Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-2016 PZ MinutesCITY 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. 01, �O 3. Roll Call = •N m Present: Chairman Roth Ms. Kautenburg •N p Vice Chairman Reyes Mr. Qizilbash 0u E 0 Mr. Carter Mr. Alvarez (a)a E Mr. Dodd E Excused: Mr. McManus CoU Mr. Hughan (a) N cy) m CO.0 Also Present -0 Eo o CL Mr. Robert Ginsburg, City Attorney N Q Cn Ms. Dorri Bosworth, Planner/Recording Secretary Ms. Dale Simchick, IRC School Board Liaison was not present 4. Announcements and/or Agenda Modifications 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) Q CL 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 33`d 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