Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07201995 PZCity of Sebastian 1225 MAIN STREET o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570 AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 209 1995 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of 7/6/95 5 OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing - Home Occupational License - James Richter - 1731 Skyline Lane - Rickter's Aluminum Public Hearing - Home Occupational License - Peter K. Jachode 163 Caprona Street - Cinderella Cleaning Service Public Hearing - Home Occupational License - Bonita Grieb - 162 Kildare Drive - Secretarial Service Discussion - Self Service/Mini Storage Facilities Site Plan Reveiw - Winn Dixie Sebastian - 999 Fellsmere Road Recommendation to City Council - Minor Subdivision Review - Sebastian Lakes Shopping Center 7. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: 8. MEMBERS MATTERS: 9. ATTORNEY MATTERS: 10. BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS: ll. ADJOURNMENT. 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. CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 1995 Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chmn. Thompson Mr. Goldstein Ms. Brantmeyer Mr. Barnes Mr. Johns Mr. Fischer Mr. Schulke ALSO PRESENT: Bruce Cooper, Director of Community Development/Building Official Tim Williams, Assistant City Attorney Dorri Bosworth, Secretary ANNO~CEMENTS: The Secretary announced that the August 3rd meeting is being moved to August 10th, 1995. MOTION by Barnes/Johns I make a motion that we postpone the regular meeting scheduled for August 3rd to August 10. A voice vote was taken. 7-0 motion carried. ~PROVAL OF ~TES: None OLD BUSINESS: None Nt;W tWSlNZSS: James Richter, Peter K. Jachode, and Bonita Gfieb were present and were sworn in according to quasi-judicial procedures. PLANNING AND ZON~..G COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 1995 PAGE TWO PUBLIC HEARING - HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - JAMES RICHTER - 1731 SKYLINE LANE - RICKTER'S ALUMINUM The public hearing was opened at 7:08 p.m. The applicant was present and verified his name and address. There were 14 notices of hearing sent out, and no objection or non-objection letters were received back. Mr. Cooper questioned the applicant about the ladders, and it was determined that they are no longer visible as they are in the back of a pick-up truck with a camper top. The staffhad no objection and recommended approval. There was no public input and the public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. MOTION by Johns/Barnes I make a motion that we grant a Home Occupational License to Richter Aluminum located at 1731 Skyline Lane. Roll call was taken. 7-0 motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - PETER lC JACHODE - 163 CAPRONA STREET - CINDERELLA CLEANING SERVICE The public hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m. The applicant was present and verified his name and address. There were 7 notices of hearing sent out and no objection or non-objection letters received. Staff had no objections. There was no public input. The public hearing was closed at 7:13 p.m. MOTION by Goldstein/Bames I move to grant the Home Occupational License to Peter K. Jachode, Cinderella Cleaning Service, 163 Caprona Street, for a cleaning service. Roll call was taken. 7-0 motion carded. PUBLIC HEARING - HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - BONITA GRIEB - 162 KHJDARE DRIVE - SECRETARIAL SERVICE The public hearing was opened at 7:17 p.m. There were 16 notices of hearing sent out and no objection or non-objection letters received. PLANNING AND ZONe.,. G COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 1995 The applicant was present and clarified her intentions. Staffhad no objections. There was no public input and the public hearing was closed at 7:19 p.m. MOTION by Munsan/Bames I move that we approve the Home Occupational License for Bonita Grieb at 162 Kildare Drive to operate a printing/word processing service from her home. Roll call was taken. 7-0 motion carried. DISCUSSION - SELF SERVICE/MINI STORAGE FACILITIES The applicant, Steve Philipson of 415 Live Oak Drive, was present. Mr. Philipson explained that he is asking to place a mini-storage facility on Commercial General property, the same as Indian River County allows. Mr. Cooper reviewed the request and process up to the present. He explained that this issue has been before the Commission a couple of times. At one time, it was determined that a PUD Commercial type of' facility allows light industrial, but does not allow any generalities such as a mini,storage warehouse facility. We agreed that PUD Commercial, in the light industrial, would be permissible with a conditional use permit. The issue is Commercial General, which is what Mr. Philipson is requesting. Mr. Cooper discussed this w/th Mr. Ooldstein and the subject of Riverfront Impact came up. That is what we are here for tonight to discuss. The site is in the Riverfront District, to the rear ofCommereial C-eneral property fronting on U.S. l, the River Park Plaza. The CO zoning category is primarily in the Riverfront District. Most of it is along U.S. l, and allowing one conditional use permit could mean having to allow more anywhere inthe Commercial General zone. Visual impact is involved here. The property is approximately 230 ff. from U.S. 1, and is approximately 440 ff. in depth. Adjacent on the South is BJ's Restaurant, to the rear is vacant property, to the north is a Dry Cleaner, and to the west is Commerdal property also owned by the applicant, and U.S. 1. The property does not abut Indian River Drive and entry would be offU. S. 1. Tra~c, landscaping, buffers and setbacks, industrial versus commercial, outside storage, large trucks, compatibility with residential property, small size of site, aesthetics, shape of long, narrow building, were all discussed by the members. Mr. Philipson commented that the small size of the site and the building would not invite large tractor-trailers. He noted that IRC code prohibits hazardous materials from being stored, no auto repairs can be made, and no outside storage is allowed. With proper buffer, the aesthetics and ELA rNG AND CO SSION REGULAR~TING OF J~Ly 20, 1995 PAGE FO~ harmony with surrounding properties can be maintained. He suggested having a very restrictive Commercial General to permit mini-storage, and as long as people who own Commercial General can abide by those restrictions, that use would be a service to the community. Mr. Goldstein attempted to clarify the fact that one of the problems with this request is that the Riverfront District is involved in CG and what might be acceptable in CG in other areas might not be acceptable in the Riverfront District, and the decision has to be all-encompassing. MOTION by Fischer/Schulke I make a motion that we approve this concept in Commercial zoning, the self-storage units, and work on a standard for them as far as landscape criteria and building decorativeness, and maybe give staff that direction to start working on that, to go with the Riverfront study. Roll call was taken. Mr. Barnes - no Mr. Johns - no Mr. Fischer - yes Mr. Schulke - yes Mr. Munsan - no Chmn. Thompson - no Mr. Goldstein - no 5-2 motion denied. SYI~,, PLA~ REVIEW - ,WINN nIXIE SEI~ASTJAN - 999 ,I~ELLSM~]~ ROAD A break was taken at 8:08 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:21 p.m. and all members were present. Mr. Cooper gave a presen~on of the history of this site from 1984 to present, including ownership, zoning, etc. The present owner of Sebastian Lakes is Lenar, Corp, and the owner of the Winn-Dixie site is PTC Enterprises, inc. There is presently a Developer's Agreement in place, and in accordance with Florida statutes, gives them (Lenar) a 10 year provision to keep this zoning in place on this property, provided they build Laconia Street immediately, within a time frame, at their expense, and that Roseland Road would be constructed prior to the CO of the commercial development. That was sold separately to the PTC Enterprises, Inc. (Pat Christianson) and this owner will construct Roseland Road. The liabilities of Laconia Street remain with Lenar Corp. Lenar's Laconia Street project still has not been accepted by the City. There have been road ,base failures, and other problems. Mr. Cooper's recommendations are to keep Laconia project separate from the Winn-Dixie project to a certain degree. Prior to City Council acting on this matter, the attorney needs to feel comfortable with the assurances that Lenar is still responsible for the Laconia Street project to be completed to our satisfaction and accepted by the City. Lenar is maintaining Laconia and has been for some time. It doesn't seem reasonable to hold up the Winn-Dixie project because of Laconia, but we are trying to secure all PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 1995 responsibilities so that this project can go forward. Winn-Dixie has provided full engineering for the full site. Chrnn. Thompson asked Mr. Cooper to clarify the Winn-Dixie project, and it was stated that the site is owned by PTC Enterprises, Inc., Pat Christianson being the principle who Mr. Cooper is dealing with. Mr. lohn's inquired about the strength of wording in the "recital" on page 4. Mr. Cooper explained that this was what was negotiated, and anything built better, such as adding curb and gutter was acceptable. In response to a question from Mr. Fischer, Mr. Cooper explained that by recommending to City Council the preliminary approval of this PUD, this will then go the City Council. If City Council is inclined, there will be a resolution adopted approving the preliminary development with the following conditions: 1) We still recognize the Developer's Agreement in building Roseland Road. 2) It will allow them to proceed with construction of the development if City Council approves it. They will then be authorized to build Roseland Road in accordance with the City of Sebastian and Indian River County because it is connection to CR 512, and they will seek Impact Fee Credit because it is part of the 20 year program, so the County will be involved in this road construction totally, not just at the intersection. 3) It will also allow them the development of the site improvements. After the infiasUucture has been completed, (Roseland Road Extension) they can then come back for Final Plat. In this case we already have an 80 ft. right-of-way because it was part of the Developer's Agreement. Because they have the right-of-way, but haven't constructed it yet, it is still considered a subdivision approval, and not minor. So, we are dealing with subdivision ordinance and site plan ordinance. In answer to questions about Laconia, discussion centered around clearing up the responsibility of construction of the Street, and maintenance. Mr. Munsart commented on the fact that residents who use Laconia Street are completely fed up with the projeCt not being completed, and suggested that it is time for the City to "put their foot down" and put a time limit on Lenar's completion of this project. Mr. Cooper agreed and suggested that in view of the importance of the total Winn-Dixie project, the City is proceeding with all parties in a careful manner to accomplish the total project. There are a lot of legal issues and they always take time. Mr. Williams, Assistant City Attorney, explained that a Development Agreement is an agreement between the Developer and a Municipality, or County or whatever, that allows the Developer to PLUG AND ZONING COMMISSION REGUL.AR MEETINO..0F JULY 20, 1995 PAGE SIX lock in his rights to development. It says that zoning cannot be changed, with certain exceptions, during the term of the Development Agreement. Generally, the Municipality will impose certain requirements, as in this case, on the Developer as well. In this case, they are requiring the Developer to make certain road improvements and that type of thing. It is binding on the City and also any future owners of the property. It makes PTC technically responsible for Laconia Street as well as Roseland Road. They can agree among themselves as they wish as to who is going to carry out certain obligations, but that is not binding on the City. The City has the right to hold each and every individual owner of property liable for compliance with the Development Agreement. Mr. Cooper referred to page 2 of the Developers Agreement, item #3, what has been received and required, and it shows that they have conceptual approval of the Sebastian Lakes PUD, and further, tracts G and G1 has preliminary approval. He noted that most conceptual plans get changed before final approval. Mr. Schulke asked if the Developer should be required to change the conceptual plan when changes are made. Mr. Cooper explained that no, conceptual plans are not hard and fast, does not give vested fights because it is not based on hard engineering. Mr. W'flliams stated that the Developer's Agreement would supersede the preliminary approval as far as it goes. In points out that where the Developer's Agreement is inconsistent with the preliminary approval, the Developer's Agreement would prevail. Mr. Schulke noted that the Preliminary Development Plan requirements call for an environmental impact statement, and a public facility impact statement. Mr. Cooper was unsure as to whether any of these forms were ever submitted. Mr. Schulke noted that he was referring to page 261 which calls for an updated eovironmemai impact statement, and an environmental survey, and an updated public facility impact statement. Mr. Cooper thought the facility impact statement would be superseded by the Developer's Agreement because that is usually an infrastructure requirement which has been spelled out in this Agreement. Mr. Schulke asked if the Developer's Agreement superseded the Land Development Code. Mr. Williams responded that it prevents the City from subsequently changing the Land Development Code so as to make the proposed Development illegal, and locks in the Developer's long-term plan. Mr. Schulke noted that it doesn't say that they don~ have to submit the requirements of a PUD. Mr. Williams responded that, unless there is something in the Developers Agreement which would specifically contradict any prior provision, then those provisions would have to be complied with. Mr. Fischer commented that on the Developer's Agreement, which we have' on file, this Board has to consider that as part of our process, right? Mr. Williams responded that not only does the City have to consider it, but is bound by it with certain exceptions. PLANNING AND zONING CO ,MMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY ,20, 1995 PAGe,, 8EVEN Mr. Goldstein commented that sitting here as a Planning and Zoning Commission, we cannot pretend to enforce provisions of this Agreement, we are only charged with reviewing what's before us based on the contents of the Land Development Code 20A-4.10 regarding PUDs. Mr. Williams responded that you can deny approval on the basis of the failure to abide by certain terms of this Development Agreement. The City does not have to release this particular owner from his obligations of the Development Agreement, even though he is a subsequent owner and over on the other end. Mr. Cooper at this time introduced the conceptual approval of Sebastian Lakes, PUD in 1984. There doesn't appear to be much there in the area that we are discussing. Site D contains 1.4 acres of Commercial land zoned CG, which is a triangular section. Area C contains 14.47 acres of mixed Commercial uses with 7.89 acres of CG, and 6.5 of Commercial Office Residential. That amounts to 16 acres, but nothing is shown. This conceptual plan shows more of the Residential - A of the PUD which is why it is PUD-R. In 1988, the land used changed to Commercial General which is what you have now. Mr. grflliams reiterated that no matter how many turnovers in ownership, all owners are bound by this Developers Agreement. Because Laconia is pan of the PUD, it is pan of the Developers Agreement. Chmn. Thompson referenced page 4, under item 3, turn lanes and traffic signalization. Traffic signalization at the intersection of 512 and Roseland Road is up. So, because of the County involvement, some owner got out of supplying this. Mr. Cooper explained that everything built in the Roseland Road project is impact fee possible credit. They will probably Set a 100% credit according to Jim Davis. Mr. Cooper explained that they have submitted for a subdivision plat, which is not technically a minor even though it is less than 4 lots, but we will treat it as a major subdivision because it has been reviewed and is similar in nature to both major and minor, other than drainage. The Plat is breaking it up into two tracts, Tract 1 and Tract 2. Winn-Dixie is Tract 1 and Tract 2 is a future restaurant site. The two tracts meet all the requirements of Commercial General size as far as lot width, lot depth, and minimum size, and the City Attorney and City Engineer have reviewed the plat, and there are minor comments that need to be addressed. Mr. W'flliams discussed the language of the plat; they apparently forgot to put in a Title Certification. Also that the survey certificate does not specifically say that the survey data complies with all the requirements of Chapter 177. We request a change in wording. And, we request a change in wording on the statemeni regarding additional restrictions. We think that should follow the statutory form which is "notice that there may be additional restrictions that are not recorded on this plat that may be found in the public records of this County". The statute wants that exact wording. '14001 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE EIGHT REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 1995 Mr. Cooper introduced Ron Howse, P.E., from St. Cloud, Florida, a city very similar to Sebastian, and the applicant's representative. In reference to drainage, Mr. Howse explained that they specifically designed the ponding system to drain into Fellsmere Road, and after seeing and hearing about Laconia, they diverted all of the water that is currently going on Laconia away from Laconia and onto Fellsmere Road. Mr. Cooper remarked that we want the owners to provide the maintenance on this property, but we want the right to go in there, which is provided by these easements. Mr. Howse remarked that they are prepared to give blanket easements over the entire project to give the City access. Mr. Cooper noted that Chesser's Gap had a similar easement situation. Mr. Williams suggested possible language to cover this access by the City. Mr. Cooper suggested that form and content is agreeable to City Council and City Attorney prior to City Council approving it, and charged Mr. Williams with the responsibility to make it one of the conditions. Mr. Fischer suggested the owners be responsible for the drainage from Laconia going into the easement, and thereby, if the City has to do any maintenance, the owners would have to reimburse the City. It was agreed that the language require the owner will maintain it or be held liable for any maintenance that the City would assess, after due notice. This would also be necessary to enable Code Enforcement to be allowed authority in this area. At this point it was clarified that drainage from Laconia does not go onto Winn-Dixie Project property. Chmn. Thompson asked everyone to go to the TRC. He suggested that one item be added to "Permits required" on the TRC, and that is item #7, the City of Sebastian right-of-way curb cuts. Mr. Fischer expressed concern over the Laconia Street drainage subject and was assured that it is covered in the Developer's Agreement, which remains in effect through all other decisions. The next issue under discussion is the Site Plan. Mr. Cooper explained that at present time, we are looking at two phases. All statistics have been addressed with both tracts, both separately and independently, showing that each can stand alone in meeting all requirements. One item that we did not catch early on, is that there is a blanket set -back requirement of 30 ft. This building is only set back 25 ft. This will obviously have to be a condition of approval. They will have to abide by the 30 ft. set -back. Roseland Road as platted now will have to be extended and more property given because of the intersection of 512, and this will make sufficient room. The project Engineer, Mr. Howse, indicated that the requirement can be met easily and will be. Parking area is adequate. All loading spaces are according to Code. Dumpster is a compactor facility for wet and dry debris. They plan to use a new prototype which affords flexibility in placement. The landscaping and buffer requirements along Laconia Street contemplates a 6 ft. type wood fence. Mr. Howse described an opaque fence that can't be seen through, 6 ft. stockade, commercial grade, with landscape also planted to be mature at some future time when the wood fence might be disrepair. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 1995 PAGE NINE Mr. Cooper discussed the restaurant site, which has been totally site-engineered. The only thing it lacks is building elevations. When those are finalized, it will come back before this Board. The subject of pedestrian access was discussed. Based on the number of traffic projected, it would not be safe for people to walk on the streets, and the site is adjacent to a residential area. Mr. Cooper had mentioned it to Mr. Howse, and felt it could be brought up under the subdivision ordinance for Roseland Road. Mr. Cooper suggested it be made a condition of use, with a sidewalk on Roseland Road during the construction of that facility. He also noted that the right-of-way is 80 ft. Mr. Cooper explained that the Subdivision Ordinance under major, contemplates a sidewalk on both sides of Roseland Road. He recommended that both sides be provided as a condition in recommendations to City Council. Mr. Munsart pointed out a possible traffic problem by a left-mm offRoseland Road Extension into the parking lot, and Mr. Cooper responded that they had just received the traffic study and were about to address this issue. He read parts of this report to the members. At this time, it was discovered that Roseland Road would probably be three-laned down to the first intersection. Mr. Cooper suggested that the Board recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in the traffic study. MOTION by Thompson/Johns I move that we extend for another hour. A voice vote was taken. Mr. Fischer - no. MOTION by Thompson/Munsart The above motion was changed to extend for one half hour. A voice vote was taken. 7-0 motion carded. Mr. Cooper announced that Laconia Street will be a cul-de-sac, and there will be no connection to CR 512 once Roseland Road is built. Sidewalks and street fights were discussed. It was determined to make it a condition of approval that the Developers comply with street lighting pursuant to Code at each intersection, if not already provided. Survey sheet #2 was discussed. Mr. Johns pointed out that on sheet #2, there was a concrete inlet shown offLaconia, on the comer of the property line, and the culvert that is to be installed looks like it will go in on top of the inlet. Maybe when the road is moved, it may not. Mr. Howse agreed that this must be corrected. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 1995 PAGE TEN Survey sheet #3 was discussed. According to the parking ordinance design criteria, the parking spaces will be 60 degrees. Wheel stops will probably be installed only around the can corrals. The code requires wheel stops but the Board can recommend to City Council to waive this requirement. The stop sign on Roseland Road at Laconia must be shown on sheet #3. When the realignment of Roseland Road is completed, some ~ may change, but it will all be done according to Code, including signage, curvature, whatever the case may be. A right-turn-only sign must be installed from parking lot onto Fellsmere Road. Mr. Schulke suggested that for accuracy, please decide wheiher Roseland Road is "Road" or "Boulevard". It probably should be referred to as Roseland Road in all instances. Sheet #4 was discussed. Mr. Schulke inquired about the DEP permits and Mr. Howse replied that they have been applied for. Mr. Johns asked for clarification on the water and sewer, and Mr. Cooper replied that it is County sewer, and for now City water, but that will change soon. Chrnn. Thompson referred back to sheet #3 to discuss a letter from Mr. Howse dated May 16, 1995 to the City of Sebastian, paragraph one, third line. It refers to 6,000 sq. ft. of expansion as being done "now". This was understood to be Phase 2, which is future, not present. If iris planned to be built now, then this drawing should show it. It was decided that Mr. Howse would correct this by a note. Mr. Johns asked if the project engineer has performed a detail review of all soils information and all storm drainage. Mr. Cooper responded yes. Overflow and runoff of storm water was disCUssed. Mr. Fischer asked if having the City engineer review this, does his firm take a hability and relieve the City from any liability if there is a problem with Roseland Road, or does the City assume that. Mr. W'flliams responded that if you hire an engineer and he does a job improperly, he's got liability. But that does not relieve the City of it. If the engineering firm is no longer in business, then the City would assume liability. Sheet #7 was discussed. Chmn. Thompson referred to a detailed drawing called "asphalt paving". He suggested that this page be identified as "parking lot". Sheet #8 was detail. Sheet #9 was detail. Sheet #10A is electrical or lighting plan. MOTION by Thompson/Johns I move we extend fifteen minutes. Mr. Schulke and Mr. Fischer voted no. Not a unanimous vote. Mr. Cooper suggested having a special meeting to finish up. . . . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20. 1995 PAGE ELEVEN It was determined that a special meeting would be held with proper notice to all members. Chinn. Thompson adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.