Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2017 PZ AgendaMa cccc •7E',BAST16 HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND 1225 MAIN STREET ■ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (772) 589-5518 ■ FAX (772) 388-8248 AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2017 - 6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ALL AGENDA ITEMS MAYBE INSPECTED IN THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA OR ON THE CITY WEBSITE CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND/OR AGENDA MODIFICATIONS Modifications and additions require unanimous vote of members. Deletions do not apply. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular meeting of December 15, 2016 Regular meeting of July 7, 2016 6. QUASI-JUDICIAL and PUBLIC HEARINGS • Chairman opens hearing, attorney reads ordinance or resolution or title • Commissioners disclose ex -parte communication • Chairman or attorney swears in all who intend to provide testimony • Applicant or applicant's agent makes presentation • Staff presents findings and analysis • Commissioners asks questions of the applicant and staff • Chairman opens the floor for anyone in favor and anyone opposing the request (anyone presenting factual information shall be sworn but anyone merely advocating approval or denial need not be sworn in) • Applicant provided opportunity to respond to issues raised by staff or public • Staff provided opportunity to summarize request • Commission deliberation and questions • Chairman calls for a motion • Commission Action UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Discussion — Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana - Consideration of Dispensary Zoning Regulations (Back-up material from City Attorney previously distributed) B. PUBLIC INPUT Public Input on items other than on the printed agenda, is five minutes, however, it can be extended or terminated by a majority vote of members present 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Accessory Structure Review — LDC Section 54-2-7.5 — 550 Hibiscus Avenue - 996 SF Detached Garage — William Mock 10. COMMISSIONERS MATTERS 11. CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS 12. STAFF MATTERS 13. ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA 14. ADJOURN HEARING ASSISTANCE HEADPHONES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR ALL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS. All Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings are Aired Live on Comcast Channel 25. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING 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 TESTIMONYAND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (F.S.286.0105) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING. CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2016 1. Call to Order — Chairman Roth called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm 2. Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all. 3. Roll Call Present: Excused Chairman Roth Ms. Kautenburg Mr. Carter Mr. Qizilbash Mr. McManus Vice Chairman Reyes Also Present Mr. Robert Ginsburg, City Attorney Ms. Dorri Bosworth, Planner Ms. Susan Mann, Recording Consultant Mr. Alvarez Mr. Hughan (a) Mr. Simmons (a) Ms. Dale Simchick, IRC School Board Liaison was not present 4. Announcements and/or Agenda Modifications 06 �C .® ct E H EQ - (L (L w C: `®�®® cc C® w „dr. o® 6 U) N a ¢ 0) Mr. Roth explained that Mr. McManus and Mr. Reyes have excused absences; Mr. Hughan and Mr. Simmons would be voting in their places. He congratulated Mr. Alvarez on becoming a full member. He welcomed Mr. Simmons as an alternate. Mr. Roth requested the Commissioners' approval to move New Business Item 9.A. to before the Quasi -Judicial and Public Hearings. A motion was made by Mr. Qizilbash, seconded by Mr. Alvarez. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Mr. Ginsburg requested an agenda modification to add Medical Marijuana Update under new business. 5. Approval of minutes A. Regular Meeting of November 10, 2016 Mr. Roth asked if there were any modifications to the November 10, 2016 minutes; hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: by Carter/Qizilbash to approve the minutes as presented. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2016 ROLL CALL: Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Roth — Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes Mr. Carter — Yes Mr. Simmons (a) —Abstained Mr. Hughan (a) — Yes Total vote was 6-0. Motion Carried B. Regular Meeting of July 21, 2016 Mr. Roth asked if there were any modifications to the July 21, 2016 minutes; hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: by Alvarez/Carter to approve the minutes as presented. ROLL CALL: Mr. Hughan (a) —Abstained Mr. Alvarez — Yes Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Carter —Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Simmons (a) — Abstained Mr. Roth —Yes Total vote was 5-0. Motion Carried 9. New Business (Agenda Reorganization) A. Accessory Structure Review — LDC Section 54-2-7.5 — 644 Atlantus Terrace — 20'X 30' Shed — Kurt and Jane Nagel Mr. Ginsburg read the Accessory Structure Application by title. Mr. Roth called for the resident to come forward and provide details on the project. Mr. Kurt Nagel, 644 Atlantus Terrace, explained that he owns Lots 7 & 8 and they are unified. He stated that he wants to place a 20'X30' shed on the lot 8. He provided details on the appearance of the structure. He stated that it will be painted to match the house and the metal roof will be painted to match the shingles on the house. He stated that it will be approximately 20' behind the front of the house and he is leaving more trees than are required on the lot. Mr. Roth asked if the drawing provided is actually where the structure will be placed. Mr. Nagel responded that the drawing as done by Mr. Smalley after meeting and looking at the location, so he is reasonably certain that will be its location. Mr. Roth called on Ms. Bosworth to provide the staff report. Ms. Bosworth stated that the application is before the Commission because it is 600SF which, because of its size, is required by code. She noted that the number of trees that will be left on the lot exceeds what is required and that the structure would be painted to match the house. She explained that the drawing enclosed in the packet provided to the Commission is not the one submitted with the application because she revised it so PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2016 it would be to scale. She concluded that Mr. Nagle has addressed the two concerns staff had regarding the trees and painting the structure to meet the color of the house and staff recommends approval. Mr. Roth noted that items A-D under Item 7 are not completed and ask if the fee had been paid. Ms. Bosworth explained that A-C do comply and that D. is not applicable and the fee has been paid. Mr. Roth called for questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Qizilbash expressed concern about the high maintenance requirement that painting the metal roof would pose because as time passed it would fade and have to be repainted. Ms. Bosworth responded that the intent of the code is to have both structures match, but in this case if shingles were required on the shed it would significantly increase the price. She stated that it is at the discretion of the Commissioners. Mr. Qizilbash stated that if the other Commissioners approve the roof he would follow suit. Mr. Hughan asked about the number of trees that would be left and if the shed would have power. Mr. Nagle stated that he is only going to remove the trees necessary for the shed which would leave quite a number on the extra lot and on the lot where the house is located. He explained that the shed will have power; it will be 110 and not 220. Mr. Carter asked if there would be additional landscaping around the building. Mr. Nagle responded that he planned to plant some ornamental grass at the front. Mr. Roth asked if the shed that is circled in the drawing included in their packet was representative of the one he is installing. Mr. Nagle explained that although the size of the shed in the drawing is different that the appearance is representative of the one he purchased and the siding is horizontal. Mr. Roth asked about the size of the studs. Mr. Nagle stated that because he is getting a higher roof he believes they are the 6' studs. Mr. Nagle stated the primary use is to store items that are currently in his garage. He responded to Mr. Roth's concern that no business will be run out of the shed by stating definitely not, it is just for personal use. Mr. Roth called for any comments from the public either for or opposed. Hearing none he asked of staff or the Commissioners had any final comments or questions. Hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: by Alvarez/Hughan "I make a motion we approve the accessory structure located at 644 Atlantus Terrace owned by Kurt and Jayne Nagel, with the condition that the roof is painted to match the shingles on the house." Mr. Roth called for clarification of the motion. Mr. Ginsburg restated the motion PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2016 ROLL CALL: Mr. Roth — Yes Mr. Carter —Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Simmons (a) — Yes Mr. Hughan (a) — Yes Total vote was 7-0. Motion Carried 6. Quasi -Judicial Public Hearings A. Public Hearing — Recommendation to City Council — Preliminary plat for Jackson Street Corners (Commercial) Subdivision — A Re - plat of a Portion of Ocean Breeze Heights Subdivision — SW Corner of the intersection of Jackson Street & U.S. Highway #1 — 6.11 Acres — Commercial Riverfront (CR) Zoning District. Mr. Ginsburg read the Project Description Narrative for the Record. Mr. Roth asked if there was any ex -parte communications that needed to be reported — no one responded. Mr. Ginsburg swore in those planning to testify before the Commission on applications shown as Items 6 A. and 6 B on the Agenda. Mr. Roth called on the applicant to make his presentation. Mr. Earl Masteller, Masteller & Moler, Inc., Vero Beach, FL, stated that he is the Project Engineer and is a resident of Sebastian. He introduced Mr. Steven Neveleff, Remington Stewart, LLP, representing the Project Owner. Mr. Masteller stated that the staff report is very comprehensive and that he or Mr. Neveleff will answer any questions the Commissioners have after staff's presentation. Mr. Roth requested the staff presentation. Ms. Bosworth stated that application being presented is the Preliminary Plat Review for a portion of the Ocean Heights Subdivision. She reviewed the three surveys before the Commissioners and provided a history of the property. She stated that when the re -plat is complete there will be three lots, and each parcel will come before the Commissioners for Site Plan Approval as they are developed. Ms. Bosworth reviewed the staff recommendations providing details on what is existing and what is proposed for the property. She concluded that staff recommends approval of the proposed Jackson Street Corners subdivision preliminary plat with the condition that a policy be included in the Covenants addressing maintenance of individual storm water systems which will be on each of the lots. Mr. Roth stated that the corrections to the plat that were referred to were not included in his documentation. Ms. Bosworth explained that because this application will be forwarded to City Council, the corrections to some verbiage and removal of a line will be done prior to forwarding the application. She stated that she wanted it on the record that these changes will be made. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2016 Mr. Roth called for questions of the staff. Hearing none he called for questions of the applicant. Mr. Qizilbash noted that the lots are owned by two separate entities. He expressed concern about the drainage issue. Ms. Bosworth explained that the stormwater systems is a condition of approval. Mr. Neveleff stated that he and his partner own the two companies shown on the plat and the entire parcel of land is under their ownership. Mr. Roth opened the Public Hearing. He called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application. Seeing none he called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application. Seeing none he closed the Public Hearing and called for questions or comments from the applicant. Mr. Neveleff stated that they are in full agreement with the staff report and recommendations. He asked that the Commissioners approve the application and forward it to the City Council. Ms. Bosworth stated that staff recommends approval with the condition that a policy and/or statement addressing maintenance of individual stormwater systems be included in the Covenants and Deed Restrictions, which is required with final plating. Mr. Hughan asked for details regarding ingress/egress to the individual lots. Ms. Bosworth responded that because they will be developed individually ingress/egress will be addressed at the site plan stage. He pointed that there is a shed encroaching lot 1. The applicant responded that will be addressed during development. He asked about the sidewalk on lot 1. Ms. Bosworth responded that it will be included in the final plat as a proposed easement and dedicated for public use. Mr. Roth called for any further questions. Hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: by Carter/Qizilbash "I make a motion to recommend to the City Council the preliminary plat for Jackson Street Corners re -plat of a portion of Ocean Breeze Heights Subdivision at the southwest corner of the intersection of U.S. Highway #1 and Jackson Street with the conditions recommended by staff." Mr. Roth asked if the motion was clear, hearing no response he called for a Roll Call. ROLL CALL: Mr. Roth —Yes Mr. Qizilbash—Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes Mr. Carter —Yes Total vote was 7-0. Motion Carried Ms. Kautenburg —Yes Mr. Hughan (a) — Yes Mr. Simmons (a)—Yes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2016 B. Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing — Site Plan Waiver — Jackson Street Corners — 6,863 SF Medical Building & 9,996 SF Retail Store — 1801 & 1807 U.S. Highway #1 — Commercial Riverfront (CR) Zoning District — Requested Waiver from LDC Section 54-4-21.A.7(c)(2): Riverfront Overlay Landscape Requirements. Mr. Ginsburg read the Project Description Narrative for the Record. Mr. Roth asked if there was any ex -parte communications that needed to be reported — no one responded. Mr. Roth requested the applicant come forward and make their presentation. Mr. Earl Masteller, Masteller & Moler, Inc., Vero Beach, FL, stated that he is the Project Engineer. He stated that the staff report is very comprehensive. Upon the completion of the staff's presentation he would be happy to answer any questions. Ms. Bosworth provided a detailed explanation of the application and site plan review. She explained that the builder will construct the shell of the medical building with the tenant responsible for securing the permits for interior work and that there is a drawing of the proposed retail space included in their packet. Ms. Bosworth provided an explanation of the site as related to drainage, dumpster location, mechanical screening, retail delivery truck flow plan, etc. She noted that as far as drainage the developer has met the City's Land Development Code and have received SJRWMD approval. She explained that there are some protected species which have been addressed. She stated that the sidewalk is within the easement along with an access road which will allow transit through the property to Jackson Street. She stated that staff recommends approval with five conditions. She explained that condition 2 has been met and following Mr. Watanabe's presentation on traffic condition 5 may be revised. Mr. Watanabe stated that the intersections are important in the traffic studies and noted that the Jackson Street/US1 and Main Street/US1 failed. He explained that the applicant's traffic study proposed adjusting the traffic signal timing at those intersections in order to improve the traffic flow. He stated that with this change staff approves the traffic conditions and the application. Mr. Roth asked why there are no speed limit signs on Jackson Street. Mr. Watanabe responded that per Florida Statute the speed limit on all streets is 30 MPH unless posted otherwise and did not advise posting a speed sign. Mr. Roth called for questions from the applicant. Mr. Neveleff asked for clarification of Item 5 of the staff recommendations. Mr. Ginsburg read the revised Item 5 "Traffic signal timing adjustments to the lights at the Jackson Street/US#1 intersection and the Main StreeUUS#1 intersection shall be submitted to the IRC Traffic Engineering Department, for its consideration, before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued." Mr. Ginsburg explained that it is at the discretion of the County whether or not the recommended changes are made. The only condition that can be placed on approval is that the recommendation is submitted to the County prior to the CO being issued. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2016 Mr. Neveleff stated that they have worked very hard with staff to meet all the conditions including the new Item 5. He provided details on the occupants and expressed that he feels it will be a good addition to the City with a minimum of impact. He requested the Commissioners approve the application with the conditions shown in the staff report. Mr. Qizilbash asked if the City has received the permit from SJRWMD for the aquifer. Ms. Bosworth responded to the affirmative. He asked about the required distance of the driveway into the site from the intersection. Mr. Watanabe responded that the driveway, servicing the trucks, will mirror that of the Taco Bell which is an adequate distance from the intersection. Ms. Bosworth stated that included in the application is a plan for re - stripping Jackson Street which should assist with the addition of the driveway. Mr. Roth asked for details on the requested waiver from the landscape requirements. Ms. Bosworth responded that the applicant is requesting to reduce the number of trees by 5 and staff feels that with the other landscaping and the site configuration the aesthetics would not be negatively impacted. Mr. Roth asked if the split rail fence separating the retention pond and the parking has been reviewed by staff. Ms. Bosworth stated that staff felt the split rail fence would be more attractive than a standard highway barricade. She explained that the parking adjacent to the other retention pond would have a hedge and concrete wheel stops. Mr. Roth asked if the crosswalk would be repainted when Jackson Street was restriped. Mr. Watanabe responded it would be. Mr. Roth called for any further questions, hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: by Carter/Alvarez "I make a motion that we approve the site plan with the waiver for the Jackson Street Corners consisting of 6,863 SF medical building and a 9,996 SF retail building at 1801 and 1807 U.S. Highway #1 Commercial Riverfront (CR) Zoning District. The requested waiver and also the 5 conditions recommended by staff." Following discussion the motion was modified deleting condition 2 and modifying condition 5 to read as stated by Mr. Ginsburg. Mr. Roth asked if the motion was clear, hearing no response he called for a Roll Call. ROLL CALL: Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Carter —Yes Mr. Roth —Yes Mr. Qizilbash —Yes Total vote was 7-0. Motion Carried Mr. Alvarez — Yes Mr. Hughan (a) — Yes Mr. Simmons (a) — Yes Mr. Roth stated that the proposed development will be a great addition to the City. 7. Unfinished Business — None PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2016 9. New Business (Agenda Addition) B. Medical Marijuana Update — Mr. Ginsburg Mr. Ginsburg stated that he had provided the City Council his recommendations regarding regulating Medical Marijuana distribution points within the City. He advised them that it would be appropriate for this matter to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He provided detailed information on how society as a whole looks at the issue and how the Supreme Court views the issue. He stated that he provided two avenues to the City Council. One is to handle the matter as site specific as each application is brought to the City and apply the restrictions that are appropriate to that particular site. The other would be to modify the Code to apply to any application regardless of its location, that action would require an ordinance amendment. He stated that he would like to place this question on the Commission's next agenda for discussion and direction. Mr. Roth concurred with placing it on the next agenda. 8. Public Input— None 10. Commissioners Matters Mr. Qizilbash asked if the new retention pond on Tulip Drive is complete. He expressed concern that it be fenced due to its close proximity to a playground. Mr. Watanabe responded that it is fenced in the rear, but in the front there is more decorative fencing along with benches. He explained it is the exact configuration as the park on Periwinkle. He stated that the residents surrounding the park area advised him that they feel it is an asset to the community. 11. City Attorney Matters — None 12. Staff Matters Ms. Bosworth stated that as a result of previous requests for a variance for 8 foot fences that topic may be placed on the January 19th agenda for discussion. The matter will be to determine if a Code change is applicable or if each request would continue to be handled as a variance. 13. Items for Next Aqenda — Identified during meeting. 14. Adjourn Chairman Roth wished everyone a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. He called for any further business, hearing none he adjourned the meeting at 7:27 pm. /sm CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 7, 2016 1. Call to Order — Chairman Roth called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. 2. Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all. 3. Roll Call Present: Chairman Roth Vice Chairman Reyes Mr. Carter Mr. Dodd Excused: Mr. McManus Mr. Hughan (a) Also Present Ms. Kautenburg Mr. Qizilbash Mr. Alvarez (a) Mr. Robert Ginsburg, City Attorney Ms. Dorri Bosworth, Planner/Recording Secretary Ms. Dale Simchick, IRC School Board Liaison was not present 4. Announcements and/or Agenda Modifications Ca �C C.0 m C •— 0 �E a. E cd U =^ r:r 0 co ccc � �Eoo 0 CL C1 WN ¢¢, Mr. Roth explained that Mr. McManus and Mr. Hughan have excused absences; Mr. Alvarez would be voting in place of Mr. McManus. Mr. Roth stated that due to the lengthy nature of the items scheduled prior to New Business he requested a motion from the Commission to modify the agenda to move New Business Item 9. A. to after approval of the minutes. MOTION: by Dodd/Alvarez to Modify the Agenda so that Item 9 falls between Item 5 and Item 6. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. 5. Approval of minutes Mr. Roth stated that there was a typographical error on page 2 line 3; the word "Dissuasion" should be corrected to read "Discussion." MOTION: by Kautenburg/Carter to approve the May 19, 2016 minutes as corrected. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. 9. New Business (Agenda Reorganization) I� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2016 A. Accessory Structure Review — LDC Section 54-2-7.5 — 330 Carnival Terrace — 18'X 36' Detached Carport — Edgar Medina Mr. Roth reviewed the request before the Commission and called for Mr. Medina to come forward and provide details on the project. Mr. Edgar Medina, 550 Carnival Terrace, stated that he is requesting approval for a detached carport in which to keep his RV. Mr. Roth noted that in the package of information provided on the specifications of the carport, the model Mr. Medina selected does comply with the City's code for this type structure. Ms. Kautenburg asked if the shell drive way will extend past the shed as indicated on the drawing. Mr. Medina responded it would not. Mr. Reyes noted that the drawings indicate electric and asked if that would be the case. Mr. Medina responded that there is electric in the shed. Mr. Qizilbash asked if the electric had been approved by the Building Department. Mr. Medina responded to the affirmative. Mr. Roth stated that the existing shed does comply with code. He asked what color the side panel of the carport would be. Mr. Medina responded it would be painted to match the house. Mr. Roth called for any further questions from the Commissioners, hearing none he called for the Staff Report. Ms. Bosworth stated that the application is straight forward and the reason it is before the Commission is that because of the size it is required by code. She explained that as reflected in the Staff Report he meets all requirements, is under the allowed space for accessory structures, the house roof is metal as is the carport, the sides of the carport will be painted to match the house, the carport will be blocked from view by a wooden fence and there will be additional landscaping which will act as a buffer in addition to the fence. She stated that he has received permits for the various phases of the project and that there is no need for additional drainage. She concluded her presentation by stating that Staff recommends approval. Mr. Reyes asked for clarification on the side easement. Ms. Bosworth responded that the structure is well within the building setback lines and does not encroach any easements. She noted that it is in line with the shed and is 11' off the side property line. Mr. Roth called for any further questions from the Commissioners of either Staff or Mr. Medina. No one responded. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2016 MOTION: by Dodd/Reyes "I move we approve the accessory structure located at 550 Carnival Terrace, which is an 18'X 30' detached garage (carport)." ROLL CALL: Mr. Qizilbash —Yes Mr. Roth —Yes Mr. Alvarez (a) — Yes Mr. Carter —Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Dodd — Yes Mr. Reyes — Yes Total vote was 7-0. Motion Carried Mr. Roth complimented Mr. Medina on his landscaping. He stated that it looks very nice from the street. 6. Quasi -Judicial Public Hearings A. Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit — New Model Home — 131 Sandcrest Circle — Holiday Builders. Mr. Ginsburg read the Project Description Narrative for the Record. Mr. Roth asked if there was any ex -parte communications that needed to be reported — no one responded. Mr. Ginsburg swore in those planning to testify before the Commission. Mr. Troy Smith, Florida Regional Project Manager, Holiday Builders, 2293 West Eau Gallie Boulevard, Melbourne, FL came forward and was sworn in. He explained that the application before the Commission is for their showcase model home in Sandcrest. He stated that this is a model home only and all business transactions will be conducted in their office in Melbourne. He stated that the required parking will be on an adjacent vacant lot and will be gravel; a paved handicapped parking space will be provided; and an ADA compliant portable restroom will be on site. Ms. Bosworth explained that the a residence is under construction and what is before the Commission is the Conditional Use Permit to use it as a model home. She stated that they have secured all the applicable permits for the construction. Ms. Bosworth stated that the project meets all the Conditional Use Criteria. She reviewed the additional considerations; one consideration is that no construction materials or equipment will be stored at the model. Mr. Smith responded that is correct. She explained that the model sign will be permitted separately and the size will be verified at that time. She stated that the proposed landscape lighting is permitted. She explained that the garage has French doors and will be used as a sales area. In order for the applicant to not be required to make the bathrooms ADA compliant they are providing the ADA portable restroom. Ms. Bosworth stated that staff is asking for the Commission to consider requiring landscaping and sodding of the portion of the vacant lot which is not used for the parking. No trees will be required on the vacant lot, but the model home lot will have to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2016 comply with the five (5) tree requirement before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Bosworth stated that submittal of an affidavit insuring the removal and replacement of the model home features when the structure ceases to be a model home is required. Ms. Bosworth concluded her presentation by stating that staff recommends approval of the model home permit for a one-year period with the four conditions of approval shown under item #10 of the staff report which she previously reviewed. Mr. Alvarez asked for clarification of the sales office. Ms. Bosworth responded that is the area where the contracts would be signed. Mr. Alvarez stated that Mr. Smith had indicated that no business transactions would occur on the property. Mr. Smith responded that the signing would be via DocuSign. Mr. Qizilbash stated that French doors on garages for model homes have not been approved in the past. Ms. Bosworth responded they have been approved and provided details on the location. Mr. Qizilbash asked why there are three property ID numbers on the survey if there are only two lots in question. Ms. Bosworth responded that the parcel ID numbers are from prior to the platting of the subdivision, but now the lots are clearly identified as lots 42 and 43. Mr. Reyes asked if the home is under construction now. Ms. Bosworth responded that it is currently under construction. She explained that all the requirements for construction of the home were met and what is being reviewed at this time is the conditional use for a model home. Mr. Reyes asked about the building setbacks. Ms. Bosworth responded that the structure is within the setbacks. Mr. Reyes stated that requiring landscaping on the lot being used for parking is a good idea and suggested they rotate the plantings in and out of that area so as to have more mature plants to place on the future home sites. He suggested that since there is a lake at the rear of the lot used for parking, some temporary safety measures be added to prevent the possibility of someone driving into the lake. Mr. Reyes concluded by stating that pulling straight into the parking area would seem easier, but he had no problems with the request as presented. Mr. Dodd expressed concern about the requirement for the portable ADA compliant restroom facility. He stated that has not been a requirement for model homes in the past and asked if the Code had changed. Ms. Bosworth responded that it was included at the direction of the Building Department and that she would seek clarification to present at the next meeting if so desired. Mr. Dodd continued that in his opinion, one of the interior restrooms could have had an ADA toilet and sink installed at the time of construction. Mr. Smith responded that he agreed, but that this is the direction received from the Building Department. Mr. Dodd suggested placing the unit in a lockable enclosure so as to prevent having it tipped over during the night. Mr. Reyes asked if there had been any such problems with the facilities provided for the construction workers. Mr. Smith responded not to his knowledge. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2016 Mr. Roth asked Mr. Ginsburg if the issue regarding approval of the outside ADA restroom facility could be postponed until the next meeting to allow the opportunity to receive clarification of the requirement. Mr. Ginsburg responded that the Commissioners could approve the application contingent on review by the Building Department. If this arrangement is per code it would be approved as presented. If it is not per code, converting an interior restroom to have an ADA compliant toilet and sink could be a requirement. Mr. Roth asked Mr. Smith if such a change would be able to be accomplished. Mr. Smith responded that they would do whatever is necessary to meet the City's requirements. Following an in-depth discussion the consensus was that neither of the interior restrooms are large enough to provide the necessary turning radius for a wheelchair and that was probably the reason the Building Department required an outside facility. Ms. Bosworth stated that since it was a Building Department decision she would prefer for a representative of that department be able to explain their reasoning. Mr. Roth called for any further questions of the applicant or staff. Hearing none he opened the Public Hearing. He called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application to come forward. Mr. Robert Votaw, 1025 33rd Avenue West, Vero Beach, FL 32968, stated that he is the Manager for Sandcrest and is present because Mr. Mechling could not attend. He offered to answer any questions that Mr. Smith had not already addressed. He stated that in his opinion Holiday Builders are familiar with the City's requirements and are working to comply with those requirements and conditions. Mr. Roth called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application. Hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked staff to summarize the application. Ms. Bosworth stated that staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the model home with the following conditions: 1. Obtain a Building Permit for the model home sign. 2. Provide a bollard or safety markings at rear of parking lot. 3. Add a condition regarding the ADA restroom facility as directed by the Commission. Following discussion it was agreed that the condition should be for the Building Department to review the portable ADA restroom and advise the Planning Department of their reason for the requirement. Mr. Roth called for any further questions, hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: by Dodd/Qizilbash "I move to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the model home at 131 Sandcrest Circle, Sandcrest Subdivision with the four conditions as laid out in the staff report and the fifth condition which was added." PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2016 Mr. Roth asked Mr. Ginsburg to state the fifth condition. Mr. Ginsburg stated that it is to have the Building Department look at the application with the applicant and discuss the issue of the ADA compliant restroom being in the house or outside. Mr. Roth called for any further discussion. Hearing none, he called for a vote. ROLL CALL: Mr. Reyes —Yes Mr. Dodd — Yes Mr. Roth — Yes Mr. Carter —Yes Mr. Alvarez (a) — Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Total vote was 7-0. Motion Carried. Mr. Roth thanked the applicant and stated that the City looks forward to future development in the Sandcrest Subdivision. B. Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing — CR512 Overlay District Waiver — CR512 Plaza — 645 Sebastian Boulevard — Waiver Request from Awning Size, Amount of Signage and Color Standards — LDC Sections 54-4-21B; 3(c)2(i), 4(b)(6), & 6(g)(2)c Mr. Ginsburg read the Project Description Narrative for the Record. Mr. Roth asked if there was any ex -parte communications that needed to be reported — no one responded. Mr. Ginsburg swore in those planning to provide testimony to the Commission on this application. Mr. Roth requested the applicant come forward and make their presentation Mr. Robbie Berlingieri, 1525 34th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960 stated that he represents the owner of the 512 Plaza. He explained that as the result of a storm in February the awnings were badly damaged and, in the process of attempting repair, it was determined that due to the heat it would be easier to remove the awnings, take them to the shop, repair and reinstall. In the meantime the building was painted, the color was approved by the City. He requested that his associate come forward and provide details on the project. Mr. Jeff Bolduc, 6411 55th Square, Vero Beach, FL 32960, came forward and was sworn in. Mr. Bolduc explained that the only part of the awning structure that was removed was what holds the fabric. This was taken to their shop, the awnings were reattached, and reinstalled on the building. Mr. Berlingieri explained that upon reinstallation they were made aware that the color of the awning and size did not meet code, they immediately stopped work. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2016 Mr. Roth provided an explanation of the 512 Overlay District by stating that these are special standards to promote attractive buildings along the CR512 corridor and supersede other codes within the City. He requested staff present their report to the Commission. Ms. Bosworth stated that staff is bringing this application to the Commission for guidance on the interpretation of the 512 Overlay District code requirements. She stated that staff is aware that the existing non -conforming awning was damaged, but code requires that any non -conforming element, when replaced, must be brought into compliance. She explained that if the Commission approves the proposed awning length, color and signage a waiver would be required. She stated that this type awning has not been installed in the City previously. She concluded that staff recommends denial of the requests for the 3 waivers with the hope that an alternative could be found. Mr. Roth called for questions from the Commissioners. Ms. Kautenburg asked why the awning does not run the full length of the building. Mr. Bolduc responded that they stopped work on it prior to completion. Ms. Kautenburg stated that she understands that the damage was caused by nature, but does not understand why the work was started without a permit. She stated that she supports that in the event a repair or change is made to an existing non-compliant element that it be brought into compliance. Mr. Bolduc stated that he understands the City's position, but to him this is a repair, not a replacement. He explained that the awnings could have been repaired without removal. Mr. Dodd asked when the building was painted. Mr. Berlingieri responded that it was painted in April of last year. Ms. Bosworth stated that the color the building was painted is an approved color and a permit was issued. Mr. Berlingieri stated that because the tenants had been there for such a long time they were allowed to pick the color of the awning. It was thought that if the colors matched and since the paint was permitted the awning color would be allowed as well. He was then made aware that the colors are slightly different. Mr. Dodd asked if the lettering on the awning would be the same size as was there originally. Mr. Bolduc responded they would be the same size and the same percentage of coverage and the signage would be taken through the permitting process. Mr. Dodd asked why, if the signage would be taken through the permitting process, why was the awning not. Mr. Bolduc responded that since he was dealing with the fabric only and not the signage it was an oversight on his part. Mr. Dodd asked if this is the only awning of this type in the 512 Overlay District. Ms. Bosworth responded that it is the only one and its configuration is unique. That is the reason staff has brought this to the Commission for determination. She explained that in case of any non-compliant signs if there is any change, however slight, it is required that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2016 the sign be brought into compliance. She stated that in other cases the signs are below the awning rather than on the awning. In response to Mr. Dodd's question about approving the awning without the proposed signage, Ms. Bosworth responded that it did not seem to help them achieve their goals of advertising each business if both waivers are not granted, allowing the awning and the proposed signage on it. However, there are other types of signage that could be used. Mr. Bolduc asked if removing the trim color from the awning would bring the signage into compliance. Ms. Bosworth explained how the calculations were arrived at and agreed that removing the trim color would bring the signage into compliance. Mr. Dodd commented that by installing a white awning with no trim would solve the problem of the awning color and the signage. Ms. Bosworth responded to the affirmative, but pointed out that could set a precedence for the next business that desired to do the same thing and asked if the Commission would be receptive to having multiple business in the 512 Overlay District with this type appearance. Mr. Reyes and Mr. Qizilbash both commented that this seems to be a repair rather than a new addition. Ms. Bosworth responded they were correct, but reiterated Ms. Kautenburg's question of when does the City bring businesses into compliance. Ms. Bosworth observed that this property could be grandfathered in because they were in existence prior to the implementation of the 512 Overlay District requirements. Mr. Dodd stated that he thought there was a section in the Land Development Code allowing a certain percentage of repairs due to damage without a business having to come into compliance with current codes. Ms. Bosworth responded that there is nothing in Land Development Code but there is a section in the Building Code. Mr. Ginsburg responded that what is before the Commission is the determination if this is a repair or not and does having to come into compliance put a burden on the property owner. Mr. Dodd concluded by stating that he had no problem with a white canopy because it would remove the non-compliant color issue and would allow for the signage. Mr. Reyes stated that in his opinion not getting a permit in the very beginning is where the problem started. He commented that in reviewing the contract it is clear it was not the owner's fault this became the problem it is. He observed that replacement of the awning material was necessary because of the very bad condition it was in. He asked for details on how this was allowed to progress as far as it did. Ms. Bosworth responded that staff went to the site and issued a stop work order. She explained that even if they had come in for a permit the waiver would still have been needed. Mr. Reyes reiterated that had they come in for a permit this could have been prevented. Mr. Reyes concluded that he did not want to change any of the Overlay District Codes to accommodate the application. Mr. Qizilbash stated that in his opinion it is a repair and they should secure a building permit. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2016 Mr. Bolduc stated that Mr. Reyes is absolutely correct that a permit should have been secured. He explained that the fine for his oversight has been paid and the owner should not be penalized. Mr. Reyes responded that removing the awning for repair is understandable and that all the mounting hardware is still in place. He stated that although it would have been easier had the proper procedures been followed the situation can be corrected. Mr. Roth called for any further questions, hearing none he requested Ms. Bosworth to summarize the staff report. Ms. Bosworth summarized that in accordance with the report before the Commission, staff recommends denial. However, with the information that was discussed regarding changing the color the only waiver required would be for the length of the awning. Mr. Roth opened the Public Hearing. He called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application seeing none, he called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application, seeing none, he closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Roth called for any further questions or discussion. Mr. Alvarez asked if the signage will be uniform and not a mix of styles as it was in the past. Mr. Berlingieri responded that they want to comply with the City's codes. The awning will be white and the signage will be uniform and size adjusted to meet code. Ms. Bosworth provided details on the sign code and how space is allocated in multi - tenant situations. She stated that those issues will be addressed when the applicant applies for the sign permit. There was discussion regarding the color of the font used for the signage, the consensus was that would be resolved during the permitting process. There was an in-depth discussion regarding repair vs. reconstruction, size, color, the verbiage that should be contained in the motion and Mr. Ginsburg agreed with the suggested verbiage. Mr. Roth called for a motion. MOTION: by Dodd/Reyes "I move that in the matter of the 512 Plaza that we approve the waiver request for Section 54-4-21.B.3(c)2i which will allow replacement of the awning on the building. Secondly that we deny the request for a waiver from Section 54.4-21.B.4(b)(6) and we deny the waiver from Section 54-21.B.6(g)(2)c with two additional conditions that a permit be pulled for the replacement of the awning and a permit be pulled for signage for the building." Mr. Roth called for any further comments, hearing none he called for a vote on the waiver request. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7. 2016 ROLL CALL: Mr. Roth —Yes Mr. Carter — No Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Dodd — Yes Mr. Reyes — Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Alvarez (a) — Yes Total vote was 6 - 1. Motion Carried. Mr. Roth thanked the applicants for being present. He stated that the process this evening should have provide guidance on what their next steps need to be. He wished them luck with the Plaza. Mr. Roth thanked the Commissioners for their input and stated that this cooperation proves that difficult questions can be resolved through discussion and expression of ideas from both sides. 7. Unfinished Business A. Discussion — Upcoming Land Development Code Amendment — Article XVI. Signage and Advertising — Mr. Robert Ginsburg, City Attorney. Mr. Roth called on Mr. Ginsburg to review the Proposed Sign Ordinance being discussed this evening. Mr. Ginsburg stated that the proposed ordinance is being provided to the Commission early for discussion purposes and to provide additional time for their review. On July 21, 2016 the Planning and Zoning Commission will convene as the Local Planning Agency, conduct a public hearing and prepare recommendations to be made to the City Council. He stated that he is also providing a 3-4 page summary of the Supreme Court's ruling prepared by professor at the University of North Carolina which is the best discussion he has seen on this case. Mr. Ginsburg explained that what is provided is not the entire sign code, but the portions that are affected by the Court's decision. He provided details on how the Court's decision changes the way the rights of the First Amendment apply to categorizing signs. He stated that he expected there to be a model ordinance published by this time, but there has not been. He has looked at a number of sign ordinances from municipalities in Florida, but did not agree with their language so what is before the Commissioners is his attempt to draft an ordinance that would stand up in court should the City face litigation. Mr. Ginsburg explained that the proposed ordinance contains: (1) an extensive section detailing purposes, intent and scope; (2) deletes the sections impacted by the Supreme Court ruling; (3) a number of amended definitions; (4) a new substitution provision; and (5) an extended severability provision. He provided an in-depth explanation of each of the proposed changes and his reason for making them in order to address the Court's PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 11 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2016 ruling. He explained that the changes he is proposing will not change the majority of the sign code as it is now, it just changes some technical parts to make it more defensible if necessary. He stated that the only exception to the changes are those that regulate political signs. As a result of prior Supreme Court rulings they have their own set of guidelines that have to be met. Mr. Ginsburg concluded his presentation by stating that this revision was a large undertaking but he feels he has made the changes that will comply with the Supreme Court ruling and protect the City in the event of litigation. He stated that in his opinion the regulation this decision imposes will be reduced with time, but he wanted to ensure the City is in compliance with the current ruling. Mr. Roth thanked Mr. Ginsburg for his dedicated efforts to keep the City compliant with applicable laws and court decisions. Mr. Roth asked for clarification of Item (3) "Severability where less speech results". Mr. Ginsburg explained that there are numerous references to the size and content of signs throughout the Code which restricts what the sign can say to the public. He stated that this is included to possibly protect the rest of the code if a sentence or phase is deemed unconstitutional. Mr. Reyes asked if the homemade signs batching a candidate fall under the political sign code. Mr. Ginsburg responded that political signs are the most protected by the Supreme Court whether they are pleasant or not. Mr. Reyes stated that it seems the batching signs are displayed far longer than the limit required by Code and are very unsightly. Mr. Ginsburg explained that the time limit is to allow the signs to be displayed from the time the Candidate qualifies, through the primary and through the election, then 5 days in which to remove the signs. The number of signs should be reduced after the primary since there will be only signs for those running in the election. Mr. Ginsburg stated that he has shared the proposed sign ordinance with the Chamber of Commerce seeking their comments. He explained that he does not feel this will in any way have a negative impact on businesses in Sebastian. 8. Public Input —None 10. Commissioners Matters Ms. Kautenburg stated that the Golf Cart Business is not complying with the requirements established even though the Commission made allowances for his needs for advertising. She stated that there has been one complaint, after which he came into compliance and now he is not in compliance. She explained that every day for two weeks he has had far more than the allowed number of carts on display. She asked what the recourse is, being that he was given an exception to the rules. Ms. Bosworth responded that Code Enforcement issued a courtesy notice. She stated that the next step would be a formal notice with a time certain to comply, which would be the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 12 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2016 appropriate action at this time. The step after that would be to take it before the Special Magistrate for violation of the site plan. At that time he could be fined for each day he is not in compliance. Mr. Dodd expressed concern that he would come into compliance then would start displaying too may carts again which would be an ongoing problem for Code Enforcement. Mr. Ginsburg responded that State law views that as a repeat offender which allows the City to increase the fines and reduce the time allowed for compliance. Mr. Reyes stated that he has not received the report on the drainage swale maintenance. He noted that some of the swales have been mowed, but there are still a lot of areas that need attention and are holding water. Ms. Bosworth responded that she would advise the City Engineer. 11. City Attorney Matters -- None 12. Staff Matters Ms. Bosworth reported that an advertisement has been run for the Public Hearing on the sign ordinance presentation at the Jul 21, 2016 meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission would convene as the Local Planning Agency. 13. Items for Next Agenda — None 14. Adiiourn Chairman Roth called for any further business, hearing none he adjourned the meeting at 7:58 pm. /sm MOF HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND Community Development Department Accessory Structure Staff Report 1. Property Owner: 2. Contractor: 3. Requested Action: 4. Project Location: 5. Current Zoning: 6. Required Findings: William H. Mock Strnad Custom Builders Approval of a 996 SF Detached Garage 550 Hibiscus Avenue Lots 2 & 3, Block 27, Sebastian Highlands Unit 1 RS -10 Current Land Use: Single-family Residence Does Comply Does Not Comply A. No accessory structure shall be constructed until the construction of the principal structure has been started. C _._ 1- E � too40 s 4 2. Accessory structure to be located on same lot as principal .O ® OO O 0- d CDN Q°' Q i RS -10 Current Land Use: Single-family Residence E E w c z O Does Comply Does Not Comply A. No accessory structure shall be constructed until the construction of the principal structure has been started. 1. House completed 1139 ; or house under construction — 2. Accessory structure to be located on same lot as principal structure ; or located on second lot that has been combined with principal lot by a unity oititie RL-ronep L,,q nF-rmi-ir— B. No accessory structure shall be located in any required yard (setback): 1. Front yard: No detached accessory structure shall extend beyond the front building line of the principal structure that is located on the same real estate parcel or lot. Principal structure setback is 2 , 9 Accessory structure setback is Lil 3y' 2. Front yard on corner lot: Accessory structures may not be located in the secondary front yard of an improved corner lot unless the corner lot is joined in unity of title with an interior lot that contains the principle structure. However, said structures shall not be located closer than 25 feet A114accessory from the secondary front property line in the RS -10 zoning district, and in all other zoning districts shall meet required front yard setbacks. Secondary front yard setback is , and proposed accessory structure front yard setback is E E w c z O Does Does Not Comply Comply 3. Side yard: Required side setback is I 1 V-**' Accessory structure side setback is aQ ' 4. Rear yard: The required rear yard is ao ` A detached accessory structure may encroach into the required rear yard, provided it meets all the following: a. It is a minimum 10 feet from the rear property line. I/ Proposed accessory structure has a Ltf-& o' setback. b. It is not in an easement. Rear easement is 10 and proposed setback is q9, (o%` c. It does not exceed 400 square feet in lot coverage. Proposed r/ accessory structure is Tho square feet. d. It does not exceed 12 feet in height. Proposed accessory +� structure is 141. 5' `t feet in height. Accessory structures which are attached, or do not meet the above four requirements must meet the standard rear setback which is 20� Proposed accessory setback is `f8". (o(.' C. No mobile home, travel trailer or any portion thereof, or motor vehicle shall be permitted as an accessory structure. ✓ D. Applicant must expressly designate the type of the accessory structure (i.e. garage, shed, etc.) 6-16ae 4G— E. Must comply with all city codes. ✓ F. The height of accessory structure cannot exceed height of principal structure. House is approximately /y. S` L and accessory structure will be ► y . 5' t G. Attached or detached Quonset -type or style accessory structures are prohibited. H. A residential lot is allowed 5 square feet of accessory building area (cumulative) for every 100 square feet of lot area, up to a maximum 1000 square feet. Property square footage QOOoc x .05 = Allowable sq.ft. of accessory structures J, 000 Existing accessory structures 0 Proposed accessory structure qq(f Total existing and proposed TICI Planning and Zoning Commission Review: Any attached or detached accessory building, carport or breezeway over 500 square feet in area must be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission utilizing the following criteria: Review fee has been paid: ✓ YES NO Additional Considerations: The residence was built before the current landscaping requirements were adopted, and therefore is grandfathered in with regards to the amount of trees required for the house lot. The homeowner has stated he will plant two -to three additional canopy trees, in addition to the required shrubs, increasing his compliance with current codes. Prepared by Date Does Does Not Comply Comply A. Accessory structures may not be constructed or maintained from corrugated metal or corrugated metal -looking products. B. The roof of the accessory building must have a minimum pitch of 3:12. 11� C. Accessory structures 501 sq.ft. to 750 sq.ft. in size shall be compatible with the overall general architectural design of the primary residence, including facade and materials, colors and trim, roofing materials and pitch. D. Accessory structures 751 sq.ft. to 1000 sq.ft. in size shall be of the same architectural design of the primary residence, including facade and materials, colors and trim, and roofing materials and pitch. Foundation plantings shall be required on all sides of the accessory structure excluding entranceways and doorways, as follows: 1 shrub for every 3 lineal feet and 24 inches in height at planting. 3s't (o' +- If 13 f t 1(o -t- , Lineal dimension totals q/ = 3 = Total Shrubs Required 30 Review fee has been paid: ✓ YES NO Additional Considerations: The residence was built before the current landscaping requirements were adopted, and therefore is grandfathered in with regards to the amount of trees required for the house lot. The homeowner has stated he will plant two -to three additional canopy trees, in addition to the required shrubs, increasing his compliance with current codes. Prepared by Date BOUNDARY & FND 5/8" I.R.C. , UR LOT 27 LOT 26 "LS 6425 RESIDENCE FND 5/8" I.R. ¢'\P.L. =I SWALE N90000'00"E RESIDENCE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY —-,E.w.1/11/1 a - [T o -- 80.00' S.I.R.C. ati 0.3' S, 0.3' E 10.00' S ry^. p� SnN� Ql ti o o_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 2 & 3, BLOCK 27 OF SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS, W.P.P. 1 Q' E. & T.O.B. — - - 'L° — - — 10' P.U. & D. E. & T.O. B. W ------- -- - - - - - — FNiD 5/8" LI. .C.tV.P•P UNIT 1, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGE 15 OF THE PUBLIC 1 " UR -_� 51 SUBJECT PARC L. "LB 7J80'WELL S�NV,rts -FND 5/8" Q.R.C. RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA - �— - - - Q ti LOT 2 ' �'�O.Ob' S I SUBJECT PARCEL: 1 P.L.S. 1761 �ff e «� 640CK 27 LOT 3 �—VACANT t - BLOCK 27 0 10.0's EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION a- 0D e`P� ` `� =' 2B 1 . -..�°—;77�-2� v ,r�;. I I tr et =o tfGCCs-�/S tii�cLB 9 q�Ne xxPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION 24.023.0HI \ WELL SCREENED j = E)USnAJCr < ' TILE MEET EXISITING ELEVATION 5 _ It- _ cW7 I PORCH M.E. 25.51 Z i B 4 8' 1 22 00' 36.0' 2 .00' 38.2 �S 12-75'" Uj — 10.67 PROPOSED STORMWATER rn W O I M 10 550 HIBISCUS �"l- LU RUN-OFF DIRECTION W O ryry N �- I O ryry� 1 EXISTING 10 Fe 06 v Z Bb U N? a ui _Q _ PROPOSED 12.0' x 9 w Lrv'N 1 STORY C B.S f- W 9 x P O p P�.ri_&D Z N 0 ry DETACHED n� i RE a _J U) 2 _j m LLI N GARAGE rn 10�` W w F.F EL - 23 g9 "'LU w w p W F.F. EL.=23.99CERTIFIED TO: W N O b W (oWILLIAM H. MOCK w go (L 4 4 U) O n NN©ON 2? / 10.61' SURVEYOR'S NOTES: O 1) LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS FURNISHED BV THE CLIENT OR HISMERAGENT I 24,00' f (ILO2) THE UNDERSIGNED SURVEYOR WAS NOT FURNISHED A TITLE COMMITMENT. W p00 Z }- 2200 �22 QQ' 6°'QQ CV41 0 THERE MAY BE RECORDED OR UNRECORDED DEEDS, EASEMETS OR OTHER A�L11INSTRUMENTS THAT COULD AFFECT THE BOUNDARY ANDIOR USES OF THIB tiI PROPOSEI / I Q. x�� N Gr t- PROPERTY.^�9 CONC 3)TYPE OF SURVEY: BOUNDARY B TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. 4) STATED LEGAL PURPOSE OF SURVEY HEREON: PERMITTING AND/OR _ \ \ MORTGAGE. I �1 G .j DRIVEWAY 7 ^� - O w 5)ALL MEASUREMENTS HEREON ARE BASED ON U.S. STANDARD DECIMAL t \ . I x ;./''� L �(GQ' O Q FEET ]1 \' \ _�� / �..'� V." 1' 0 6) THIS SURVEY IS NOT INTENDED TO DETERMINE OR REFLECT OWNERSHIP. 7) ADJOINING LOTS SHOWN HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED. j'�_M > ,. { - '."l 8) THIS SURVEY IS NOT INTENDED TO LOCATE ANY SUBSURFACE - 1 Jp ^�' _ �' 7 O J O L IMPROVEMENTS UNDERGROUND FOUNDATIONS NOR SUBSURFACE `�On u��; - '�� ' - C7 APPROXIMATE I � If ENCROACHMENTS. \ \y� '� ZpCet .EXISTING' - " SEPTIC J 9) BEARINGS ARE BASED UPON THE CENTER LINE OF HIBISCUS AVENUE \ (C'/ y /',yr. _ - d ASSUMED AS BEING N90°WWWAND IABELED'BB" j 15" �2.i I CONG.-' S`YS`TEM I 10) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, MEASURED BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE Q EQUAL TO THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLAT \_ 7 ' DRIVEWAY LOCATION 11) THIS SURVEY IS NOT INSURED FOR MULTIPLE USES IT IS CERTIFIED AND 9 FN 5 " I. _ / - & WALKWAYS q. \ n _ _ FND 5/8" 1. .0 INTABOVE BY FOR THE SIED HER USES)AND/OR PURPOSES LISTED IN ITEM 7F4 `\' 4 OID P.L.= 5'N90°00'00' P.L.S. 1761 .,. N90000'00"W FND 5/8" I.R.C. ABOVE BY THOSE LISTED HEREON. 12) THIS SURVEY MEETS OR EXCEEDS FLORIDA'S MINIMUM TECHNICAL V\1M :q rMj�.T' 'B'p`i` /�° ME 21.37 V4TA - ' / STANDARDS CONTAINED WITHIN SECTION 5J-17 F.A.C. FOR THE PURPOSES p� 80.00 (P) FOR WHICH IT IS INTENDED. ry^'� 21 QQ� ---r 13) IT IS THE INTENT OF ALL POINTS SURVEYING& MAPPING, INC. TO 12"C.M.P,.COPYRIGHTTHIS SKETCH. NO PART OF THIS SKETCH MAY BE REPRODUCED I - 22.0 b'\ - VIA ANY MEDIUM WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ALL POINTS Q�y . ^,`,- H, W/2 MESS '. ` 8 _ .. ..-.._fiSWALE-.._.. ..- SURVEYING &MAPPING, INC. ti `V�' - — — _ tiSWAL " — 14) ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS SURVEY WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM ry0' O PROPOSED: PROPOS WEST INV, = 20.41 ALL POINTS SURVEYING & MAPPING, INC. IS PROHIBITED BYLAW. M EAST INV. EL. 20.40' 12" C.M.P. M 15) SEPTIC SYSTEM LOCATION IS AN APPROXIMATION BASED UPON AVAILABLE WEST INV, EL. 20.27' SURFACE EVIDENCE. FOR EXACT LOCATION, DIMENSIONS AND CAPACITY ,��. CONSULT LICENSED SEPTIC SYSTEM CONTRACTOR. 1 p* �I M. FND MAG NAIL 16) ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF H.^ I 'I, I31, FND NO P. I. FND N/D 1988, BASED UPON A CLOSED LOOP LEVEL RUN FROM NATIONAL GEODETIC B,M. #1: FND.N/D o np \/ ^AApp �1�1 NO ID —� �-{�B($��J$ {�--- - __ - , 'B8. TO CONVERT FROM NAVD 88 TONGVD 29 ADD 143 THIS CONVERSION 'CULPEPER" EL. 21.31 NAVD 198 20.00' LU - - FACTOR IS BASED UPON THE PUBLISHED ELEVATIONS FOR IRC BMI W13 OF - 60RAN V 1 8 = PA V EM ENT - 22 96NGVD 1929 VS 21.53 NAVD 1988 EL. 21.24 NAVD 1988 p@ - pa ^Ary 1^� _ a. LU - -17) PROPOSED CULVERT INVERT ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON EXISTING SWALE ELEVATION AT THAT POINT. 4' OF BANK SCALE: V=20' FLOOD ZONE: X&AE ORIGINAL BOUNDARY SURVEY DATE: 03/06/2015 LEGEND CONCAIRCONDI ABBREVIATIONS EW. FW=FELDOB OBSERVATION P.C.=POITOFFCURVATURE T.V. =TEL COM VAULT REVISIONS B.B. = BASIS OF BEARINGS F.H. =FIRE HYDRANT P.C.C.= POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE U.E. = UTILITY EASEMENT JOB # 13-032C BFE: 22.10 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP # 12061C0111 H 12/04/2012 B.S.L. = BUILDING SETBACK LINE F.I.P. = FOUND IRON PIPE PG. =PAGE U.P. =UTILITY POLE 1/11/15: ADD TOPO C.B. = CATCH BASIN F.I.R. = FOUND IRON ROD P.I. = POINT OF INTERSECTION U.R. = UTILITY RISER A P NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF THE FLORIDA C M = CONCRETE MONUMENT FND = FOUND P.L. = PROPERTY LINE W.M. = WATER METER ALL POINTS SURVEYING&MAPPING, INC. C.M.P. = CORRUGATED METAL PIPE FPL= GONG ELECTRICAL PAD P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING W.P.P. = WOOD POWER POLE 11/3/16: PLOT PLAN 1873 ACADEMY STREET NE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE: C.O. = CLEAN OUT G.V. = GATE VALVE P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT W.V = WATER VALVE PALM BAY, FL 32905CONC.. = CONCRETE I.R.C. = IRON ROD WITH CAP P.R.C. = POINTOF REVERSE CURVATURE R = RADIUS DAVID T FLAHERTY FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. LS6304 COV. =COVERED IRR. = IRRIGATION P.T. = POINT OF TANGENCY L = ARCLENGTH (321) 210-0845 Fax: (321) 98&0277 CPP = CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE M = MEASURED P.U. = PUBLIC UTILITIES p = CENTRALANGLE Dave@AIIPointsSM.com 1 i/ 3 ( D = FROM DEED DESCRIPTION N/D = NAIL WITH DISK R = FROM THE RECORD - CENTERLINE S - w OLE. = DRAINAGE EASEMENT O.H.W = OVERHEAD WIRE R.0 P =REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE =CORNER MONUMENT 'V' L87780 —�p EL. = ELEVATION O.R.B. = OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK RNV = RIGHT OF WAY O =CALCULATED CORNER SIGNATURE & DATE E.P. = EDGE OF PAVEMENT P = FROM PLAT S.I.R. = SET IRON ROD WITH CAP LB77B0 E3 = COLUMN RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION caza�.zrx� FRONT ELEVATION E c sly FRONT ELEVATION E c FOUNDATION PLAN l= ROOF PIAN a a C i -------------------- w- s FOUNDATION PLAN l= ROOF PIAN a a C i ELECTRICAL LEGEND db oouwewwrnmer YGIrt NTR[WNLLdI➢1 p MTAIXIXffDR[IN LLMi YL6 GIMKURMRvpt W1@ o eaTwcu rola q 5xmrn \ / sw�ia+m mxxernox �:___� nuoxxsnrucm . 15. M0 �•�•. �¢ecTwcuxneranc �•lw,la� Mlq'llO1 MT ICBTLW %2 M.f. "�TPi�AIPROCf. )hi IS'hff. WIG"M OIXWM'C ELECTPJCAL PLAN M a w L7 - - 6, /Z L, r, ro I o ,H L7 - - 6, /Z L, r, ro I o PERMIT # CmOF SEBASTtN HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1225 MAIN STREET • SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE: (772) 589-5537 • FAX (772) 589-2566 PERMIT APPLICATION ALL OF THE FOLLOWING MUST BE FILLED IN BY APPLICANT, ACCORDING TO FS 713.135 TRACKING # DA INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PARCEL ID # 3 I ' 3 8 - 61-00002 -o 2 70 - e c ops/o�CEIVED BY: LOT:28✓ BLOCK:% _SUBDIVISION:SIfAf /AAI ,//(�¢/IIDS � pLOOD ZONE: /� TYPE OF WORK: %NEW STRUCTURE []ADDITION []ALTERATION []REPAIR ODEMOLITION [] OTHER / WORK INCLUDES:5STRUCTURAL ELECTRICAL OLUMBING CHANICAL ROOFING-SLOPE:_/J Z, [] POOL Q ALUL;IINUM STRUCTURE L]SHED�FENCE L] SLAB OR DECK F -1O R WORK DESCRIPTION: DET'2Wc1f4p BARg j . b R Jj�W4y ESTIMATED JOP. VALUE: S ,$ Q-"- TOTAL S/FUNDERAIR N A JOB NAME: 911-L A.IC JOB ADDRESS: _ 5,,j Q /_B / C V,j' 4 vF , V SUITE/UNI1' NO. PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: W/G�/iQtYl __,M K PHONE: L� e 3 - 4aY ADDRESS: S�5'0 s c US %f U E. — CITY/STATE: N E S i c CONTRSASCTQ R�� BUSLNESS NAME: ST.4101_ C V S><'e�GD�$ .TnI C . LICENSE #: _g B CO 2 $ 2 2 �QST� HotlF y S u C( & CONTAC'C PHONE: �7t C[TY/STATE: SE -N /A r' :Lo_,_—__ zB'CODE 859/ CONTACT E-MAIL ADDRESS: A/ -r S' of 2 ! w -n . i. i - - ,. — ADSENGINEER:_ ADDRESS:- t/FSIJ�_ lep _PIJONE: " 3 - 99/ DRE' W CITY/STATE: /y) 1 C C p --- ZIP CODE; CONTACT E-MAIL ADDRESS: TE C y � L+ 6 M _ q _ �- PRESENT USE: _ PROPOSED USE:,�R _ SToRA0-,E OCCUPANT LOAD: NUMBER OF: STORIES [%BAYS 17UNITS [:]BEDROOMS[DHEIGHT 'l Z TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: S S j' _ GRCUP OCCUPANCY: AREA 9?0' IS THE BUILDING PRESENTLY EQ 7 PF,D WITH ANA UTOMATICFIRE SPRINICLER SYSTEM', [DYES o <N BONDING COMPANY: _ /` ADDRESS: ---- _ PHONE: MDRTGAnR FVNnwn• ADL`BESS: SUB -CONTRACTOR SUMMARY PERMIT # � — O bS (,4OCe 3 TRACKING # 00 S 1 57RA-V C V S f•OM 190 1 LDER.0 will be using the following sub -contractors (Company/Business Name) y/ for the project located SSD PI'Q1$CvS AVE, SFBRSf/Rnl f (Street Address) It is understood that ALL sub -contractors are required to be licensed regardless if a Separate permit is required. If there are any changes in status regarding the participation of the sub -contractors listed below, I will immediately advise the City of Sebastian Building Department. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR: / CAS Y 1 S' 1 I_ QUALIFIER: I' S I SL/FTE - PHONE # 6 -0 / LICENSE # E-MAILA DRESS: cNR/cf7✓a ae.,Avhe�o..-.n...:. PLUMBING CONTRACTOR: (;ARY P &Ai9VfL L1,C QUALIFIER: T -A /i y ag tj v k � PHONE# r - G -i� .EN. E# E-MAIL Aoz..C..SaE 7 MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR: / V� QUALIFIER: PHONE # LICENSE # E-MAIL ADDRESS: ROOFIN QUALM PHONE# E-MAIL OTHER CONTRACTOR: PHONE# E-MAIL ADDRESS: NOTE: THE ABOVE CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED TO PULL BUILDING PERMITS AND SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A "SUB -CONTRACTOR PERMIT APPLICATION" PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE MASTER PERMIT. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO DO THE WORK AND INSTALLATIONS AS INDICATED. I CERTIFY THAT NO WORK OR INSTALLATION HAS COMMENCED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE PERFORMED TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF ALL LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUCTION IN THIS JURISDICTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT A SEPARATE PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK, PLUMBING, SIGNS, WELLS, POOLS, FURNACES, BOILERS, HEATERS, TANKS AND AIR CONDITIONERS, ETC. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RECORDED NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT SIGNED BY THE OWNER, SHALL BE FILED WITH THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY IF THE VALUE IS $2,500 OR MORE, EXCEPT HEATING OR AIR CONDITIONING CHANGE OUTS LESS THAT $7,500. NOTICE: IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THE COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH AS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, STATE AGENCIES, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. ANY CHANGE IN BUILDING PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE RECORDED WITH THIS OFFICE. ANY WORK NOT COVERED ABOVE MUST HAVE A VALID PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING. IN CONSIDERATION OF GRANTS, THIS PERMIT, THE OWNER, AND THE BUILDING CONTRACTOR AGREE TO ERECT THIS STRUCTURE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING AND ZONING CODES OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. NOTE: THIS PERMIT APPLICATION IS VOID AFTER 180 DAYS UNLESS THE WORK, WHICH IT COVERS, HAS COMMENCED. ALL CONTRACTORS MUST HAVE A VALID STATE CERTIFICATION, STATE REGISTRATION, OR COUNTY COMPETENCY PLUS A COUNTY —WIDE LICENSE PRIOR TO OBTAINING PERMIT (ALL ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS OR REPAIRS MUST HAVE OWNER'S SIGNATURE ON APPLICATION W PROVIDE COPY OF CONTRACT) r SIGNATURE OFOWNER/AGENT :7Z� j �� Qat5;�� QUALOI&S SIGNATURE DATE: PRINTED NAME OF OWNER/AGENT ,U 9 l L. Zt' G i R NAD PRINTED NAME OF QUALIFIER DATE: 4• Individuals who sign as the owner's agent must first obtain owner's written authorization to sign on their behalf STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF **NOTARY IS FOR QUALIFIER'S SIGNATURE** I hete�by<4Yhf�thAt on this _ �9 day of a�, 20� personally appeared Ty e J enti D� who is _Zpersonatly known to me or has _ produced identification. Type of identification produced: 1 -- es��"���GNELLEtB� rrii�� 2 Seal `�Gpu,MSS%pNs F<�s i'ficialSignah:reofNotary Public Notary `N ��Y 0•�oFf:l CroWg3y