Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02161989 PZZL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 1989 CHAIRMAN KRULIKOWSKI CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 7:04 P.M. PRESENT; MRS TAYLOR, MRS KILKELLY, MR . GILCHER, MRS . POOLE MR. KRULIKOWSKI ABSENT ; MR. FULLERTON , EXCUSED, ME = 14AHONEY EXCUSED MR. WADSWORTH, UNEXCUSED ALSO PRESENT; BRUCE COOPER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS PAUL KRUZCAMP, CITY ATTORNEY, HORRY T. JOHNS, CITY ENGINEER, ROB MCCLARY, CITY MANAGER LINDA KINCHEN, SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENTS; NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES; JANUARY 19, 1989 MR. GILCHER STATED HE WANTED THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS SHOWN FOR ALL HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES - SO THE MINUTES ARE AMENDED TO INCLUDE FRAMING CONTRACTOR AFTER REX WOOD'S HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED WAS MADE BY MRS. KILKELLY SECOND BY MR. GILCHER, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ------------------------------------------------------------ OLD BUSINESS; NONE NEW BUSINESS; HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - JOHN KRANENBERG - PRESSURE CLEANING PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:18 P.M. NO COMMENTS CLOSED 7:18 P. M. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION REGARDING THE LARGE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS FROM THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS REGARDING STORAGE AND LARGE VEHICLES - A MOTION TO DENY THE LICENSE FOR MR. KRANENBERG WAS MADE BY MR. GILCHER SECOND BY MRS. TAYLOR UNDER DISCUSSION THE ATTORNEY ADVISES THE COMMISSION THAT IF MR. KRANENBERG'S APPLICATION REQUESTS MEETS ALL THE CITY REQUIREMENTS, LEGALLY THEY CANNOT TURN THE REQUEST DOWN. ROLL CALL - MR. GILCHER - YES, MRS. TAYLOR -- YES MRS. POOLE - NO, MRS. KILKELLY - NO MR. KRULIKOWSKI - NO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 1989 PAGE TWO THE MOTION TO DENY THE LICENSE IS DEFEATED AND THE CHAIRMAN ASKS FOR ANOTHER MOTION ON THE FLOOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FOR MR. KRANENBERG AT 366 BREAKWATER TERRACE WAS MADE BY MRS. POOLE, SECOND BY MRS. KILKELLY FOR DISCUSSION - UNDER DISCUSSION MRS. KILKELLY REQUESTS THAT A LETTER BE MAILED TO EACH OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO OBJECTED ADVISING THEM WHY THE LICENSE HAD TO BE GRANTED. ROLL CALL - MR. G I LCHER - NO, MRS. TAYLOR - YES, MRS. POOLE - YES, MRS. KILKELLY - YES, MR. KRUL I KOWSK I - YES CHAIRMAN WELCOMES THE CITY MANAGER, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER IN ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING BRUCE COOPER GIVES A BRIEF DISCUSSION RE{BARD I NG THE PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL OF THE PLAN AND A TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE LES SOLIN GOES INTO THE PLAN- WHAT IT DOES, WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT IS SUPPOSE TO ACCOMPLISH FOR THE CITY. 5 MINUTE RECESS TAKEN AT 8:35 P.M. CALLED BACK TO ORDER AT 8:50 P.M. CHAIRMAN INTRODUCES THE NEW CITY ENGINEER AND ALSO STATES THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAD SOME COMMENTS TO MAKE SO HE COULD LEAVE BEFORE MR. SOLIN CONTINUES. THE ATTORNEY GIVES THE MEMBERS GUIDELINES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE HELD. 1. USE A SIGN IN SHEET 2. OF THE THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS SET ASIDE ONE JUST FOR LAND USE 3. KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL ALL PUBLIC INPUT IS RECEIVED 4. ADVERTISE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF DISCUSSION FOR EACH MEETING 5. AT THE END OF THE HEARINGS HOLD A JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL AND EXPLAIN YOUR CHANGES. THE LAND USE PLAN WILL SUPERSEDE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UNTIL CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE AT THIS POINT ATTORNEY KRUZCAMP GIVES AN OPINION ON THE NOISE FACTOR AS RELATES TO COLLIER PLACE PER MR. GILCHER'S REQUEST A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 WAS MADE BY MR. GILCHER SECOND BY MRS. KILKELLY PASSED UNANIMOUSLY I bkl PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 1989 PAGE THREE MR. SOLIN RESUMES HIS COMMENTS NOW ON THE SECOND BOOK REGARDING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES MR. MCCLARY VOICES AN OPINION ON THE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE WATERFRONT AND STATES HE IS IN FAVOR OF IT. MEMBERS MATTERS; A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. GILCHER THAT THE SECRETARY PROVIDE A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PAUL KRUZCAMP'S WORDS REGARDING THE AIRPORT NOISE MATTER MRS. KILKELLY MADE A SECOND FOR DISCUSSION MRS. KILKELLY STATED SHE FELT MR. METCALF'S COMMENTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS WELL MR. MCCLARY STATES THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT THE ATTORNEY TO PUT HIS COMMENTS IN THE FORM OF A WRITTEN REQUEST IN ORDER TO AVOID THE SECRETARY HAVING TO SPEND TIME ON A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT- HE STATED IF HE COULD NOT GET THE OPINION HE WOULD INSTRUCT THE SECRETARY TO DO THE VERBATIM MR. GILCHER WITHDREW HIS MOTION BASED ON THESE COMMENTS. CHAIRMANS MATTERS; PLANNING AND ZONING MEMBERS HAVE BEEN INVITED TO ATTEND THE WORKSHOP ON MARCH IST AS MEMBERS OF THE DCA WILL BE THERE MEMBERS MATTERS; MR. GILCHER ASKS THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING THE PRE -APP HE ATTENDED - STAN GIVES A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT NO FURTHER BUSINESS MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:45 P.M. /40 1 M E M 0 TO: City of Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ed Gilcher 64 DATE: March 15, 1989 SUBJECT: Extracts from tape of meeting, February 16, 1989 I made a personal tape of that section of the subject meeting where Attorney Kruzekamp responded to my Dec. 11, 1988 memo voicing concerns about placing new residential development proximate to the Airport. The following is my personal extract of what I consider to be the pertinent items of discussion and opinion. This is not a verbatim transcript. If the Commission so agrees, I would request that this memo be added to -the minutes of the Commission's minutes of that February 16, 1989 meeting to make them more substantive. Mr. Kruzekamp - Answer to airport noise lies in the pre-emption doctrine. Higher authority can pre-empt our City regulations. Unnecessary, excessive or offensive noise - subject to interpretation by a court. City can puts limits on airport, but "1 can run into Interstate Commerce regulations. No study for airport noise levels as basis for added sections of the Land Development Code. Restrictions on residential building on property bordering the airport - if requirements on builder are unreasonable - get into the "taking" area. Would have to compensate builder for his land. To protect the purchasing public: (1) "Buyer Beware" - still a good law. "Your logic is in reverse." (ie. Gilcher's logic). The code says you must address the noise source, not land adjacent to the noise source. Federal regulation will supercede whatever we put in our Code. City has no responsibility if someone builds next to the airport. Buyer beware - buyer responsibility. file \wp50\city\p&z.1 0 f� VERBATIM ADDENDUM TO LAST PARAGRAPH OF MR. GILCHER'S 3-15-89 MEMO REFERENCE ADDITION TO FEBRUARY 16, 1989 REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES. (1) BUYER BEWARE - CAVEAT EMPTOR IS A LONG STANDING FACET OF THE LAW, STILL A GOOD LAW, YOU MAY WANT TO AMEND YOUR ZONING • CODE THAT YOU HAVE NO NOISE THAT GREAT, YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL INSULATION IN THE HOUSE, BUT YOU CAN'T STOP THE MAN FROM USING HIS PROPERTY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION, PERHAPS ITS NOT FAIR TO THE REST OF THE BOARD SINCE THEY HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO STUDY MY PAPER I �GAVE YOU. DID YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND MY POSITION? I READ YOUR DOCUMENT " WHY" . r. I'M JUST ASKING DID YOU SIT DOWN AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE POSITION I WAS TRYING TO PRESENT. I THINK THE POSITION YOU WERE TRYING TO PRESENT IS THAT IF F,)4' YOU HAVE A PIECE OF UNDEVELOPED LAND AND ITS ADJACENT TO THE AIRPORT. NO . NO. GO AHEAD THE POSITION WAS THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ADDRESSES NOISE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THE AIRPORT IS A NOISE SOURCE. Co. ITS A FIXED NOISE SOURCE AND IT CAN BE DEFINED BY STUDIES IF Z'.THAT NOISE IS GREATER THAN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE NOW ALLOWS THEN I WOULD MAINTAIN YOU CANNOT PUT A BUILDING THERE. IF IT WERE AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT, A CEMENT PLANT WE WANTED TO PUT THERE, THERE WOULD BE NO ARGUMENT AT ALL, NO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR SAYING, BUT YOUR LOGIC IS IN REVERSE. OK, I JUST WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND MY POSITION. YOUR LOGIC IS IN REVERSE, YOUR SAYING WE HAVE A NOISE SOURCE ' AND THEN NEXT TO IT YOU HAVE UNDEVELOPED LAND AND WHAT YOUR SAYING IS YOU WANT TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE UNDEVELOPED LAND BECAUSE OF THE NOISE SOURCE BUT YOUR CODE LOOKS AT THE OTHER WAY. THE CODE SAYS IF YOU HAVE A NOISE SOURCE MAKE YOUR NOISE SOURCE REDUCE THE LEVEL OF NOISE TO WHAT IS PERMITTED IN THE CODE. I WAS NOT TAKING THAT SIDE OF THE ISSUE. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT YOUR LOGIC IS REVERESED WITH THE LOGIC THE WAY YOU PPRESENT IT IF YOU MAINTAIN THE NOISE SOURCE AND YOU WANT TO LIMIT THE USE OF THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY AND WHAT IT IS USED FOR- OKAY YOUR CODE DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT AND IN FACT YOU WOULD HAVE TO COMPENSATE THE LAND OWNER IF YOU DID IT. THAT DOESN'T CAUSE ME ANY GREAT TRAUMA'S TO DO THAT. IT MAY BE SOME VERY USEFUL LAND THAT COULD BE PUT INTO COMMERCIAL „ rr DEVELOPMENT. WHAT I'M SAYING THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE �•l7' MAN FOR THE USE OF THE LAND. I SAID THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME RIGHT AT THE MOMENT WHILE WERE ADDRESSING THE PRINCIPAL . THAT SIR IS WHAT I CALL A "THOUGHT STOPPER" THAT DOESN'T STOP MY THINKING. BUT YOUR CODE DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT YOUR CODE ALLOWS YOU TO ADDRESS THE NOISE SOURCE NOT LAND THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE NOISE SOURCE AND IF YOUR CODE SAYS THAT FROM THIS NOISE SOURCE, THE NOISE SHOULD NOT EXCEED 70 DECIBELS YOU CAN ENFORCE THAT UNLESS YOU RUN INTO A PRE- EMPTION PROBLEM. WHEN YOU HAVE AN AIRPORT THATS PART OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION SYSTEM YOU'VE GOT A PRE-EMPTION PROBLEM. EVEN THOUGH YOU CHOOSE AS THIS CODE DOES, THIS CODE DOES NOT • SPECIFICALLY REFER TO AN AIRPORT IT REFERS TO AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. " THAT'S RIGHT" IT DOES NOT REFER TO AN AIRPORT IT REFERS TO AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. YOU'VE GOT A 70 DECIBEL LEVEL MAXIMUM NOISE " 1 THINK IT'S 5 0" ITS 70 BETWEEN 7 A. M AND 7 P.M. AND AT NIGHT ITS I BEG TO DIFFER WITH THAT NUMBER THE WAY I READ THE CODE ITS 70 DECIBELS IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ITS 70 ARE YOU SURE ITS NOT A TRANSIENT ONE TIME THING. I'M JUST READING FROM THE TABLE THAT YOU CITED TO ME. THE POINT BEING THAT THE NUMBER 70 IS HERE NO MATTER WHAT NUMBER IS HERE WHEN YOU APPLY IT TO A FUNCTIONAL PART'OF A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM YOUR NUMBER IS MEANINGLESS IF ITS IN CONFLICT WITH A FEDERAL REGULATION BECCAUSE FEDERAL REGULATION WILL SUPERCEDE WHATEVER YOU PUT IN YOUR CODE. THEN WE HAVE A CIRCUMSTANCE HERE WHICH HAS DEVELOPED OVER THE PAST. WE HAVE AN AIRPORT WHICH HAS BEEN HERE FOR 40 YEARS AND WE HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. ONE BORDER OF WHICH IS 800 FEET FROM THE MAIN RUNWAY AND YOUR SAYING THAT BECAUSE THESE TWO THINGS EXIST WE NOW HAVE THAT (�•vv THERE IS NOTHING OTHER THAN WARNING THE PROTECTIVE PURCHASER HEY THERE'S AN AIRPORT THERE, WE CAN PUT ADS IN THE PAPER AND WE CAN MAYBE PUT A PROVISION IN THE DEED THAT HE RECOGNIZES THIS BEFORE HE BUYS IT. BUT IF THE GUY IS KNUCKLEHEADED ENOUGH TO GO AND BUY A HOME AND BUILD IT RIGHT NEXT -TO THE RUNWAY THAT THE CITY HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY AND FURTHERMORE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. YOU HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY - CAVEAT EMPTOR BUYER BEWARE HE IS COMING TO THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM. THANK YOU THAT TAKES MY WHITE HAT OFF. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 16TH, 1989 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS APPROVE MINUTES; JANUARY 19, 1989 OLD BUSINESS; NONE NEW BUSINESS; HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE -JOHN KRANENBERG LES SOLIN - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION CHAIRMANS MATTERS; MEMBERS MATTERS; ATTORNEYS MATTERS; ENGINEERS MATTERS; BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS; ADJOURN NOTE; IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, HE/SHE WILL 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 EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS MADE. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS APPROVE MINUTES; OLD BUSINESS; NEW BUSINESS; REGULAR MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 16TH, 1989 JANUARY 19, 1989 NONE HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE -JOHN KRANENBERG LES SOLIN - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION CHAIRMANS MATTERS; MEMBERS MATTERS; ATTORNEYS MATTERS; ENGINEERS MATTERS; BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS; ADJOURN NOTE; IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, HE/SHE WILL 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 EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS MADE. I'00'1 (Ift) City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL HOLD ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16TH, 1989 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA.