01-05-1983
,.
o
o
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 5, 1983, 7:00 PM
Minutes
The meeting was called to order at 7:09 PM in the Planning Office at the
Edgewater City Hall.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Messrs. Towers, Hetu, Bennington. Also present: Mrs. Winks.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Mr. Towers, seconded by Mr. Hetu, and CARRIED 3-0, to approve
the minutes of the December 2, 1982 meeting.
SITE PLAN REVIEWS
SP-8227, Gas-Lite Square Subdivision, Mango Tree & 16th Street, R-4
Mr. Bill Rossiter, owner of the property, and Mr. Mark Dowst, engineer on
the project were present to discuss the plan.
Mrs. Winks noted that a statement on density was required for sketch plan
approval. .Mr. Rossiter stated that they will probably be duplexes, and each
individual owner will have to comply with setback regulations when he applies
for a building permit.
There was a discussion on who should be required to put in the sidewalks.
Mr. Rossiter felt that they could not be put in before the house was built
as they would get broken up from trucks and equipment, and he wouldn't know
where each person was going to put his driveway. He suggested that something
be put in the deed restrictions on this subject.
The members were concerned that if a lot didn't sell for several years, you
would have a length of sidewalks and then an empty lot.
Moved by Mr. Towers, seconded by Mr. Hetu, and CARRIED 3-0, that SP-8227
complies with the comprehensive plan, and approve sketch plan with the
stipulation that the following be part of the deed restrictions on the lots:
Individual owners will be required to put in sidewalks within twelve months
from time of purchase, and if the lot has not been sold by the developer,
he is required to put in .sidewalks within two years of the date the subdi-
vision is platted.
SP-8228, Ogil Reed, 919 S. Ridgewood, Drive-thru Grocery, B-3
Mr. Earl Wallace was present to discuss the proposed plan. The department
head comments were passed out and reviewed by the members. Themaln concern
is the number of parking spaces .that should be required. Based on the Code
for retail businesses, 28 parking spaces would be required for the 5500
square feet of this building. The members felt that due to the nature of
this" business that 28 spaces should not be required, but there isn't any
refer~nce to a drive-thru grocery in the Code.
Mr. Wallace stated that the drive-thru area is the only public portion of
the building, the rest of the building could be classified as retail storage,
which would then require 7 parking spaces based on 1420 square feet of
retail storage. The members felt that the five spaces were sufficient and
adding two more would be a detriment to the plan.
There"was a discussion on whether a variance by the Board of Adjust~ent was
nec~ssary, or if the Planning Commission could make the decision based on
the plan being new to Edgewater and no reference to this type of business
in the Code.
Moved by Mr. Hetu, .seconded by Mr. Towers, and CARRIED 3-0, to approve
preliminary/final site plan on SP-8228 with the following conditions: That
the City Attorney be consulted as to whether a variance is required by the
Board of Adjustments and if so the Planning Commission's approval will be
contingent upon the approval of the variance by the Board of Adjustments.
~ .
Q
Q
OLD BUSINESS
FEC Update
Mr. Bennington read the letters from Mrs. Winks and Mr. Alvarez concerning
the decision on which requirements must be met by FEC. Mr. Alvarez' letter
stated that it does have to comply with the subdivision regulations, because
it is a subdivision, but not the sections that pertain to residential
subdivisions. Mrs. Winks' noted that she had gone through the subd-ivision
ordinance in respect to an industrial subdivision and noted that the
requirement for a typical layout of buildings and sidewalks would not have
to be met.
SP-8226, Weaver/Wheaton Warehouse, 1518 Industrial Rd. I-2
Mrs. and Mrs. Wheaton were present to discuss their request for not having
an architect sealed plan for their warehouse. Mr. Bennington read the
letters from Mrs. Winks and Mr. Murphy and the State law pertaining to
this subject. Mr. Bennington read an architect's opinion on what aspects
of the building are incidental to the architect, and he felt that both an
engineer and architect's seal would be required. Mr. Earl Gordon also
read from another architect's opinion, which stated that this is a grey
area. Mr. and Mrs. Wheaton stated that they had built two other warehouses
that did not have an architect's seal on them. The members felt that they
now know about this law, the3 must comply with it, or accept Mr. Murphy's
interpretation-that it is not required on this type of structure. The
Commission felt that for the future this should be further clarified so
we will not have the same situation again.
...,
,
(
t.
Moved by Mr. Towers, seconded by Mr. Hetu, and CARRIED 3-0, to accept
Mr. Murphy's letter -dated December 14, 1982, as an interpretation that an
architect's seal is not required, and a building permit can be issued.
Past Planning Commission Correspondence
Mr. Bennington read Mrs. Winks' memo of December 16, 1982, which noted
several requested changes to the Code which were never done. The members
will look over this old correspondence further to see what action should
be taken on it.
NEW BUSINESS
Mrs. Winks passed out the new Department Head Review Checklist, noting that
the Department's review will be more detailed and should be beneficial to
the Commission.-
Mr. Hetu quoted figures on the present water usage and what-we have in
reserve, stating that someone should be keeping tract with all the new
construction that is coming into the City. It was suggested to see if
Mr. Wadsworth has this information and request a quarterly report from him
on water and sewer usage and reserve.
Mrs.-Winks noted that she had received_a call from Mr. -Byron Hodgins from
JLR Enterprises concerning a change in their landscaping on SP-90. Mr.
Hodgins stated that they would like to have portable landscaping along the
front so they could be moved with a forklift when large trucks deliver to
the building. The concensus of the Commission was that he did not have to
submit an amended site plan as long as the portable landscaping was approxi-
mately the same square footage as shown on SP-90. They did note that it
was to be kept along US 1 at all times except when moving it for a truck.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM.
Minutes submitted by:
Deborah'K. Winks
Planning Commission Minutes
January 5, 1983
Page 2