HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-05 PZ Agendaan OF
SEAT"
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
1225 MAIN STREET ■ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE (772) 589.5518 ■ FAX(772)388-8248
AGENDA
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
[PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION]
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2015
7:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meetings of 2/5/15 and 2/19/15
6. OLD BUSINESS:
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Public Hearing - Review and Make a Recommendation to City Council Regarding
Ordinance 0-15-03 which Proposes to Amend the Land Development Code,
Article III, Section 54-2-3.2(a)(7) Regarding Permitted Locations for Temporary Uses
and Special Events
8. CHAIRMAN MATTERS:
9. MEMBERS MATTERS:
10. DIRECTOR MATTERS:
11. ATTORNEY MATTERS:
12. ADJOURNMENT
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS,
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. SAID APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF ACTION. (286.0105 F.S.)
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR
AT (772)-589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
TWO OR MORE ELECTED OFFICIALS MAY BE IN ATTENDANCE.
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 5, 2015
Chairman Dodd called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
The pledge of allegiance was said by all.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. McManus
Mr. Dodd
Mr. Qizilbash
Ms. Kautenburg (a)
Mr. Durr
Mr. Carter
Mr. Alvarez (a)
Mr. Reyes
EXCUSED: Mr. Roth
ALSO PRESENT: Frank Watanabe, PE, Community Development Director
Jan King, Sr. Planner
Robert Ginsburg, City Attorney
Dord Bosworth, Planner/Recording Secretary
[Ms. Dale Simchick, IRC School Board Liaison was not present]
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Chmn. Dodd welcomed and introduced newly appointed alternate Commissioner AI Alvarez, and
stated that Mr. Roth was excused from the meeting and Ms. Kautenburg would vote in his place.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION by Kautenburg/Carter to accept the minutes of both the November 6, 2014 and
November 20, 2014 meetings as submitted. Motion was approved unanimously by voice vote.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
A. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REVIEW — LDC SECTION 54-2-7.5 — 152 DOCK
AVENUE — LOTS 12 & 13, BLOCK 498, UNIT 15 - 30' x 30' (900 SF) DETACHED
CARPORT — M/M MOORE
The homeowner, Mr. Louis Moore, was present, and stated they had cleared the overgrown
second lot and wished to construct the carport to store their travel trailer and future boat. There
was a neighbor on the south side of the property, and a full wall was proposed on that side of the
carport.
Ms. Bosworth stated the information shown in the staff report indicated that the application met all
requirements with regards to setbacks and building height. Staff was requesting the south wall of
the carport be painted to match the house and stated Mr. Moore had verbally committed this to
staff earlier in the day. She also relayed that the homeowner was proposing to put the required
landscaping on two sides of the carport due to the open nature of the structure.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 2015
Mr. Dodd questioned if the landscaping proposal needed a waiver. Ms. Bosworth stated it could
be noted in the motion although it was shown on the plan, and approval of the plan would
approve the landscaping. Mr. Ginsburg concurred.
Mr. Qizilbash requested clarification of the setbacks. Ms. Bosworth explained that since the
house was on a corner lot, when the lots were unified, the unified parcels became one large
corner lot, and based on definitions in the LDC, the shortest remaining side from the two front
property lines was considered the rear line. She further explained that the homeowner was
notified that if the lots were to request a release of the Unity of Title, based on required setbacks
for that size of accessory structure, the carport would have to be removed or relocated first.
MOTION by Durr/Qizilbash "to approve the accessory structure per LDC Section 54-2-7.5 at 152
Dock Avenue. Lots 12 and 13."
ROLL CALL: Mr.
Durr
yes
Mr. McManus yes
Mr.
Qizilbash
yes
Ms. Kautenburg yes
Mr.
Reyes
yes
Mr. Carter yes
Mr.
Dodd
yes
The vote was 7-0. Motion carried
QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING — SITE PLAN MODIFICATION — RIVER PARK
PLAZA — ADDITIONAL PARKING, OUTSIDE SEATING AREAS, AND OFF-SITE
IMPROVEMENTS — 480-484 US HIGHWAY #1 — COMMERCIAL RIVERFRONT (CR)
ZONING DISTRICT
Chmn. Dodd verified that the site plan modifications and the off-site parking plan/in-lieu were two
separate issues, with the Commission responsible for the modifications. Mr. Ginsburg concurred,
but clarified that the Commission was also responsible for reviewing and approving the off-site
parking site plan and that City Council would approve the parking credit and access agreement.
Chairman Dodd asked the Commissioners if they had any ex -parte communication to disclose.
There was none. The applicants/representatives and staff were sworn in by the City Attorney,
Mr. Todd Howder, MBV Engineering, Inc, reviewed that on JUly 91h 2014, City Council agreed to a
proposal from the developer of River Park Plaza that would allow him to pay and construct off-site
parking and receive credit for those spaces instead of paying into the parking -in -lieu fund, and
gave its blessing on a conceptual plan. He stated that in the ensuing months they worked with
staff, and the final plan was before the Commission tonight. He explained that the site added 28
paved spaces on the city's property, and that there was a typo error with regards to the parking
calculations, as it should be 22 standard spaces, 2 handicapped spaces, and 4 compact spaces.
Modifications to the River Park Plaza site plan included 6 additional parking spaces, outside
seating areas, and relocation of existing landscaping.
Ms. King reviewed the details of the site plan and stated staff would answer any additional
questions.
Mr. Durr asked if the parking -in -lieu program differentiated between regular and compact spaces.
Ms. King stated it did not. Mr. Durr referred to comments submitted to staff by excused
Commissioner Mr. Roth that were given to all the members at the beginning of the meeting
(attached) and stated he agreed with his observations about the compact spaces. Mr. Dodd
explained that Mr. Roth inquired if the compact spaces could be revised to standard spaces. Per
the city attorney's request, Mr. Roth's comments were submitted into the record. Mr. Howder
stated only the width needed to be adjusted and could be done.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 2015
Mr. Durr also asked what the estimated cost of the construction was. Mr. Howder said the
preliminary cost was $75K to $85K.
Mr. Qizilbash pointed out an error with the cross -hatching on Sheet C2 with regards to area of
relocated landscaping, felt the plan was missing a landscaping information table, and questioned
if there would be adequate space for the relocated trees along the top of the bank of the
stormwater pond where proposed. Mr. Howder clarified that trees would be infilled onto the site
also, once the area next to the pond was taken. In response to Mr. Qizilbash, Mr. Howder stated
one of the Oak trees being removed on the city's property would be mitigated thru staff and
replanted with two or more replacement trees. Mr. Qizilbash also questioned the proposed
swales and felt they were not adequate for the additional run-off. Mr. Howder responded the
swales would take the initial run-off then allow the grassed area to perculate the water before
migrating into the swales, which the city was working on a new master stormwater plan for the
park that included the CavCorp property.
Mr. Reyes asked for the survey, easements, and legal description of the overall parcel, and
stated it was hard to review without that information. Mr. Howder stated that the "Existing
Condition" sheet was recent and depicted current conditions.
Ms. Kautenburg appreciated the developer's willingness to revise the compact spaces to regular.
Mr. Dodd stated the developer has done a great job of cleaning up the site since the property was
in limbo, and the project was a good public/private partnership. He asked staff to verify that with
the modifications to the site that the landscaping still met code requirements. Mr. Dodd also
observed that with the Presidential Street repaving project the city has come up with a beautiful
"default" design standard, and asked if the new 28 spaces would be built to that standard. Mr.
Watanabe stated it would. Mr. Dodd asked if those details would be on a future site plan. Mr.
Howder clarified that the engineering specs and details were on Sheet C-3 and that this was the
final plan that would be built.
Chmn. Dodd asked if there was anyone in the public that was opposed or in favor of the
application. There was none.
MOTION by Dodd/ "to approve the site plan as submitted by the city staff with one condition: an
executed agreement between the developer and the city that outlines the parameters for
constructing 28 parking spaces in the city -owned property which will then be credited to the in -
lieu -of fund as defined in Section 54-3-15.4 of the LDC."
Mr. Ginsburg stated that the agreement really doesn't involve the in -lieu -of fund, and that this was
an alternative with the agreement spelling out the explanation of the spaces.
MOTION by Dodd/Durr "to approve the site plan as submitted by the city staff with a single
condition that is the execution of an agreement between the developer and the city for the
construction of 28 parking spaces which will subsequently be allocated to the development for
future parking requirements.
Mr. Ginsburg clarified that the 28 spaces are to be public, and will not be reserved for the
development or for any business located in the development.
Mr. Dodd modified his motion to "for the construction of 28 public parking spaces on public
property which will then be counted towards the parking requirements of the development."
Mr. Qizilbash asked if the city will maintain the 28 spaces. Mr. Ginsburg stated yes.
Mr. Reyes asked if when the parking spaces were used for special events would the development
have to close any of the businesses for lack of parking. Mr. King responded no.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5,
2015
ROLL CALL: Mr. Reyes yes Mr.
Dodd yes
Mr. Durr yes Mr.
Carter yes
Mr. McManus yes Ms.
Kautenburg yes
Mr. Qizilbash yes
The vote was 7-0. Motion carried.
C. DISCUSSION — LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS
Chmn. Dodd reviewed that he had requested the landscaping codes to be looked at because of
the Overlay District landscaping waivers that had been requested with numerous site plans over
the past years. He would like to separate the discussion and talk about the residential codes first,
and asked staff what problems they had had with any of the regulations.
Ms. King stated most of the problems had been with the commercial codes, and mentioned that
this discussion had really started a few years ago when some members of the business
community thru the Chamber of Commerce had started reviewing the code with the intention of
presenting the City with suggested changes, which unfortunately got delayed. She recently called
the Chamber to get what they had, and noted the Commissioners had their drawings and matrix
in their packet. She stated staff was not presenting any proposed Ordinance at this time, but was
looking for guidance.
Chmn. Dodd stated that he had heard complaints about code enforcement regarding the
residential requirements of replacing trees that are cut down and the number of trees that are
being asked to be replanted. Mr. Durr felt the residential codes don't' need to be discussed,
allowances had been made for required shrubbery [for accessory structures] without formal
waivers, and questioned staff if the last column of the matrix had been proposed by staff or the
Chamber. Ms. King stated the column was changes proposed by the Chamber.
Mr. Dodd summarized that the County's code compared to the City's code was similar, and that
the Chamber was proposing drastic cuts to the residential requirements. Ms. Bosworth discussed
staff's policies with the residential tree removal requests, and some of the financial and
manpower difficulties for the residents in replacing the specimen trees with 12 -foot trees as
required by code.
Ms. Kautenburg stated she would like to see changes in the [residential] landscaping
requirements for accessory structures built on an adjacent lot, and presented pictures of a
previously approved detached garage under construction on Evernia Street, which were shown
on the overhead projector (attached). She suggested perimeter buffering. After an engaging
discussion on the large structures, and reviewing the amount of trees required for a double lot, it
was agreed to enforce that regulation, along with the current shrubbery requirement, for the
accessory structure applications that come before the Commission.
Ms. Jill Pollock, owner of Shady Grove Nursery, spoke of the residents' frustration when they
approach her with a small list of trees taken from the code book that they can plant, but don't
realize that the list is only a "suggested" list. She then presented the Commission with an
expanded list of suitable trees (attached) and asked that the current list be amended. She also
asked that the size of the lot be taken into consideration with the amount of trees required, and
reviewed how trees were being jammed onto the lots in Park Place and other areas with smaller
parcels. She noted the code was hard for the contractors to follow, and would like to help with
simplifying and educating.
Mr. McManus asked for clarification regarding the credits for existing trees, and minimum height
standards for shrubbery. He suggested adding a shrubbery requirement to the residential
regulations. Ms. Bosworth explained the tree credit codes.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 2015
Mr. Qizilbash liked the residential sketch and proposal by the Chambers which reduced the
number of canopy trees but required shrubs. He noted the County only required two trees. Mr.
Durr felt the current number of trees added more depth to the lots, and reiterated that he felt the
residential codes did not need to be amended. Mr. Dodd suggested reducing the number required
for smaller lots, but in general agreed with Mr. Durr. The only change he suggested was in
regards to remediation for trees cut down. Ms. Kautenburg felt the tree removal remediation
should be done case by case and not by an overall code change.
Ms. Bosworth asked the Commission if there was a consensus to expand the tree list in the
residential section. The members concurred.
The discussion moved to the commercial regulations, and Mr. Dodd asked if the Commission felt
there was still a need to have a 512 Overlay and/or a Riverfront Overlay district anymore. He
opined that there should be only a single code, the general code, for all the commercial districts.
He suggested an overlay for the area along Indian River Drive for hardscaping to achieve the
Fishing Village look, and noted additional palm trees did not make a Fishing Village. The overlay
could define the hardscaping details and standards.
Ms. Kautenburg agreed since developable parcels remaining in the districts were smaller lots. Mr.
McManus agreed that the general code would be fine, but wanted to emphasize the requirement
of having a working irrigation system. There was a discussion regarding the small lots remaining
in the Riverfront area, and the 100% waiver given to the Buried Treasures project because of the
small size of the lot and the impossibility of meeting the overlay code.
Ms. King explained that since the foundation planting was not required to be planted entirely up
against the foundation, she saw no need for those regulations.
Mr. Durr opined that the Riverfront was a special area and that it should be held to a higher
standard. He stated it was an asset to the City and it should be enhanced and maintained as one.
He felt the size of the building or a different parking layout could have been considered for Buried
Treasures instead of sacrificing the landscaping.
Ms. Bosworth clarified that the main difference between the Riverfront Overlay and 512 Overlay
with regards to landscaping was that the Riverfront required increased trees in the entire
perimeter whereas it was increased only along the street frontage in the 512 district, and she
suggested the Riverfront could be reduced to at least keep the increased landscaping along the
street frontage, too. She also proposed that similar to the residential areas, landscaping amounts
could be based on the size of the commercial lot.
There was a discussion about the locations of commercial properties and which landscaping
codes would apply. Almost all were located within the overlay districts — CR 512, US Highway #1
and Indian River Drive. Mr. McManus opined that what was left for a structure after setting aside
areas for parking, stormwater, and landscaping was not economically feasible for a developer,
and he hated to see burdensome landscaping holding back the riverfront district.
Mr. Dodd stated the parking-in-lieu/exemption program helped offset the development issues on
the remaining small lots, and that the general code, plus maybe a small number more, but not as
much as the current code, was sufficient for what was left for development.
Mr. Durr asked if the direction was to eliminate the two overlay districts [landscaping regulations]
and refer to the general LDCs. Mr. Dodd stated yes, or some small variation, should be brought
to the public hearing. Mr. Durr reviewed the differences between the overlay requirements and
the general code. He stated he did not want to see requirements go down but hoped for a happy
medium, such as using the 512 Overlay for the Riverfront. Mr. Dodd suggested dropping the 512
requirements into the general code.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 2015
Ms. Bosworth asked the Commission if they wanted the 8 foot high trees as required in the
general code, or the 12 foot high as in the overlays, and were they for the requirement of
understory trees along street frontages. Mr. Durr and Mr. Dodd stated they were not against
them.
Mr. Dodd opined that the Chamber proposals appeared to be similar to the County's codes, which
he felt were more strenuous than the City's general codes.
Ms. Bosworth asked if the Commission would like to see the changes as another discussion or
brought back through a Public Hearing. Chmn. Dodd stated as a Public Hearing, and he hoped
representatives from the Chambers, SPOA, and the community could attend and offer their input.
Mr. Dodd asked staff their opinion of a single landscaping code. Ms. King stated they would
welcome it as the current codes were crazy and complicated, and contained contradictions that
need to be cleaned up.
.I:I_11 7iri
-1011 LTJ
Chmn. Dodd questioned who maintained the landscaping island on Fleming Street at the
Sebastian Boulevard intersection because it looked terrible. Mr. Watanabe stated he would look
into it.
Mr. Qizilbash noted in the same area there was a bad lift station [next to the empty gas station].
Staff stated they would report it to the County.
MEMBERS MATTERS
ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE -CHAIRPERSON
Mr. McManus nominated Mr. Dodd for chairperson. Mr. Durr seconded the nomination. There
were no other nominations.
Mr. Reyes nominated Mr. Roth for vice -chairperson. Mr. Carter seconded the nomination. There
were no other nominations.
Mr. Durr welcomed Mr. Alvarez to the Commission. He also asked about the condition of Englar
Drive especially around the area of the canal. Mr. Watanabe stated there was a contract for road
repairs between the bridge and Schumann Drive ready to begin in a couple of weeks.
Mr. Reyes noted the new contractor cleaning the swales was doing a great job. Mr. Watanabe
stated it was currently city crews.
DIRECTOR MATTERS: None
ATTORNEY MATTERS: None
Chairman Dodd adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m. (db)
0
ALSO PRESENT: Frank Watanabe, PE, Community Development Director
Jan King, Sr. Planner
Robert Ginsburg, City Attorney
Dorri Bosworth, Planner/Recording Secretary
Ms. Dale Simchick, IRC School Board Liaison, was also present
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Chmn. Dodd noted that three members – Mr. Carter, Mr. Durr, and Mr. Reyes – were excused
from the meeting, and that alternate members Mr. Alvarez and Ms. Kautenburg would be voting in
their place.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of February 5, 2015
Tabled until next meeting March 5, 2015
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
A. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN MODIFICATION – SEBASTIAN
CENTER – ADDITIONAL PARKING, HOOK-UP TO PUBLIC SEWER, DEMOLITION
OF SEPTIC SYSTEM – 1627 US HIGHWAY #1 – COMMERCIAL RIVERFRONT (CR)
ZONING DISTRICT
Chairman Dodd asked the Commissioners if they had any ex -parte communication to disclose.
There was none. The applicants/representatives and staff were sworn in by the City Attorney.
Mr. Wesley Mills, PE, of Mills, Short & Associates, LLC, reviewed the project's specifics noting
the majority was for sewer improvements, removing a large drainfield system and connecting to
the IRC Force Main located to the rear of the property. He stated 8 additional parking spaces,
ADA accessible ramps, crosswalks, and site directional signage were also being added to the
site.
Ms. King made a correction to a reference in her memorandum that the application was a minor
modification, and stated that based on the amount of new parking spaces and impervious area
06
�C
CITY OF SEBASTIANC
•0
•C
4?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
N
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
C •—
FEBRUARY 19, 2015
_cu E
Chairman Dodd the to 7:00 P.M.
a E
called meeting order at
C
The pledge of allegiance was said by all.
C U
C
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Roth Mr. McManus
_
• C
2
Mr. Dodd Mr. Qizilbash
Ms. Kautenburg (a) Mr. Alvarez (a)
CO N
Q Q
EXCUSED: Mr. Carter, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Durr
ALSO PRESENT: Frank Watanabe, PE, Community Development Director
Jan King, Sr. Planner
Robert Ginsburg, City Attorney
Dorri Bosworth, Planner/Recording Secretary
Ms. Dale Simchick, IRC School Board Liaison, was also present
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Chmn. Dodd noted that three members – Mr. Carter, Mr. Durr, and Mr. Reyes – were excused
from the meeting, and that alternate members Mr. Alvarez and Ms. Kautenburg would be voting in
their place.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of February 5, 2015
Tabled until next meeting March 5, 2015
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
A. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN MODIFICATION – SEBASTIAN
CENTER – ADDITIONAL PARKING, HOOK-UP TO PUBLIC SEWER, DEMOLITION
OF SEPTIC SYSTEM – 1627 US HIGHWAY #1 – COMMERCIAL RIVERFRONT (CR)
ZONING DISTRICT
Chairman Dodd asked the Commissioners if they had any ex -parte communication to disclose.
There was none. The applicants/representatives and staff were sworn in by the City Attorney.
Mr. Wesley Mills, PE, of Mills, Short & Associates, LLC, reviewed the project's specifics noting
the majority was for sewer improvements, removing a large drainfield system and connecting to
the IRC Force Main located to the rear of the property. He stated 8 additional parking spaces,
ADA accessible ramps, crosswalks, and site directional signage were also being added to the
site.
Ms. King made a correction to a reference in her memorandum that the application was a minor
modification, and stated that based on the amount of new parking spaces and impervious area
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2015
being added to the site it was actually a major modification, and the appropriate fees for a major
mod had been collected. She also stated that over the years more medical uses had been
brought into the building which will make the site short on parking when it is full and that staff was
glad to see the additional parking being added.
Mr. Qizilbash asked if the 12 foot wide drive aisle met city standards or industry standards. Mr.
Mills stated it was designed to be incompliance with city standards. Mr. Watanabe stated adding
additional parking to the site was a plus, and felt that a foot less would not constrict the traffic
flow. In response to an additional question, staff verified that the 15 foot length of the compact
spaces was in compliance with city code.
A discussion ensued with Mr. Watanabe regarding the width of the drive aisle, industry standards,
turning radii, and city requirements. Mr. Mills stated the width was thoroughly reviewed, and also
approved by the Fire Department. Mr. Qizilbash stated ITE standard was 13 feet wide.
Mr. McManus was pleased to see a site voluntarily hook into the sewer system. Mr. Roth
concurred, and had questions regarding the building access off of the drive aisle.
Ms. Kautenburg also agreed, and hoped the additional site signage helped with the traffic
connection to the Wendy's site.
Mr. Watanabe stated that staff quickly re -checked the LDC and verified that for parking spaces
that were at a 45° angle, the required drive aisle width was 12 feet.
Chmn. Dodd asked if there was anyone in the public that was opposed or in favor of the
application. There was none.
MOTION by Roth/Qizilbash "that the plan as submitted for the site plan modification for Sebastian
Center be approved."
ROLL CALL: Mr. Qizilbash yes Mr. Roth yes
Ms. Kautenburg yes Mr. McManus yes
Mr. Dodd yes Mr. Alvarez yes
The vote was 6-0. Motion carried.
B. PUBLIC HEARING — RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL —
REZONING/CONCEPTUAL PUD PLAN — SANDCREST SUBDIVISION — RM -8 AND
RS -10 ZONING TO PUD -R ZONING — SW CORNER OF MAIN STREET/POWERLINE
ROAD — PARCEL ID NO.'S 30-38-30-00003-0000-00000.4, 31-38-01-00000-7000-
00001.0, AND 31-38-01-00000-7000-00003.0
Chmn. Dodd explained that PUD's were a hybrid process that involved a conceptual plan with the
zoning, and that the Commission should discuss them together but take two actions/motions. He
noted that there would be additional public hearings in the future for the preliminary plat also, and
that the conceptual plan was not where technical details were provided.
Mr. Chuck Mechling, representing the Sandcrest developers, stated the last time he was before
the PZ Commission was in 1997 for review and approvals of the Collier Club Subdivision which
had developed into a very successful community. He reviewed that on September 10, 2014,
they went before the Board of Adjustment, and since then had done an assessment of the needs
of the Sebastian market, and determined it wasn't townhomes as previously approved for the
property.
2
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2015
Mr. Mechling then had a Power Point presentation (attached) which showed an aerial of the
proposed Sandcrest subdivision location, site plan for the previous townhomes, layouts and
density for the proposed subdivision, and building elevations of the proposed residences. He
also discussed an article regarding the benefits of urban infilling, the history of their conceptual
layouts and the purchase of the land nodule on Bob Circle. He noted the final proposed layout
consisted of 64 units which was a reduction of 33% of the original vision.
Ms. King explained the details of the PUD zoning whereas it allowed flexibility in design, the
ability to negotiate setbacks, lot sizes, etc. which were listed in the staff report. She stated the
LDC established some minimum standards but there was a clause that allowed the applicant to
ask for waivers. She further explained that the Board of Adjustment granted a variance from the
minimum size of a PUD which was 25 acres, and the proposed project would be 13.01 acres.
Based on allowed density, the subdivision could build 103 units, but was proposing 64 units. Ms.
King also stated there was a scrivener's error in the staff report on page 5, and asked the
Commission to disregard #13.
Chmn. Dodd asked if there was anyone in the public that was opposed or in favor of the
application. There was none.
Chmn. Dodd questioned if the full environmental impact study was provided for the conceptual
plan, and noted the code required an updated study for the preliminary plat. Ms. King stated at
some point the environmental issues would need to be addressed, and staff was comfortable with
getting the study before the preliminary plat. There was discussion if the receipt of the study
should be made a condition of approval. Mr. Mechling offered that the Environmental I audit was
done and clean, the scrub jay survey was clean, and the gopher tortoise survey was done, and a
State biologist was retained to relocate the tortoises next month. Mr. Dodd suggested those
reports be given to staff before City Council, and that would be made a condition.
Chmn. Dodd also discussed the School Concurrency Availability Determination Letter (SCADL)
and when it should be submitted. After discussion, it was decided to make it a condition also.
Mr. Qizilbash felt it was a nice plan but questioned the proposed width of the Right -Of -Way [40
feet]. Ms. King stated they were asking for a waiver for the width. Mr. Alvarez noted the
application stated there would be 74 units, and asked what size homes were proposed. Ms. King
responded that there had been three revisions since the application was submitted and the final
plan proposed 64. Mr. Mechling stated the homes would be 1400 to 1600 SF.
Mr. Roth asked if the entrance [on Powerline Road] was in the same location as the townhome
project and was it considered safe lining up with the Pelican Isle Apartment driveway. Mr.
Watanabe stated the developer still needed to submit a traffic analysis study, but based on the
number of units and Powerline Road being a collector street, he did not see any issues, and lining
up driveways, center to center, was preferred. Mr. Roth also asked for clarification regarding Bob
Circle. Staff explained that a small portion of the roadway pavement encroached into the
project's Bob Circle parcel, and the developer was going to donate that portion back to the city.
Mr. Roth asked if the large trees and greenery on the west side of the project would be kept and
maintained as a privacy barrier. Mr. Mechling responded yes, the community will maintain grass
cutting, lawn service, shrubbery, and have a three -rail white picket fence around the subdivision
with shrubbery behind it.
Ms. Kautenburg favored the subdivision and felt it filled a niche that was needed in Sebastian.
She also had concerns with the narrow width of the ROW and asked if there would be pedestrian
and bike paths. Mr. Mechling stated there would be an internal sidewalk system inside the
community and also externally along Powerline.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2015
Ms. Simchick stated the School Board didn't have any concerns at this time, but was glad the
SCADL was considered. She asked if the community would be deed restricted for age. Mr.
Mechling stated at this time an age restriction was not proposed.
Mr. Dodd discussed the recommendation from staff regarding the design standards and waivers
that the Commission should discuss. Ms. King explained that the list on page 6 was design items
the developer was asking for, and the items on page 7 specifically needed waivers. She noted the
conceptual plan provided a comprehensive chart and details comparing the minimum standards.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt the conceptual plans were very clear and warranted the smaller lot sizes,
but that there may be traffic congestion issues at the Powerline and Main Street intersection, and
that a turn lane may be necessary.
There was a discussion with the city attorney with regards to the motions and waivers, and if
advisable to refer to the staff report document.
Mr. McManus asked if there would be an HOA plus a Master Association, or just an HOA. Mr.
Mechling stated the HOA would be the Master. Mr. McManus further questioned if the sidewalk
would be on the homeowners property or within the ROW. Mr. Mechling stated it would be within
the common property (ROW). And in response to an additional question, Mr. Mechling stated not
all of the garages would be side entry as some would be front -loading, and setbacks would be
different for each garage layout with the intention that cars would not hang over the sidewalk. He
also described the advantages of having a smaller roadway width, similar to Pointe West, in that it
created slower traffic and a more closer neighborhood.
Mr. Qizilbash calculated driveway lengths and pavement widths, along with the remaining
available area for a parked car, and questioned if the vehicles would be overhanging into the
roadway. Mr. Mechling stated the shorter front setbacks were for side -loading garages, which
would have the additional space in front of the garage [parallel to the road].
MOTION by Dodd/Roth "to recommend to the City Council that they approve rezoning [for the
subject property] from RM -8 and RS -10 to PUD -R, with no conditions, and also recommend that
they approve the conceptual plan that was submitted with the rezoning request with the design
standards and waivers as delineated by the staff in Section #14 of their document [staff report]
and the condition that the applicant submit to the city staff the Environmental Study documents
that they have." "And a condition that they provide the school concurrency document [SCADL] for
Indian River School District."
Mr. Roth clarified that Section #14 numbering did not change since earlier Section #13 was
disregarded. Staff stated they will revise #13 to read "Reserved" for the staff report that goes to
City Council.
ROLL CALL: Mr. McManus yes
Mr. Alvarez yes
Mr. Roth yes
The vote was 6-0. Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN MATTERS:
Mr. Qizilbash yes
Ms. Kautenburg yes
Mr. Dodd yes
Chmn. Dodd thanked the city for cleaning up the island on Fleming Street at the Sebastian
Boulevard intersection.
M
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2015
MEMBERS MATTERS:
Mr. Qizilbash stated that the irrigation was not working in the same island, nor was the nearby
sewer system. Mr. Watanabe verified that within the City's street ROW at that location, there was
no irrigation system, and staff would forward the complaint to IRC Utilities Dept. regarding the lift
station next to the abandoned gas station.
Mr. Alavarez noted the sidewalk in front of the new Cumberland Farms heading [west] towards
the Thai restaurant has not been repaired/finished.
DIRECTOR MATTERS: None
ATTORNEY MATTERS: None
Chairman Dodd adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. (db)
CIN OF
SEBASTIAN
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1225 MAIN STREET ■ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE (772) 589-5518 ■ FAX (772) 388-8248
www.cityofsebastian.org
MEMORANDUM
TO: Local Planning Agency (Planning and Zoning Commission)
RE: Proposed Ordinance 0-15-03 Amending LDC Article III, Section 54-2-3.2(a)(7)
— Permitted locations for temporary uses and special events
DATE: February 25, 2015
At its February 11, 2015 meeting, City Council conducted its fust reading of the proposed
Ordinance. The following is the background information from the agenda cover sheet from the
City Manager to City Council regarding the proposed revision:
"On 14 January 2015, Council approved Ordinance 0-14-06, which amended the regulations
regarding temporary uses and special events held on privately -owned property. In addition to
minor changes and clean-up items, Council amended the code to allow a maximum number of
events per calendar year per host site to six (6), and establish acceptable locations to be in
commercial zoning districts and public service zoning districts in non-residential areas.
Subsequent to that Council action, staff was approached by Fr. David Newhart, St. Elizabeth's
Church, Sebastian, concerning certain perceived inequities the new ordinance would impose on
churches located in residential areas. Fr. Newhart was encouraged to make a presentation to
Council. He did so on 28 January 2015. The City Manager was directed to `bring back' the
subject ordinance at a future Council meeting. A recent meeting was held with Fr. Newhart, the
Mayor, the City Attorney, and City Manager. A modification to the ordinance to Section 54-2-
3.2 allowing non-commercial events on sites located in public service zoning district in
residential areas is being proposed for Council's consideration. Community -type events such as
an outside Fall Festival & Pumpkin Patch would be an example of a non-commercial use.
The Local Planning Agency (Planning and Zoning Commission will be reviewing the proposed
Ordinance at its regular meeting on 5 March 2015."
Please review the draft ordinance and consider your recommendation to City Council
accordingly.
ORDINANCE NO. 0-15-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 54-2-3.2(a)(7) REGARDING PERMITTED
LOCATIONS FOR TEMPORARY USES AND SPECIAL EVENTS; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on January 14`h, 2015, and approved
Ordinance 0-14-06 amending Section 54-2-3.2 regarding procedures and criteria for review of
temporary uses; and
WHEREAS, after additional consideration, the City Council wishes to revise the
permitted locations allowed for temporary uses and special events; and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on March 5, 2015, and
made a recommendation to City Council to Ordinance 0-15-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
Section 1. That the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 54 Land Development Code, City
of Sebastian, Florida, is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 54-2-3.2. - Procedures and criteria for review of temporary uses.
A temporary use shall be allowed for transient merchants and special events as defined in Section
54-5-22.2, and held on privately -owned property (with the exception of circuses, and sales of motor and
recreational vehicles; provided, however, that this prohibition on the sales of motor and recreational
vehicles shall not include boats) upon issuance of a temporary use permit by the city manager or his
designee, based upon compliance with all applicable regulations of this chapter and other city regulations.
(a) A temporary use permit will be issued if the following requirements and standards are met
(1) Maximum of six events per calendar year per host site
(2) Only temporary pavilions may be erected and utilized for the operation. All facilities used
shall be self-contained and mobile or portable. No mobile homes or trailers that exceed
300 square feet in area may be utilized. All temporary facilities designed to be occupied by
the public must be inspected by the fire department after installation, and prior to
occupancy.
(3) No utility connection shall be permitted except for temporary electrical power which must
be approved by the building department.
(4) If the applicant is not the owner of the event location, a cash bond in the amount of
$200.00 shall be submitted to the city. Within seven days after a temporary use permit
expiration, all items related to the operation or event shall be removed from the site. The
city may use the entire amount of submitted funds to pay for disposal of all related items
remaining on the site seven days after permit expiration. The city may also use such funds
to remove prohibited off -premise signs during and/or after the event. Upon vacating and
cleaning up a site, an applicant may request, in writing, return of the submitted funds.
Permit applicants will be refunded the submitted cash bond amount if:
a. The city has not used the funds under the conditions described above; and
b. The site is inspected by the city, it is verified that the site has been cleaned up, and all
temporary use items have been removed.
c. In cases where the city has used the $200.00 cash bond for site cleanup or off -
premise sign removal, no subsequent temporary use permits shall be issued to the
same applicant whose vacated operation caused cash bond default and resultant
cleanup by the city.
(5) Holders of temporary use permits for an activity shall not be required to obtain a business
tax receipt for that activity provided that no permanent modifications are made to the site to
accommodate re -occurring events. Permanent modifications will require a site plan
application and business tax receipt.
(6) No temporary use shall operate within a public right-of-way. No operation within an
easement shall be permitted unless specifically allowed by all parties having interest in
such easement.
(7) Location of event shall be on an improved lot within a commercial district or public service
district. .Events held within a public service district in a residential
area shall be restricted to non-commercial uses.
(8) A maximum of 30% of the required parking stalls of the host site may be utilized by the
temporary use. This percentage may be increased based on satisfactory documentation
indicating additional parking and/or transportation needs have been provided for the total
impact of the proposed event.
(9) Food concessions, including food trucks, as accessory to the temporary use are prohibited
unless provided by the host site. In addition, alcohol sales accessory to the temporary use
are prohibited unless the host site holds a current alcohol license.
(10) Temporary toilet facilities may be required by the applicant depending on location and size
of the event. Amount will be determined by the building official based on estimation of
attendance of the event.
(11) Applicant must provide, at his own expense, additional and/or special crowd control and
security if determined necessary by the police chief based on the size of the event.
(12) [Reserved.]
(13) Prior to city manager review, approval must be obtained from the police chief and the
building director. Approval or denial shall be based on items (1) through (11) above and
consideration shall be reviewed on the total magnitude of impact that may be detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
Sec. 54-2-3.3. - Time limits.
(a) Transient merchants of any seasonal sales merchandise such as Christmas tree and firework sales
or other similar use shall be in operation not more than 45 consecutive days per sale/event on any
given site.
(b) Transient merchants of any non -seasonal sales merchandise shall be in operation not more than ten
consecutive days per sale/event on any given site.
(c) Special events shall be in operation not more than seven consecutive days per sale/event on any
given site.
Sec. 54-2-3.4. - Application.
(a) Temporary use permits shall be obtained by furnishing a completed application for such permit to the
community development department. The following information as applicable shall be provided:
(1) Application to be made by the owner or lessee of the host site.
(2) Location of site and the specific location for the requested use.
(3) Beginning and ending dates of the event.
(4) Hours of operation of the event.
(5) Name of individual in charge of the event.
(6) After hours emergency phone number for person responsible for event.
(7) A drawing showing dimensions of the site or an existing site plan for the host site including
location and dimensions of all existing driveways, entrances, exits, and parking spaces.
(8) A drawing depicting location and dimensions of all temporary pavilions, displays areas, sanitary
facilities, and concessions for the temporary use.
(9) Indicate how parking and traffic flow will be directed on to and within the event site.
(10) Estimation of maximum peak hour attendance of the event to determine sanitary needs, parking
and traffic impact.
(11) If existing parking spaces of a permanent use (such as a shopping plaza) are to be utilized by
patrons and employees of the temporary use event during normal operating hours, calculations
shall be submitted demonstrating that the event will not utilize more than 30% of the required
parking stalls of the existing host site. If usage does exceed 30% percent, documentation
indicating additional parking and/or transportation arrangements must be provided for the total
impact of the proposed event.
If the event is being held during non-operating hours for the host site, the 30% restriction may
be lifted upon demonstration that there will still be sufficient parking available for patrons of the
temporary event.
(12) [Reserved.].
(13) All applications must be made on the form prescribed by the city and submitted no later than 21
days prior to the scheduled event. Fees for temporary uses shall be established by Resolution
of the City Council. Applicants may include multiple similar events on one application.
Applications submitted less than 21 days before the scheduled event will be assessed a fee as
established in the Resolution to be used for expedited processing. Fees may not be waived for
any application, except by the city manager upon a finding of good cause.
(b) A copy of the application and all supporting documents will be forwarded to the police chief and the
building official for review and comments. All comments and recommendations will then be attached
to the application and forwarded to the city manager or his designee for approval or denial.
(c) The application, with all the supporting documents, will be reviewed by the city manager, or his
designee. If approved by the city manager, the applicant shall post the $200.00 cash bond, if
required, prior to the issuance of the temporary use permit. If denied, applicant will be notified, along
with the reasons for denial. The police department and the fire department will be notified on all
approved requests for temporary use permits.
(d) Any decision of the city manager, or the city manager's designee, may be appealed to the City
Council. Any appeal shall be filed within five days of the decision, and shall be presented to the City
Council at its next available meeting.
Sec. 54-2-3.5. - Signs.
(a) All signs being utilized on site must conform to the city sign regulations as outlined in the land
development code and must be removed upon expiration of the temporary use permit or upon
vacation of the site.
(b) Signs used in conjunction with approved activities or special events for which a temporary use permit
has been obtained shall not be calculated against the three banner signs permitted per site per year.
Section 2. SEVERABILITY. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall
determine that any part of this Ordinance is invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be
affected and it shall be presumed that the City Council of the City of Sebastian did not intend to
enact such invalid provision. It shall further be assumed that the City Council would have
enacted the remainder of this Ordinance without said invalid provision, thereby causing said
remainder to remain in full force and effect.
Section 3. CONFLICT. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are hereby repealed.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption
by the City Council.
The foregoing Ordinance was moved for adoption by Councilmember
The motion was seconded by Councilmember
upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Mayor Richard Gillmor
Vice -Mayor Jerome Adams
Councilmember Andrea Coy
Councilmember Jim Hill
Councilmember Bob McPartlan
and,
The Mayor thereupon declared this Ordinance duly passed and adopted this 11`" day of March,
2015.
ATTEST:
Sally A. Maio, MMC
City Clerk
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
In
Mayor Richard Gillmor
Approved as to form and legality for
reliance by the City of Sebastian only:
Robert A. Ginsburg, City Attorney
Words stricken shall be deleted; words underlined constitute the proposed amendment; remaining
provisions continue in effect.