The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-02-05 PZ MinutesALSO 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 not present] ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chmn. Dodd welcomed and introduced newly appointed alternate Commissioner Al 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 – MIM 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. CL E 9 a c �c O 0 �C C.0 CITY OF SEBASTIAN C N PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONp CM MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING C C FEBRUARY 5, 2015 Q. E Chairman Dodd called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. C Q �p The pledge of allegiance was said by all. �—Co, ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr, McManus Mr. Dodd �C G Mr. Qizilbash Ms. Kautenburg (a) (1) O CL Mr. Durr Mr. Carter N Mr. Alvarez (a) Mr. Reyes EXCUSED: Mr. Roth 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 not present] ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chmn. Dodd welcomed and introduced newly appointed alternate Commissioner Al 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 – MIM 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. CL E 9 a c �c O 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. B. 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. 2 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. 3 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 staffs 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. 4 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 LDC's. 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. 5 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. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: 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) ON Dorri Bosworth From: Joel Roth <joelroth@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 11:15 PM To: Dorri Bosworth Subject: Plan Meeting 2/5/15 Ms Dom Bosworth: Share this as appropriate. Please excuse me from the Sebastian City Plan meeting on February 5, 2015 as I will be out of town on a trip that was planned back in December. I do have a couple of points to share and if you feel they will contribute and if possible insert them at the appropriate time during the meeting. Meeting Minutes: (FYI: no mention necessary). I reviewed the minutes of both the November 6 and 20`h plan meetings and have no additions or corrections. New Business: A. Accessory Structure Review: If possible and if these points are not discussed, I would like to have three questions asked during the commissioner's review of the plans. 1. What is the setback on the south side of the carport? (the sketches provided do not have that number) 2. How high are the partial vertical side panels? 3. Will the driveway be finished/paved? B. River Park Plaza Additional parking 1. The use of space is very creative, retains existing trees and with the seating areas surrounded by the rope and post nautical look fits with a goal of this commission to introduce more building materials to enhance the Sebastian `fishing village theme'. 2. The project shows 4 `compact' parking spaces in the new paved parking area off Harrison Street. I am not really in favor of these simply because when available parking spaces are in short supply, large cars, pick-up trucks and crew cab pickup trucks will park in these spots leaving part of the vehicle overhanging into adjacent spaces and effectively taking up 2 spaces. a. Are these 4 `compact' spaces necessary to meet the parking space requirement? b. Could this area just be expanded to facilitate 4 regular size spaces by perhaps reducing the size of the island on the south end of this parking row? 3. There are 12 other compact spots which are shorter spaces for some reason. These also pose a traffic flow problem for a different reason when the wrong vehicles park in them. a. Can these be made deeper like the other adjoining spaces? 4. What provision has been made for night time lighting? C. I am sorry I am missing this discussion as I definitely have some strong views on this and have read the materials. Changes are necessary to reduce the impact on new projects. But to try and elaborate them here is not possible on such a complex matter. Perhaps this will be reviewed and commissioners discuss it and then finalize the changes at a future meeting. Members Matters I would like to be considered for the Vice Chairperson position on the commission and would like to be nominated. Having served for 2 years in this capacity in the past and conducted meetings, I feel qualified. See you all at our next meeting. 9oeiroth@msn.com 1984 E. Lakeview Drive Sebastian, FL 32958 772-589-6894 land line 574-532-2147 cell The true test of character is what one thinks, says, or does when no one is watching. 9 :w }T QT y% 40�: -0Riiy4ry � z • , - s :� oil TREES Bottlebrush Camphor Cedar, Red Crape Myrtle, Standard Cypress, variety Elms, Winged, Drake Gumbo Limbo Holly, Various Hong Kong Orchid Jacaranda Japanese Blueberry Japanese Fern Tree Magnolia Mahogany Maples, sugar, Red Pine, slash/loblolly Royal Poinciana Seagrape, Standard Sweet Gum Sycamore Tabebuia, Pink & Yellow Tulip Poplar Ylang Ylang ETC»»»» CODE TREE SUGGESTIONS PALMS Cabbage/Sabal Foxtail Piccabean, Pindo Queen Ribbon Sylvester FRUIT Avocado Citrus Loquat Mango ETC..... j, !1 l o i l ocic. ROVE NURSERY E LANDSCAPINC 1120 S. Roseland Rd Sebastian, FL. 32958 behind Winn Dixie map on back 772-589-1945 phont 772-589-7293 fax