Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01051995 PZ%IMIIN City of Sebastian 1225 MAIN STREET o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570 AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 1995 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. of December 1, 1994 Public Hearing - Model Home Permit - Pace 2000, Inc. Public Hearing - Public Hearing - Public Hearing - 1691 Barber Street Model Home Permit Renewal - Pace 2000, Inc. Site Plan Review - St. Sebastian Catholic Church Site Plan Review - Silver Beach Seafood CHAIRMAN MATTERS: MEMBERS MATTERS: ATTORNEY MATTERS: BUILDING OFFICIAL ADJOURNMENT. MATTERS: Becker Siegel ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, 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 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 F.S) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT (407)-589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. ROLL CALL: ALSO PRESENT: PRESENT: Mr. Munsart Mr. Shroyer Chmn. Thompson Mr. Goldstein Mr. Falke Mr. Barnes Mr. Fischer Mrs. Brantmeyer Mr. Schulke Dorri Bosworth, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Falke and Mrs. Brantmeyer asked to be excused for the January 19th meeting. APPROVAL OF MXNUT~.: Mr. Barnes makes a motion to approve the minutes of December 1, 1994 as written. Mr. Munsart seconded the motion. Roll call was taken, 7-0 motion passed. OLD BUSXNE~: None NEW BUSXNESS: PUBLXC HEARXNG - MODEL HOME PERMXT - PACE 2000, INC. - 1691 BARBER STREET PUBLIC HEARXNG - MODEL HOME PERMXT RENEWAL- PACE 2000, XNC. - 1685 BARBER STREET The applicant, or a representative from Pace 2000, Inc. is not present. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 5. 1995 Mr. Barnes made a motion that the two hearings be deferred to the next meeting. Mr. Munsart seconded the motion. Roll call was taken, 7-0 motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - DAVID C. BECKER - S$8 JA~ $~REET J~.UMiNUM cONTRACTOR ' The.a.ppliDant, Davad C. Backer, was sworn in according to quasi- judicial procedures. The public hearing was opened at 7:09 P.M. Chmn. Thompson reads the staff's recommendation letter to the audience citing Mr. Backer's indications that his tools are kept in a workbox left on his pick-up .truck. Ail work materials are brought ~irectly from the supplaer to the job site, and are not received Or brought to his house. Mr. Becker states that is true. Staff then has no objection to the license. There were 17 notices sent out. I objection letter was received back, 0 nan-objection letters. Mr. Becket explains he receives calls for ~ork at home, calls in the supply order which is delavere9 to t~e ]ob location. There are n? truck~or vehicles parked at has resadence eve~. If he as..to pack up the supplies himself they are brought raght to the ]ob site. Mr. Walter Lund of 561 Jay Street states he lives across the street from the applicant. He has no complaints against Mr. Backer. The publi]c hearing is closed at 7:14 P.M. Mr. F~lke asks the applicant what he does with any left over mater~al;I scraps and junk? Mr. Becket.state? he usually brings'it to a scrap dealer. He does not have a.3unk.pale at home. What few pieces are brought home are used agaan quackly to where they are nOt noticeable. There is a privacy fence around the back yard. Mr. Barn~s~ asks if there are any ot~er employees? Mr. Becker states h~uses an extra man on large ]obs. Mr. Gold~tean~- questions the signature o~ Jean .Becket on the application and asks who She was and why dad she s~gn in place of the applicant? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~EGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 1995 Mr. Becker states Jean is his Wife and he was at work when she dropped off the application. Mr. Goldstein states Mr. Becket needs to sign the application and he will make the approval conditional on him doing so. He then asks if the applicant holds a competency card? Mr. Becker states yes. Mr. Goldstein reminds the applicant that the home occupational requirements do not allow any employees, even on larger jobs. The commission cannot waive that requirement, and Mr. Becker would be in violation if he continued to do so. Mr. Munsart asks the applicant if he pays his help for the larger jobs gross wages or wages with the required deductions? Mr. Becker states he would pay a contracted labor rate, as like a subcontractor situation. It's very seldom he uses the extra help. Mr. Munsart asks, for the record, if this is basically an application for "address of record" for the telephone. Mr. Becker states yes. Mr. Falke made a motion to approve the home occupational '~license for David C. Becker at 558 Jay Street to operate an a%uminum contracting business subject to the applicant coming in to sign the' application. Mr. Goldstein seconded the motion. Roll call was taken, 7-0 application was approved. PUBLIC HEARING - HOME OCCUPATIONAl, LICENSE - MICHAEL SIF~IL - 1639 FATIMA COURT - PHOTO(~I~APHY The public hearing was opened at 7:20 P.M. The applicant, Michael Siegel, is present and was sworn in according to quasi-judicial procedures. Cb_mn. Thompson reads the staff's recommendation letter citing that the applicant sends his film to an outside developing company and therefore no chemicals are kept at the applicant's residence. The applicant has indicated no clients come to his home. Mr. Siegel states that is true. Staff then has no objection to the license. There were 17 notices sent out, no comment letters were received back. Mr. Siegel states he is a professional photographer and has been taking school pictures for 22 years. Basically, he uses his telephone at home to make appointments, and the photography is done on location at nursery schools, public schoolS, and Little Leagues. Mr. Bower Siegel st Mr. Bowe! trailer i Chmn. Tho trailer b PLANNING ~ND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE FOUR REGULAR M~ETING JANUARY 5. 1995 Mr. Jim B~wers ~f 1611 Coral Reef Street has some questions for the Board an~ applicant. He asks the Board about the.requirementiof the homet occupational application regarding signs and what situati~n~oes the Florida Statutes allow a sign, as stated in that subsection? Chmn. Th pson states Real Estate personnel are required t° have a sign at ~heir residence and that is the only allowable situation where a home business can have one. s asks Mr. Siegel if he is going to have a sign and Mr. ares only his name on his mailbox. asks if the home occupational ordinance allows for a the driveway with any advertising on it. mpson informs Mr. Bowers that the ordinance requires the ~ screened with a6 ft. landscape or commercial type fence behind the front house line, or stored in the garage and not visible tO the public. ~ Mr. Bowels asks Mr. Siegel if he is going to have any other equipmen~in his house other than his camera? Mr. Siegel states , There is ~o other public input. The publiic hearing was closed at 7:27 P.M. Mr. Barnes questions the statement on the application where the applicant indicated he will be using'440 sq. ft. of home area for the business. Mr. Barnes states that if only the phone is being used, it ~ust be in error, i Mr. Sieg~ telephone Mr. Barne no. Mr. Barne for Mich~ motion. Roll call SITE PLA~ site plan Mosby, r~ ~1 states that is an error- he will only be using the for his business. asks if there is any other employees? Mr. Siegel states made a motion to approve the home occupational license .el Siegel at 1639 Fatima CoUrt. Mr. Falke seconded the is taken, 7-0 moti°n carried. REVIEW - ST. SEBASTIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH reviews are a quasi-judicial matter and as such Rand~ L. presentative for the applicant, is sworn in. REGULAR MEETI~ OF JANUARY 5, 1995 Mr. Mosby reviews that it is a minor modification of the original site plan previously approved that is beingreviewed at tonight's meeting. It was a condition of the first approval because there was a question with the seats desi.gnated in the original drawing and what the Church was actually going to be able ~to accommodate. Throughout the building process, the Church reviewed the actual amount of pews, and what manufacturer they could afford. Until a definite number was decided, parking could not be planned. Located in the northwest corner of the property was an area on the original site plan that was designated for additional and overflow parking. There was a discrepancy between what staff had Calculated for parking spaces and what the Church was originally designed for with the site plan. Now that the church is fully under construction and the Diocese and Church have worked out the furnishings for the church, the accurate amount of seating capacity have been calculated. The final parking site plan and finished drawings are being reviewed tonight. The final site plans also reflect the modifications to the landscaping. .The plans have also been reviewed by the city engineer and consultant for the revised drawing design relative to accommodate those seatings and the parking places. Staff has already shown no objections. Mr. Barnes notes a discrepancy between the number of seats staff indicates (1259) and what the plans indicate (1119). Mr. Falke explains there are two seating capacities for official purposes. One is for actual fixed seats and the other includes moveable chairs, used for parking purposes. For fire department regulations for maximum capacitY, you count 7 sq. ft. per person. The 7 sq. ft. per person adds up to the 1259 figure, the actual number of pews and movable chairs add up to 1119. Mr. Falke questions the revised landscaping plans in the area of the northwest parking area. He states landscaping has already been put in that doesn't coincide with what is indicated on the plan. What is on the site plan is the minimum requirement to meet the city code. The actual landscaping is much, much more. Mr. Mosby indicates the Father of the Church has brought that to his attention and he has brought that to staff's attention, also. The church will get credit for the landscaping in place. Mr. Goldstein asks Mr. Mosby if he is authorized to represent the applicant in this matter? Mr. Mosby states yes, he has been for 4 years. Mr. Goldstein asks Mr. Mosby toidentify what figure 1 points to on the plans that discusses wheel stops on the code bar explanations. Mr. Mosby states the arc designates existing parking with wheel stops in place. PLANNING A~,~ ZONING COMMISSION ~"'~"'~'~ ..... PAGE SIX ~EGULAR ]IEETING OF J~/~UARY 5, 1995 Mr. ~oldStein asks Mr. Mosby how he calculated the required amount of parking spaces needed. He states th~s should be # of seats times 3,1and wants jo know what figures Mr. Mosby used. Mr. MOsby states t~e calculations are on the slte plans. Chmn. Th¢~mpson states the staff review number of 1259 came from a drawing ~taff had at that time and mentions architectural changes. Chmn. Thompson asks Mr. Mosby if there are any architectural changes? Mr. Mosby state the only changes were with the fixtures inside the church i.e. 'the placement of the pews now that the number and size were determined. There is no change in the structur~. Chmn. ThOmpson.would lik~ the record to show that the two plans in the official f~le are s~gned, sealed, and da~ed. Also, a letter was received fro~ Masteller & Moler which indicates t~ey reviewed these plans, basically for drainage, and they find no discrepancies with thetcity code. Mr. Shroyer questions if the recent flooding of Gibson Street from heavy raSns, rumored having come from Walmart's overfl~w drainage going underneath the railroad tracks, would occur again from any 6verflow drainage from the church's parking plan? Mr. Mosb~ states the drainage from the church flows to the north. The drainage from Walmart, due to change in an outfall under the FEC, does go to the south and is being worked on. .The church does have itsstormwater management in place and didn't ~mpact the area. Mr. Mosby did go out and check the area personally. Mr. Fal~e states he was assured by Mr. Cooper that before an occupancy permit, is issued for th%s building, Mr. Cooper will be physically counting seats and parking spaces to be sure they agree with what's on the plans. Mr. Falk~ St. Seb~ drawing 12-5-94. made a motion to approve the site plan modification for stian Catholic Church as shown on Mosby & Associate's ~heet C-3, project #92-471, revision #6, #7, and #8, dated Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. Chmn. Th, approval revision Roll calI is taken on the amendment, 7-0 motion carried. ! Roll call is then taken on the main motion, 7-0 approval granted. )mpson made a motion to amend the first motion by inclu4ing of drawing C-5 of the same project number with the latest dated 12-19-94. Mr. Fischer also seconded the amendment. is PLANNING AND.....~ONIN~ COMMISSLON R~GULAR ME~.T. ING OF ANUAR~ 199~~''~ SITE PLAN REVIEW - SILVER BEACH SEAFOOD Silver Beach Seafood is to be located in the Indian River Industrial Park which is off of Gibson Street in the north area of Sebastian. Mr. Randy Mosby, re~resenting the applicant, is sworn in according to the quasi-judicial prOcedures. Mr. Mosby states Silver Beach Seafood is a warehouse distributing facility. He states his displeasure with the amount of time staff has had before getting this to the Board. It was submitted to the City in March of 1994. The project had St. Johns Water Management's approval 5 months ago, and was reviewed twice by the past city engineer. He states they are currently working with the Health Department, and because it is an elevated structure .where it is strictly for truck service and processing as a wholesale business, they are working with the staff on adding the required handicapped ramp going up the 4 feet. Ail state regulations have been passed except for getting the final septic tank permit, applied for by the building contractor. There are two lots involved separated by another lot, and employee parking is offsite. Staff requested a signed & sealed survey of Lot 8, which was submitted earlier this week. Chmn. Thompson asks if the roadway servicing this site is private. Mr. Mosby states yes. Cb_mn. Thompson states it shows on the site plan a 4 ft dock height. He asks if the building is going to be built at 4 feet above the existing grade? Mr. Mosby states, looking at the floor plan, which is elevation 23, the ramp goes up to elevation 27. The whole building is to be raised 4 feet.. Chmn. Thompson asks what will the building be constructed of? Mr. Mosby states masonry block and wood trusses, possibly steel trusses. He questions that a site plan review must state what type of building materials are going to be used. Chmn. Thompson states the ordinance does require the review board should know what the exterior will look like, specifically if it would be of metal, concrete, or wooded materials. Mr. Goldstein questions if the trucks that will be docked in the bay of the loading area on the east side of the building interfere with ingress and egress from the two parking spaces shown, it appears as if it may. Mr. Mosby states on a temporary basis it would. Mr. Goldstein asks if it would be impractical to make them wider so it doesn't block it. He is not sure if Section 20A-8.5 requirements need to be waived. Mr. Mosby states this not a retail establishment. The parking was set up for the employees. The owner haS an employee who is ~ING AND ZONING CO~ISSION REGULAR MEETIN~ OF JANUARY 5, 199'5 handicapped, so the handicapped parking was put in for her. There are no off-street customers. Mr. Golds~ein feels a waiver would be justified, but the technical requirements would not be met as shown on the site plan. Mr. Mosby is not requesting a waiver. The plans have gone through many con~ultant's reviews and this is the first time that requiremeiLt has come up. If a waiver is needed, OK. Mr. Goldstein asks if there are any provisions for exterior lighting, as expressed as a concern by the police chief? Mr. MOSby states no. Mr. Goldstein asks if there is a unity of title for the two lots? Mr. Mosby states the properties aren't continuous, they are owned under two deeds. Mr. Goldstein asks if there is an easement ,)n record between the two lots? Mr. Mosby states 'he doesn't kr~ow. Mr. Barne~: notes there is a "filet" section noted on the plan but sees ~hat the dumpster area is on the othe~ lot. He questions Why the distance? Mr. Mosby states after meeting all the requirements there was no room to put it on the same lot. Mr. Falke brings up the exterior ligh}ing situation again. Mr. Mosby states he does not know if there is existing stree{ lightslin the area, t and feels the owne~ would have no objection to the conditionDf adequate outside lighting to be added to the building. Mr. F~lke_lquestlons ~he chain link fence shown around Lot 7 a~d asks if that is existing? Mr. MOsby states yes. The lot is usSd for .storage. The fence on Lot 8 is also existing. Mr. ~Falke states a narrow landscape strip is required on the west side of Let 6, even though it abuts an industrial lot. He states page 887 (of the Land Development Code) shows the requirement of 5 feet that can be waived to 2 feet between industrial lots. Mr. Mosby states the building is 20 feet high that faces to the east. A hedge b~hind the building is probably not even going to grow. Mr. Falk~ reviews the Technical Review Committee,s (TRC) recommended conditions for approval. There is a.question on the Flood Zon~ designation. Mr. Mosby states staff is scaling off a FEMAmap. Mr. Mosby has two signed and sealed surveys that say it is in Flood Zone X. Staff, which has no registered professional, insists it is in Flood Zone A. Mr. Shroy~r reviews the landscape s~rip requirement. He quotes ~==ween t~e right-of-way and the off-street par~ing of areas other veh].cle use area shall be landscaped with grass or Other ground covsr." It shows a strip is not needed behind the building. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR_MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 1995 pAG~ NINE Chmn. Thompson questions some site plan data on the plans concerning pavement area. Mr. Mosby states the property lines go out to the middle of the street, therefore the existing roads are part of the ownership. Chmn. Thompson asks if this property is in a scrub, jay area? Mr. Mosby states no. Mr. Fischer questions which Section Mr. Goldstein was referring to that would require a waiver. Mr. Goldstein states Section 20A-8.5 on page 539. Mr. Mosby asks why the waiver concerns the ramp? Mr. Goldstein states the requirement to waive should be the 12-foot wide loading zone that does not infringe upon the 22-ft. long back- out area from a parking stall at a right angle to the loading bay. To comply with the requirement, the plans should have a 34 ft. wide driveway. The plan is deficient by 4 feet. Mr. Mosby requests the waiver. Mr. Fischer made a motion to approve the site plan for Silver Beach Seafood, Job #94-209, with the latest revision #3, dated 9-14-94 of Mosby & Associates drawings, sheet.1 of 1, with the granting of a waiver of Section 20A-8.5 regarding the loading zone, with a condition of additional exterior lighting. Mr. Shroyer seconded the motion. Chmn. Thompson makes a motion to amend the main motion by including all the TRC recommended conditions. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion for discussion. After discussion, the amendmentis to include the TRC recommended conditions, from their memo dated 12-29-94, except for #'s 2,5, and 7. Roll call on the amendment to the main motion is taken~ 6-1 motion carried, with Mr. Fischer voting nay. Roll call on the main motion was taken, 7-0 approval is granted. CHAXRMAN MATTERS: Chmn. Thompson requests that election of Chairman and ViCe Chairman be put on the agenda for the next meeting (January 19th). MEMBERS MATTERS~ Mr. Goldstein feels that applicants should be given a copy of staff's written comments and reviews for their consideration so they may answer any questions directed from those comments. He makes a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission direct staff to make the written comments it intends to present to the P & Z Commission available to applicants as soon as practical prior to the meeting and notify applicants of the availability thereof. . . . ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 5. 1995 Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. voice vote was taken, all in favor. Motion passed. ATTORNEY MATTERS: None BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS: None The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. PAGE TEN