Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02101997 RIVERr„ r RIVE RONT COMMITTEE MIN ' S OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY l0, 1997 Mr. ncke of the Indian River Drive Traffic Watch was present and explained the placem~-t of speed limit signs. In response to a question from Ms. Corum, it was determined that the tota.~ size of the sign will be 24" wide by 42", replacing whatrs already there. C Collins also noted tt-e memo from the Sebastian Police Dept., Chief Randy White sxating that has no objection to this sign. I There,, was discussion on this subject among all Committee members. The location of the sigd was dete ~ ed to be east of Indian River Drive, in the vicinity of Coolidge or Cleveland Struts. Mr, ild noted that he would like to see a police ofl"icer and car on Indian River Drive to watch for speed' rs, even with the sign. He also suggested that when the pedestrian walkway and lighting get instal along the river; this subject sign might be redesigned to the theme of the area, N by Corurn/Moore I move a recommendation to the City Council to replace one sp~cliutg alga north df the Sebastian Yacht Club with this proposed speeding fine sign, not to exceed in size and dimension the existing. speed limit sign. by Collins/Smith I would like to suggest an amendment to the motion that we include language that would request that the sign conform with any sign ordinance that we eventually get pissed through City Council to make it of a quaint nature that we are trying t4 depict down do the riverfront. A vai~e vote was taken vn the Amendment. 7 - 0 amendment to motion carried. A vvir~e vote was taken on the Motion. 7 - 0 motion carried. 2. Se~ urban space criteria for different areas on the Rivcrfront. Mr. assarelli noted that the format tonight is supposed to be a workshop format, as was discu 'sed at an earlier meeting, suggesting a freetlow of discussion. He then. gage' a presentation and g ve examples of different situations in the riverfront area pertaining tv uses. He clarifieid the differ nces of Areas I through VI on the .map included in each member's packet. He .gave exam lea on the overhead projector of building types, open spaces, setbacks and parking proposed for a ch of these areas as would be explaixied to new developers or for remodeling of existing struc res, keeping in mind the architectural theme of an "Old Florida Fishing Village" for the entire area. He spoke of the exterior design only, and noted that the interior use doesn't matter. The f llowing is a descriptive list of the six primary areas: ~~ ~" RNERFRONT COMMITTEE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1997 Area I Commercial -large buildings Area TI Residential, mixed -small to medium buildings, porches required Area III Resort azea Area N Downtown Area (generic term) Area V Residential, mixed -small to medium buildings Area VI Riverfront -small buildings, large side open spaces, parches required He,, noted that in Area VI - Riverfront, any newer development or redevelopment. should be encouraged to place parking on the west. side of Indian River Drive. There was then discussion on the Urban Space Area Criteria chart proposed by Mr. Massarelli. He then spoke on building heights varying within the six areas. Mr. Wild suggested dividing area N into two azeas (East and West of US # 1) Otherwise, he `was in favor of the concept. Chinn. Collins concurred with Mr. Wild's findings.. Mr. Massazelli informed the Committee members of the two courses that he attended recently in • Orlando at the State Chamber of Commerce graduate school which included two (2) .days on Environmental Permitting, and two (2) days on Growth Management. He went through some case studies very similar to what this Committee is doing. He suggested that Sebastian is ready for this "New Urbanism", a term recernly attached to this type of planning. Chinn. Collins suggested that members each give their ideas on the Urban Space. Area Criteria form in their packets. Mr. Tlwmpson agreed with Mr. Wild's opinion, and agreed that two separate areas should be made along US # l . He doesn't agree with putting stories in the height limitation. Mr. Wild wants the stories limited within the height limitation, and otherwise likes the form. Mr. Chapin likes the concept, .but is concerned whether these designs are realistic with the available properties in the river&arn area. Mr. Massazelli noted that in many pazcels it probably isn't. He noted that when we get to discussing "parking", that may be another way to help this situation. He also Hated that parking and drainage are the two driving things that determine what you can do on your property. He suggested that parking and drainage might be looked at in terms of "regional" systems. Mr. Wild mentioned a "shared" parking system with same city owned property and a building that does not have enough space for a parking lot. • Mr. Massarelli noted not only shared pazking area, but also "time" sharing where one business !NT COMMITTEE OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1997 ' uses a parking area at one time of day, and another.business might use the same area at a different time: Ms. Drum agreed with the height limitation of 2S feet east of US # 1, and 35 feet west of US # 1 in Ar N. She also agreed with the notations of two (2) stories and three (3) stories. m Area N, she It that porches should be required. In Area I, she was concerned about the 3S foot height alon ' US # 1. Mr. mith suggested .including the "character" in each numbered area:, and pkace "comme~rts" at the ttoam to include effect and intent for the benefit of anyone who is not a Committee member. He so suggested being more specific on the parking designation. Mr. Collins agr~d with identifying the "character" of each area, and agreed .with "requiring" porc es in area N (Downtown). He also suggested that in that particular area, developers should be r aired to install. sidewakks on the east-west dimension. In area VI, riverfront area, he su steel miiniinum front and rear setbacks, and maximum side setbacks. I e then noel that; when r ding building height east of Indian River Drive to fifteen (15) Beet, we ^would be encouif aging a b dding that would be spread out, and a one (I) story building would block as much view as a two 2) story building. He also felt that by enforcing the pitched roofs, you would pretty much el' to a fourth story thereby making the "story" restriction unnecessary: The ' was some discussion on sidewalks. Mr. ~enneCt suggested that the area boundaries be more defined, particularly in areas I and VI. Mr. Dore agreed with splitting area N for the East and West sides of US !, with building height at 3 'West of US 1, and 25' East of US l . At 's point, Mr. Massarelli explained the "Bert J. Harris Private Property-. Ri~rts Act" of 199 . He noted that - ~Y regulation that we come up with, if it reduces the vakue of the land as a res of the regulation, it's a "taking", and we are .going to have to pay for it. He reminded the Co ~ttee that when lowering. the height of buildings to 1S or 25 we have the potential liabi ity of a "taking" issue; when we consider, changing density, parking, or setbacks, we have the po tial liability of a "taking". Statutory "takir~" is different fromi the Ccanstitutfwnal "taleing" The onstitutional "taking>' was if you removed all reasonable uses of the property. Now, if you just ace the vie of the property, there is a risk. He noted that this Committee is taping a coam rehensive look at the area, looking at it uniformly, trying to protect the character of the axes, hav ' a lot of public input. This Committee is just the first level; it will go to the City Council and Pk ' g and Zoning and they will have more .public input. But he noted that -this is one problem gov ' ent is running into these days. Mr. (Collins expressed an opinion that what this Committee is doing' stands to ixacrease property The e was general discussion on this topic. Mr. ennett suggested expanding the criteria far area N, the "downtown" area. 4 r~ LJ • RIVERFRONT COMMI'T'TEE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1997 Mr. Massarelli felt that could be covered in the comments added to the bottom of the form. Chmn. Collins gave this sununary: 1. define criteria areas 2. side, front and rear setbacks 3 . emphasize downtown. area with required porches and split East and West sides of US 1 with twenty-five (2S) andthirty-five (35) feet building heights. 4. roof -stories issue, require a sloped roof with a certain pitch, no flat roofs, and that would take care of the stories issue (Mr. Massarelli will check into the pitch of the "Florida Cracker" style house) He also reiterated the issue of being apposed to a one (1) story limitation on the East side of Indian River Drive. Mr. Thompson agreed with the above comment. There was discussion about where the building height is measured from. Mr. Massarelli suggested that the measurement be taken from the lowest rc$vlatory height. If the flood elevation is ten (XO) feet, that would be a starting point; if fill is installed, measurement cannot be taken from the top of the fill; if the septic tank drainfield is the lowest elevation, that would be a lowest regulatory point; if those things don't apply, it would be eighteen. (18) inches above the crown of the road. MOTION by Collins/Wild I propose a motion that we change the fifteen (1S) feet height limitation in category six (6) to twenty-five (25) feet, measured from eighteen (18) inches from the :crown of the road. Discussion: There was much discussion on where to measure from, how to satisfy the flood control requirements, and the use of pilings on low property. A voice vote was taken with the following results: Chmn. Collins -yes Mr. Sennett -yes V. Chmn. Smith -abstain (wants legal opinion) Mr. Wild -yes Ms. Corurn -abstain Mr. Moore - no Mr. Chapin -yes Mr. Chapin asked about the porch requirement and how it would impact the building size. Mr. Massarelli suggested that the porch would be an accessory use and would be permitted in the front setback. That way it would not take away from the building footprint. He advised not specifying a size. S )NT COMMITTEE OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1997 There was discussion on extension of the "downtown" area to include a more westerly section of Main trees to the Post Office. i On th subject of sidewalks, Mr. Massazelli noted that he wants to da a map of where sidewalks, curbs and swales presently are and came back with an evaluation on this. ere was more discussion on property East and West of US 1 in area I and the height of 1. Status of Riverfront activities.. Mr. assazelli reported that the sidewalk along Indian River Drive. is about 6Q% designed. We shout receive the drawings within the next couple of weeks. No regulatory issues were raised so it looks good. He noted that the scheduled canstruc~ion was programmed for fiscal year 199-99, how er in talking with DOT, the contract will be let this year (1997). He also noted that when the desi are received by the City, a quick turn-around an approval would help. He al o noted that he has just received notification fibm the State that we have now gotten full- fun ' g of the Community Block Grant which now includes the street lighting for Indian River Drive To coordinate the sidewalk and the lighting, we need to accelerate the sidewalk; He noted that a Riverfront Committee will. be advisory tv the Citizens Advisory Task Force, and the ligh ~ issue will need to be defined. C '. Collins mentioned the subject of wetlands along the sidewalk path, and Mr. Massarelli noted. t DOT doesn't seem to think this is a problem but advised that this issue needs keepi#~g an eye o . There was discussion about a Sign Ordinance and Mr. Massarelli noted that it may be available by April. He also noted that the Sign, Ordinance would apply to the entire City, but a unique design could be applied to the riverfrarrt area. Mr. assazelli Hated that the Tree Advisory Board is working on the Landscape Ordinance, and info flan is being obtained from the Rt. 60 Corridor Plan, the Wabasso Corridor Study, and a few o er places that have good landscape design standards. PA NG - is postponed till next meeting. Mr. ennett asked Mr. Massarelli if he could provide a list of the green areas (city owned areas) avail ble on the riverfront, and Mr. Massarelli responded that he would bring a map showing them. PUB IC COMMENT: None . • 6 w RIVERFRONT COMMITTEE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1997 ~,HAIRMAN MATTER: Chinn. Collins asked for information on the Underill property and Mr. Massarelli responded. MEMBERS MATTERS_ Mr. Chapin was concerned about the two members firm the public who left early. Mr.,.Moore agreed. He also noted eyesores around town that need to be cleaned up, and if there are ordinances. covering them, then the code needs to be enforced. Mr. Massarelli noted that there has to be an economic advantage to motivate owners to clean up their property. in some cases. In addition, with many inquiries being made about Sebastian sites, it looks like some of these will betaken care of It was then determined that Chinn. Collins would call Arlene Westfall and Jean Bertrann and apologize for the mix-up this evening. ST FF MATTE 1VIr. Massarelli mentioned two Grant programs that are being looked at, one is the Florida Inland Navigation District who maintains the Intercoastal waterway in Florida. They are looking. for projects such as boat ramps, boat docks, public fishing, viewing piers, enviranm~ntal education programs. riverfront boardwalks, waterway signs and buoys for safety information, and those types of things. He encouraged the Committee members to inform him of any suggestions. they might have in this area. Ms. Corum suggested obtaining a viewing scope after the observation pier is built on the riverfront. Mr. Massarelli then mentioned the Department of Community Affairs grant called "Waterfront Florida", where they pick three (3) communities every two (2) years to be designated as a waterfront Florida community and it gives certain guidance and organizational development, visualization goals setting, networking with other communities, and advocacy at the State and Federal level, redevelopment plans and implementation, and other assistance where necessary. They give $10,000 the first year to be used for signage, promotional materials or small projects that will produce quick and visible results; the second year is a $25,000 grant far either visualization or plan implementation. Both of these are matching grants. He felt that both of these grants go hand in hand with what this Committee is doing. He noted that DEP and SJRWD are pleased with what we are doing, and maybe they could be helpful iui getting us into DCA. At this point, Mr. Massarelli noted that City Council will be considering the design of the parking area at the CAV Corp property on Wednesday night. He explained a compromise design as the latest design showing the property with minimal improvements and a grassed surface. The only pavement will be the driveways at the entrances. The .landscaping is on the right~f=-way only, and no parking area will be lost. Parking places will be identified with something such as buried 7 RIVERFRONT COMMITTEE • MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1997 concrete blocks to provide striping. He noted that the City has a code and this property must meet code requirements. There was more discussion on this property and all were invited to attend the City Council meeting Wednesday evening and make some of these suggestions. The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 P.M. • • v~ v ,. Q~ w~~ City of Sebastian 1225 MAIN STREET p SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (407) 589-533D o FAX (4D7) 589-5570 SEBASTIAN RIVE. RONT COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD d/ ~ ~___~ ~~ ~ APPROVED AT MEETING HELD DONALD SMITH, VICE CHAIRMAN • -AWN M. CORAPI, S CRETARY E. ANN BRACR, RECORDING SECRETARY RCMAS.WP • City of Sebastian 1225 MAIN STREET D SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 D FAX (407) 589-5570 AGENDA RIVERFRONT COMMITTEE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: f Meeting of January 27, 1997 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 5. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Make recommendation to City Council RE: speeding fine signs. 2. Set urban space criteria for different areas on the Riverfront. b. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Status of Riverfront activities. 2. Parking 7. PUBLIC COMMENT. 8. CHAIRMAN MATTERS. 9. MEMBER MATTERS. 10. STAFF MATTERS. 11. ADJOURNMENT. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: • Monday February 24, 1997 @ 7:00 ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, WILL NEED A RECORD OF 7HE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THA T A VERBA77M RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. SAID APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF ACTION. /'`` (286.0105 FS) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THIS MEE77NG SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT (407)-589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. �0' ka ~. , City of Seba:tiara 1225 MAIN STREET ^ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE X407) 589-5330 ^ FAX (407) 589-5570 PUBLIC MEETING The Riverfront Committee of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, will hold their regular meeting on Monday, February 10, 1997 at 7;00, in the City Council Chambers. Q.W`~ - ~d'I Dawn M. Corapi, Secretary River&ont Committee 2E1W NOTE: IF ANY PERSONS DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, HE/SHE MAY NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSES, HE/SHE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY IN EV!'DENCE ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED. NOTE: IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FDR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS INADVANCE OF THE MEETING.