Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-2017 PZ Minutes1 `A 3. �o CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION V MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2017 - 6:00 P.M. 0� C�Call to Order Chairwoman Kautenburg called the meeting to order at 6:0g•.. _ C, 8 Pledge of Alleqiance was recited by all. C •� 0 cr SO CL Roll Call a L Present: Mr. Roth Mr. Qizilbash C Q, c Mr. Simmons (a) Mr. Hughan (a) ca (� Ms. Kautenburg Mr. Alvarez :2 g Mr. Carter C �i 1 5 O •C o 2 Not Present: Mr. Reyes —Excused �N rp 4 JCL Also Present: Ms. Cynthia Hall, Interim City Attorney Ms. Lisa Frazier, Community Development Director Ms. Dorri Bosworth, Planner Ms. Dale Simchick, IRC School Board Liaison, was not present. 4. Announcements and/or Aqenda Modifications Ms. Kautenburg stated that Mr. Reyes was excused and Mr. Simmons will be voting this evening. Ms. Kautenburg stated that Mr. McManus' term has expired, and he has retired his seat from the Commission, and that Mr. Hughan has been formally appointed by the City Council as a regular member. He was was congratulated and thanked for his service. 5. Approval of Minutes A. Regular meeting of September 21, 2017. A motion to accept the September 21, 2017 minutes as presented was made by Mr. Roth and seconded by Mr. Simmons and passed unanimously by voice vote. 6. Quasi -Judicial and Public Hearinas A. Public Hearing — Review and Make a Recommendation to City Council Regarding Ordinance 0-18-01 relating to Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers & Dispensaries — Amending the Land Development Code, Article XXII Language & Definitions and Article V Zoning District Regulations. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 Ms. Kautenburg noted that all members had received copies of the transmittal form, and that a public hearing is going to be held on this review, and she asked for staff input. Ms. Bosworth asked that the members follow the procedure that is listed under the Quasi -Judicial and Public Hearings. There are procedures for a public hearing, and if the members would follow that, we could proceed by discussing any ex parte communications. Ms. Hall identified the ordinance as Ordinance No. 0-18-01 of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, relating to medical marijuana treatment centers, rescinding Ordinance 0-17-01 amending the Land Development Code Article 22, Language and Definitions, amending Article 5, Zoning District Regulations providing for severability, conflict, codification, and ineffective date. Ms. Kautenburg asked if any member of the Committee had had an ex parte communication with any party. Hearing none, she asked for the staff presentation. Ms. Hall stated that since the hearing is not a quasi-judicial hearing, there would be no need for swearing in of witnesses/speakers. Ms. Bosworth offered some staff input stating that earlier in 2017 there were some workshops and discussions held concerning the way the City wanted to go regarding the recently adopted medical marijuana referendum that was approved in November from the State of Florida voters. Ms. Bosworth stated that it was decided that the C i7 4amr=ifim agreed with them being allowed in the City of Sebastian and at the time the y term "Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers" was being used, and that after public hearings that went through both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, that Ordinance 0-17-01 had been approved. As definitions were created, the zoning districts where it was agreeable to have those medical marijuana treatment centers were identified, and some additional use criteria were created — there were 4 criteria that the Commission and Council had approved. In June, Senate Bill 8A was approved by the State and signed into law in July by the Governor. What that bill did, and some of the requirements in that bill, was to make our Ordinance 0-17-01 in non-compliance with state law. In summary, state law basically limited control of what the local governments and municipalities could do for the medical marijuana treatment centers, and that is listed in the new 0-18-01 Ordinance. The State allows a municipality to say we do not want medical marijuana treatment centers in our municipality or that we are agreeable to them being there, but we have to treat them no more restricted than we do pharmacies. After that was brought to City Council in the summer, they said we would still like to allow them within the City, and so proceed to go through the procedure to update our Code to bring it into compliance with state law, and that is what is before the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 Commission in 0-18-01. A Section 1 was added, which means that the previous Ordinance 0-17-01 will have to be formally rescinded. The definitions that were in Ordinance 0-17-01 were revised for marijuana and marijuana treatment centers, and they were made into compliance with what is in the State's bill. Ms. Bosworth stated that, as she and the Director were going through the Code Book, there is no specific designation or land use for pharmacies; it is included in the commercial retail use. And then we realized that there was no land use definition for commercial retail. On Page 3 of the Ordinance, pharmacies were included in a new definition for Commerical Retail. The State bill used the term "dispensaries" as how they defined the units or the store fronts that would be actually distributing where patients would come to pick up their prescriptions. So the state's definition of land use put that into our Code instead of medical marijuana treatment centers. The state's bill defines a treatment center as also the operation that could cultivate, that could grow, dispense, and deliver. The state's bill also says that municipalities cannot eliminate them from being in our municipality, that that is totally up to the state to determine where those can be located — the cultivation and grow houses, etc. The City had the choice to allow the dispensaries. So we did define that land use, and that is what is used in our Code now instead of medical marijuana treatment centers. They are now called medical marijuana dispensaries. We then added them back into the commercial districts where we wanted them. In the previous ordinance that was approved, we had not had them in the Commercial Limited. However, based on the new state bill, we cannot take them out of there because we allow pharmacies in the Commercial Limited zoning district. So the Commercial Limited had to be put back into the Ordinance. Staff does recommend approval of this Ordinance and you make a recommendation to City Council to adopt Ordinance 0-18-01. Ms. Kautenburg stated that questioning would be opened for the Commission. Mr. Simmons asked if we actually needed to rescind Ordinance 0-17-01. Ms. Bosworth stated yes, and there is a new section that rescinds 0-17-01 in the new Ordinance. Mr. Simmons had a question regarding the definition of medical services, whether that is where pharmacies are included. Ms. Bosworth stated no, they would be considered retail. On Page 3, we are adding pharmacies into the Commercial Retail definition. In the Code, there is a definition for medical services, and that definition is similar to your doctors' offices providing that type of service. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 Mr. Roth questioned that, even though the word is not there, it is implied by the change that has been added under Point C, Commercial Retail, and there is nothing in that list that is going to say Pharmacy. Ms. Bosworth stated that that was correct. Mr. Carter stated that just for clarification, what is proposed here does not change what the original Ordinance recommendation was; it is just making it conform to the new State law. Ms. Bosworth explained that that is correct, but you had adopted it before with four conditions: they could not be located 500 feet from another medical marijuana treatment center; you also had said that it could only have the sales of medical marijuana and related products; consumption of the medical marijuana was prohibited on the premises; and you also had adopted a time — 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Those conditions no longer apply. They are now regulated by the state law. Mr. Carter clarified that we still have to conform to the state law, regardless of what our qualifications were. Ms. Bosworth confirmed that after the City Attorney had reviewed this proposed Ordinance, she felt that it would be in compliance with the state bill. Ms. Hall stated that state law has preempted a lot of restrictions that we formerly put into our Land Development Code, so we are limited what we as a municipality can do because the state law has preempted much of the regulation. Mr. Qizilbash asked if there is any size restriction. Ms. Bosworth stated that, based on the state requirements that she saw, there is no size restriction. The City still has some local control, not necessarily the use or location, but if they were to build a new building, we certainly can review it. The Code says that we cannot have it more restrictive than pharmacies. It is not based on size, but we had to treat it no more restrictive than the pharmacies. Ms. Hall stated that she believes that it is less restrictive than on pharmacies because commercial retail under the C512 district is limited to less than 5,000 square feet. Mr. Roth had a question about the limit on the number of locations. Ms. Bosworth stated that as she has read the state bill, they have divided the state up into districts, and based on the number of patients that are going to be registered in PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 their registry, that's how many they are going to allow. That number is going to be changed as every 100,000 enter into that registry. That is regulated by the state. Mr. Roth stated his concern about the state taking that control away from the City. Ms. Bosworth stated that she feels that the companies that have the licenses to run the dispensaries are going to look where the addresses are of the patients in that registry. Ms. Kautenburg stated that she feels the City has to be cognizant of the fact that these patients are extremely ill. This is not for recreational use. Ms. Kautenburg asked if there were any other questions from the Commission. There being none, the meeting was opened up for questions/comments from the public. There being none, Ms. Kautenburg stated that the Commission should recommend to the City Council that the City adopt or not adopt. Ms. Bosworth requested that, as the Commission makes their decision, it be stated in the motion that you have considered consistency with the comprehensive plan, etc. just to cover that you have considered that criteria. Ms. Kautenburg requested that, in making the motion, that language be contained in the motion. Mr. Simmons made a motion to recommend Ordinance 0-18-01 to City Council as presented, after consideration of the criteria. Mr. Carter seconded the motion. Ms. Kautenburg asked if there was any further discussion. ROLL CALL: Mr. Hughan (a) —Yes Mr. Simmons -- Yes Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Carter -- Yes Mr. Roth — Yes Total vote was 7-0. Motion Carried. Ms. Kautenburg stated that the public hearing was closed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 Unfinished Business A. Discussion -- Short-term vacation rental. Ms. Kautenburg stated that the Commission had been provided with a brief and asked for further information. Ms. Frazier stated that in September this Commission had requested that the staff review the short-term rental situation in the City of Sebastian. Prior to that in July of 2017 the City Council had also made that request. Thus, the staff provided this brief that is here this evening and presented it to City Council in November. City Council considered it and asked that we come back to the Commission and get a recommendation from them as to how to move forward. Similar to the marijuana situation, the State has preempted the regulation of short-term vacation rentals in a local government such as the City of Sebastian. Ms. Frazier stated that short-term rentals are defined as property that is rented more than three times a year for less than 30 days at a time and that the state has made it clear that local governments cannot regulate the location or frequency of these vacation rentals, and anywhere that a dwelling is allowed, a short-term rental is also allowed. Prior to 2011 several local governments instituted ordinances stating that short-term vacation rentals will only be allowed in tourist districts or commercially zoned districts wherever there may be hotels, motels, etc. If those local governments had those ordinances in place prior to 2011, they could maintain those ordinances as far as their location and their frequency. However, the City of Sebastian is one of those local governments that did not have that ordinance in place. So the state has preempted any further regulation of the location and the frequency. In 2014 the state did state that local governments can regulate the life safety and building codes of short-term rentals which would include parking, proof of registration, noise and vibration, fire safety, occupancy limits, etc. In our Code we do have noise regulations, parking for commercial, and we have similar codes that can be enforced by the Code Enforcement staff, but that is the extent of those as of now as far as short-term rentals. However, other local governments, such as Indian River County, have gone further, and they have a full application. They request that you become a registered business, that you prove that you are following the State guidelines as far as paying your rental or bed tax, that you are complying with these life safety codes. There is also a registration fee for short- term vacation rentals, and that is something to consider. Ms. Frazier questioned the success of these is. Because there is no requirement that we follow these guidelines, that is the crux of the problem as identified as communities throughout the state. Ms. Hall stated that the preemption authority by the Statute as it currently reads indicates "A local law, ordinance or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of vacation rentals." In researching this, it was PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 discovered what existing laws at the state level are in place. Short-term vacation rentals, residential rentals of less than six months are transient rentals, that anyone who operates such a facility is required by state law to register before the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and so we would argue that you are operating as a business, and you would need to get a business license as well. They are subject to both the state 6% sales and use tax as well as the tourist development tax. One of those is collected by the Department of Revenue, and one of those is collected by the Clerk of the Court of the County. So you would need to register before both of those entities. Ms. Hall reiterated what Ms. Frazier had said, that the crux of what the County has done is they have basically set up a local registration system that in her opinion is basically a checklist of existing laws ensuring compliance with the existing laws, and collecting a fee for the staff time to do that. She stated that she had run a search to see how many locations within a mailing list of Sebastian had registered with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and, if it's a dwelling place, you have to individually register each dwelling place, and it appears to be about 20. There are other laws that apply. There is the state level DBPR registration, you have to register with the Department of Revenue so you can collect sales tax, you have to register with the County Clerk of Court so you can collect tourist development tax, and there are building codes, etc. that you have to comply with. Ms. Krautenburg stated that she has given quite a bit of thought to this, and she is in favor of private property rights and feels that private property rights should be protected, but as with all private property rights, we have our rights as long as we do not harm our neighbors. Her opinion is that the use of any property for short-term rental is fine as long as nothing happens there that would not be permitted if a single-family usage were taking place. She stated she does have concerns about insurance, as there is a big issue with insurance. Insurance companies set different criteria for owner -occupied properties and rental properties, and she would want to be certain that people have the proper insurance. She stated that she does not think there is a mechanism in our city to do that, and perhaps we could have a registry. She is also concerned that the safety conditions of the home be appropriate for use by individuals — for instance: proper doorways, trip hazards, fire alarms that might be inspected annually. Perhaps a registry could be set up through our Inspection Department that indicates the things that cause it to be in compliance, and that regular inspections are required, and proper insurance is required, just as we require occupancy permits with construction. She stated that another thing that we would need to have in our registry is complete registration records for those people who are renting a place, with their names, addresses, phone numbers, how to reach them, etc. She also stated that, in reading the law, all we are allowed to deal with are the life safety issues. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 Mr. Simmons had a question about whether we have ever had any regulation on bed and breakfasts. Ms. Frazier stated that yes, there are land development codes regulating bed and breakfasts. There are conditional uses in approved zoning areas. Mr. Simmons asked what the difference is between short-term rentals and bed and breakfasts. Ms. Frazier stated that what the state law is saying is that a short-term rental can be anywhere where a dwelling is, so it's allowed in single-family zoning, it's allowed in multi -family, it's allowed in the commercial area, wherever a dwelling may be; whereas a bed and breakfast is more of a commercial establishment. Mr. Simmons asked if he could then call his home a bed and breakfast, and Ms. Frazier explained that no, he could not because he is not in that zoning. You can do short-term rental, but what the state is saying is that you need to be registered and pay the applicable taxes. Ms. Hall stated there is a definitional difference, and she would pull it up for everyone. Mr. Alvarez thanked staff and City Council for bring this up again. He voiced that he would like to have some type of regulation to limit how these rentals are allowed. Mr. Roth then stated that he is very concerned about the property rights of an individual with the property that individual owns, that it will affect the property rights of their neighbors. He stated that it appears as though the State has taken away that type of control from us, that we as the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot come up with something to regulate the idea in some way with a permitting process or inspection process to govern them, to give relief to neighbors who are complaining. He is worried about our Code Enforcement and how they are going to handle it. Are they going to take the brunt of the blame when things happen, and the City as a whole, and how do we stop it. Ms. Bosworth stated that it might be beneficial to come up with the different types of short-term vacation rentals such as when a property owner lives in the property but rents out a room on a nightly basis. There are the ones also that are bought for a commercial purpose, and the owner is out of area. Ms. Frazier stated she understood what Ms. Bosworth was saying, but that it would not really make a difference as the way she sees it. She stated that we have what Indian River County has done as far as the registry, and perhaps we can modify that and come PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017. up with a model for consideration. It will be difficult to monitor this 100%. But if there were an instance where a single-family home was blatantly being short-term rented, then someone would have the recourse to contact Code Enforcement, and Code Enforcement could make sure that the owner complies. Mr. Roth stated that that was the type of answer he wants to see, and knowing that there are regulations on the books, it may cause people to look at the process and change their minds before starting a rental. Ms. Frazier agreed, but there are some instances that would not be captured and regulated, such as the example that Ms. Bosworth gave, and she wants the Commission to be aware that we may not be able to monitor 100% of the short-term vacation rentals that go on in the City, but this would give us some type of regulatory control. She stated that she and Ms. Bosworth have revisited the noise ordinances, and she asked Ms. Bosworth if we have a code for parking in residential areas. Ms. Bosworth explained that for the residential parking, when it was previously discussed at City Council, it was decided not to put a limit on the amount of cars, because there were families that had teenagers and had cars, and they came up with a regulation that states that the cars cannot be parked in the front swale, all the cars have to be registered and insured to people who live in the house. So the short-term vacation rentals are not going to be in compliance with that code. If you have five or six cars, none of the cars will be registered to the owner of the house. So that may have to be adjusted. Mr. Qizilbash stated that it is difficult to draw the line, and if staff will come up with a draft, the Commission will review it. Ms. Kautenburg stated that if we had a good registry and we encouraged the people who are doing this, that it really could be a benefit to those individuals to receive our Certificate of Compliance. It could go in their ad that says all safety measures of the City of Sebastian have been met, and this home has been regularly inspected for safety. She described one example of someone using his home as a rental while he is traveling the country. She stated that she believes that for a reasonable fee, we could set up an additional Code Enforcement person to inspect the house and check the records as to who is the registered owner, to make sure that the dwelling is in compliance with the regulations, and that this could be of benefit to all parties, including the neighbors. Ms. Kautenburg also opined that the parking ordinance reads that, in order to park outside the driveway, the driveway must be completely filled with cars. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 Mr. Roth stated that he likes the certification process, and if there is some way that can be worked into it, that would encourage people to participate more in it, and allow them to put it in ads. Mr. Qizilbash stated that he does not think we should be encouraging people to do that. Ms. Kautenburg stated that they are doing it anyway. Mr. Carter stated that, if they aren't part of the registry, that this is what is in place, and they are not conforming to that, and that we will have something on the books that people will have to adhere to. He stated he likes the idea of the registry with the qualifications that were discussed. Mr. Qizilbash stated that we should not put a restriction on insurance, that people might not get insurance. Ms. Kautenburg stated that they can get insurance; it just costs money. Mr. Alvarez stated that they also have to register with the State of Florida, and some of them don't. Ms. Kautenburg stated that most of them don't. Mr. Alvarez talked about a situation where a camera was placed into one of their B & Bs. Ms. Kautenburg stated that she has stayed in homes in other communities and enjoyed it. It is also a nice way to get a feel for a community that you don't get in a hotel. Ms. Bosworth stated that if we have either discussion or draft registry, she would like to bring in our building official, because the houses themselves as single-family dwellings have already received their certificate of occupancy. If we create this registry and they are declaring their house to be a vacation rental, the building official said that there is a gray area in the Building Code if that turns it into a different use, that because it was being used more as a short-term rental, it may require a sprinkler system, and that may be then cost prohibitive to a homeowner, which in turn have them not register because now they have to go through the extra expense. So there is a catch 22 with the registry. But he had some very good information, and she thinks we should have him come in and attend a session. Mr. Alvarez also described that there are a lot of concerns, like the number of people in the dwelling, cooking, etc. Ms. Kautenburg was of the opinion that the people who are going to do this should be encouraged to act inside the law with the safety concerns, and not make it so that a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 11 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 large number will wish to do this in secret rather publicly, and that the insurance matter is really important. Mr. Roth addressed the prohibition of commercial events, such as hiring someone to come and perform at a B & B when there are 20 people there. Ms. Kautenburg stated such as in the back yard. Mr. Alvarez also questioned that if you turn the dwelling into a commercial venue, is it supposed to be commercial or residential? Are you using this as a commercial venue in a residential area? Ms. Kautenburg then stated that the State says we cannot. The only thing we can regulate is life safety issues. Ms. Hall stated that the local law cannot prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of vacation rentals. There have been some Attorney General opinions that have gone further that have indicated you cannot regulate the spacing or limit the number in a neighborhood, etc., and it is implied that it is in zoned residential neighborhoods. So she expressed the opinion that she doesn't feel that we can't do anything, such as require minimum stay, etc., and she doesn't feel that we can say that they can't be in a residential zoning district. Ms. Hall addressed Mr. Simmons' question. The definition of a vacation rental is any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative, or individually or collectively owned single-family or two-family, three-family, or four -family house or dwelling unit that is also a transient public lodging establishment but that is not a time-share project. The definition of a bed -and -breakfast inn is a family home structure with no more than 15 sleeping rooms which has been modified to serve as a transient public lodging establishment which provides the accommodation and meal services generally offered at a bed and breakfast, and which is recognized as a bed and breakfast in the community or by the hospitality industry. Ms. Hall also discussed the land development codes regarding parking in the shoulder and swales — that Ms. Bosworth is correct: you have to fill up your driveway before it's allowable. There is an exception: "A vehicle may park on a shoulder if one of the following conditions exists: a motor vehicle has been removed from the paved street due to mechanical failure or is temporarily parked due to emergency situations such as an accident." Another exception reads: "The motor vehicle is titled to the owner or resident of the residential lot adjacent to the right-of-way or an invited guest thereof, and all available parking space within the driveway of said lot is occupied by other motor vehicles." Generally speaking, when you have a renter, that is typically considered an invitee or a licensee. If parking is a concern, we may want to look at the wording a little more closely. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 12 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 Ms. Kautenburg then asked for other comments. Mr. Roth then suggested having the staff prepare something for the Commission to review based on this discussion and the interpretation of that. Ms. Frazier stated that staff can address their concerns, and they would probably be using the Indian River County application as the boilerplate. She also expects this issue to be coming up in the legislation this spring. Ms. Kautenburg stated that she has not read the Indian River County document, and she would like a copy of that. She states that she would also like to have addressed, when people come from outside the community and may be renting, they need to know about what we require of a residence. She also thinks that they should know that we have septic systems, and there should be a list of emergency numbers. This information should be posted. If you are going to have guests staying in your house, they need to have this information. She cited an experience that she had regarding this subject. Ms.Frazier stated that she had read in one of the articles that it be a requirement to have a local contact, whether it's a property manager or the owner who lives somewhere else. Ms. Bosworth stated that she will mail the Indian River County ordinance to the Commission for their perusal. Ms. Frazier stated that they will attempt to get the Commission the information by the last meeting in January, but it may be the first meeting in February. Ms. Hall asked that the Commission clarify what they were interested to know regarding insurance. Ms. Kautenburg stated that it would be her concern that these residences are properly insured, that when you rent a house out, you carry a different kind of insurance than when you are the owner/occupant. Ms. Hall stated that you don't actually have to have insurance by law on real property. Ms. Kautenburg stated that this is one of the items that is a safety concern and that we could require that insurance be carried to cover the liability of short-term rental occupants. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 13 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 Ms. Hall asked if there is a particular liability that is of concern. Ms. Kautenburg listed tripping and falling, scalding yourself in the shower, etc. that could happen to an individual. Not to be too constrictive, but to be assured that the people who stay in these locations are staying in a place that is properly insured. Mr. Qizilbash was of the opinion that noise and traffic are the most important concerns for the neighbors. Mr. Roth cited information on the second page of the short-term vacation rental brief — "Life safety and building codes may include..." Those are some of the things we can look at. He also questioned how the DBPR is involved in this. For certification were they being asked to register with the DBPR. Ms. Hall answered that this is current state law. The statute requires that anyone offering a short-term transient rental, which includes single-family dwellings, short-term vacation rentals, must register with the DBPR. She stated that you can actually search to see if someone is on that list, and you can report unlicensed professionals, etc. Mr. Roth asked if that was the Department of Business and Professional Regulations. Ms. Hall stated that she believes in 2011 that, for dwelling transient rentals as well as for condominium rentals, the owner has to register with DBPR. Ms. Kautenburg then asked for public input. Hearing none, she closed the public input and continued with the agenda. 1�►r'riri►rriial 8. Commissioners Matters Mr. Qizilbash stated that at the Chessers Gap where the new Dollar Store is going they have a temporary construction sign almost 10 feet tall, and he wished to know what the requirement is for that. Ms. Bosworth stated that she would double-check on that. She stated that they must have had a permit issued, which they have had the tank removal in order to put that up, but she will check on the size limit. Mr. Hughan asked what was taking so long to finish County Road 512. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 14 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 Mr. Carter stated that from the information he has, it was supposed to be finished the middle of December, but because of the rain, etc., it was pushed back to the middle of January Mr. Carter made a comment about the young people coming to observe the meeting, and he thanked them all for coming. Mr. Roth seconded that comment. Mr. Roth stated that he wanted to discuss the pedestrian sidewalk situation on Barber Street at the railroad crossing. There is no gate, there is no sidewalk, and people are forced to walk on the street all times of the day and in darkness, and with the huge residential area and the many commercial business in that area, it is a problem. He wanted to revisit this subject and see if something can be done. He stated that if need be he would send a formal request to the City Manager. Ms. Kautenberg stated that she seems to recall an issue with the railroad owning land, and we cannot put a sidewalk on their land without their permission. Mr. Roth stated he understands that, but that we need to work with them, and so far nothing has been done. Ms. Bosworth stated that there was going to be an off -site improvement for a project that was to be done in that area, and when that project pulled out, there has not been any activity on it. Ms. Bosworth added that they will pull the files and see what they can find. Mr. Roth described some of the history between All Aboard Florida and the communities in Indian River and Martin Counties, and that the railroad did not seem to want to communicate with these communities. Ms. Kautenburg asked if Mr. Alvarez had anything. He declined. Ms. Kautenburg asked if Mr. Simmons had anything. He declined. 9. City Attornev Matters -- None. 10. Staff Matters -- None. 11. Items for Next Agenda -- None. 12. Adiourn PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 15 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2017 Chairwoman Kautenburg called for any further business. Hearing none, she adjourned the meeting at 7:12 p.m. /jg