urIc .J 7 rA.fV :.\ b,(f-d~ ::iJ:- I;l/) (3 j I ) /1U. ~ -1- ~~ 1 A1~' ~ ~c;t ~ .. .V ~ '...J .' '-/?( Cl/7?~d ,y/~/g3 {lcUl.;U dli.duJ 7 t1 ~ I '-k r!-. . ~ Tf)~t:uJ - ~ ~cJud. .ojJ-g~cJ,q --f~ sp- g3 of . 'II ~ .>>v 33/ tf/V !Is / ---v V y6~~J - J~-f cA J U. \ ---t-/ ,0-/ -v 1:/ ~ f Ito9 G I C g-.s-c. ~ ~\ Holto/} - J tLfU- I - A (J/ix1i:U I . II 1.5/2 ~3t')~ ! /ll/1- ~ G, :,~~ I J I I " 'I I. i i ., Il II [t