Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07251985 PZPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 1985 REGULAR MEETING MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: MR. JEWELL THOMPSON MR. ROBERT FULLERTON MR. WILLIAM MAHONEY MR. STANLEY KRULIKOWSKI MR. JAMES WADSWORTH MRS. EDRA YOUNG CHAIRMAN HAROLD EISENBARTH ALSO PRESENT: RANDALL L. MOSBY, CONSULTING ENGINEER, THOMAS C. PALMER, CITY ATTORNEY. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH ANNOUNCED THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST WOULD BE HELD ON AUGUST 8, AND AUGUST 22, 1985. MOTION BY MR. MAHONEY, SECONDED BY MR. KRULIKOWSKI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 11, 1985. MEETING, WITH CORRECTIONS AS STATED. MOTION CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS: CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS IN RECEIPT. OF A LETTER FROM DEBORAH C. KRAGES, CITY CLERK, TO BRENDA E. SCHAUMAN, SECRETARY, PLANNINGAND ZONING COMMISSION, REGARDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE FINALly.. REVIEW.'DRAFT. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT HE. AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, WERE IN RECEIPT OF ALETTER REGARDING VOTING CONFLICTS, FROM ATTORNEY PALMER. THERE WAS A BRIEF DISCUSSION REGARDING VOTING PROCEDURES. MODEL HOME PERMIT - SILVA: MR. SCOTT SILVA WAS PRESENT, AND ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION REGARDING HIS REQUEST. MR. SILVA STATED THAT HE HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE MODEL HOME ORDINANCE. MOTION BY MR. WADSWORTH, SECONDED BY MRS. YOUNG, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL, TO APPROVE THE MODEL HOME PERMIT REQUEST, AS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT SILVA. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. THOMPSON MR. FULLERTON MR. MAHONEY MR. KRULIKOWSKI MR. WADSWORTH MRS. YOUNG CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH MINUTES: PAGE 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 1985 INDIAN RIVER BAIT AND TACKLE SHOP - FEY: MR. FEY WAS NOT IN ATTENDANCE TO PRESENT HIS REQUEST. MR. MOSBY STATED,MR. GREGORY GORE, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING MR. FEY, CONTACTED HIM TODAY AND STATED THAT THE SITE PLAN WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO BE PRESENTED. MR. MOSBY ALSO STATED THAT HE DID NOT INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD NOT ATTEND THE MEETING, BUT. JUST THAT THEY WERE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON THE SITE PLAN. A DISCUSSION'WASi HELD'REGARDING"SOME"OF' THE~.MEMBERS. CONCERNS ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE. MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MR. KRULIKOWSKI, TO DEFER THIS ITEMUNTIL SUCH TIME THE SITE PLAN IS RECEIVED, THE CONSULTING ENGINEER HAS REVIEWED IT, AND THE COMMISSION HAS TIME TO REVIEW IT FOR TWO WEEKS BEFORE IT IS PUT BACK ON THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. FATHER AND SON PLAZA: MR. PHILIPSON WAS PRESENT.. AND ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION REGARDING HIS REQUEST. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT THE BUILDING THAT IS ON SITE NOW, WAS APPROVED.ON ANOTHER SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL. MR. PHILIPSON IS NOW REQUESTING A CHANGE IN USE OF THE ALREADY APPROVED BUILDING. THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL WAS UNCLE]~gAS TO THE INTENT OF THE CHANGE OF USE, AND THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE PARKING WERE ALSO UNCLEAR. MR.. MOSBY STATED THAT ITHAD BEEN REQUESTED THAT MR. PHILIPSON RESUBMIT ON THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN, PREPARED BY BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC., WHICH HE HAS DONE. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT HE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE CONTINGENT ON TWO REVISIONS. 1 ) THE INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE WHEEL STOPS ON PARKING SPACES 33 THROUGH 39. 2) REVISE THE PARKING CALCULATIONS. DURING A DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS SITE PLAN, IT WAS STATED BY MR. PHILIPSON THAT THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO BE LEASED BY GOOD YEAR TIRE COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THIS COMPANY WILL BE CHANGING TIRES IN THIS BUILDING. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT THIS HAS RAISED A NEW CONCERN. MR. MOSBY ALSO STATED THAT HE FELT MR. PHILIPSON'S ENGINEER WAS A LITTLE DECEIVING ON REVISING THE DRAWINGS TO INDICATE STORAGE. THE NORMAL PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE THE USE, IS TO SUBMIT AN ELEVATION SO THAT THE COMMISSION AND ENGINEER WiLL KNOW WHAT KIND OF USE .WILL BE IN THE BUILDING. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO OBTAIN A CHANGE OF USE PERMISSION, SO THAT YOU CAN PRECEED WITH THE PREPARATIONS OF CONSTRUCTION, THAT IS ONE THING, BUT MR. PHILIPSON'S ENGINEERS DRAWINGS ARE QUITE DECEIVING BECAUSE THEY SHOW STORAGE AND THE ENGINEER SHOULD HAVE SHOWED A TIRE FACILITY ON THE DRAWINGS SO THAT THE COMMISSION WAS QUITE CLEAR ON WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT HE LOOKED AT THAT FACILITY AS BEING STRICTLY STORAGE WITH RETAIL SPACE, SUCH AS AN APPLIANCE STORE.° MR. MOSBY STATED THAT ADQUATE PARKING HAS BEEN PROVED, BUT THE COMMISSION AND HE, STILL NEED TO .SEE THE ELEVATIONS OF THIS BUILDING BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN USE. THAT IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SITE PLAN. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT PARKING REQUIREMENTS WILL HAVE TO CHANGE, AND THE SITE PLAN WILL' HAVE TO BE RE-EVALUATED. MOTION BY MR. FULLERTON, SECONDED BY MR. WADSWORTH, TO TABLE THIS REQUEST UNTIL THE CONSULTING ENGINEER, CAN LOOK INTO THIS MATTER FURTHER. UNDER DISCUSSION, MR. MOSBY STATED THAT MR. PHILIPSON NEEDS TO HAVE HIS ENGINEER REVISE THE PARKING CALCUALTIONS ON THE SITE PLAN. MR. FULLERTON AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT, THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN BE RE?SUBMITTED SHOWING THE CHANGE OF USE AND THE REVISED PARKING CALCULATIONS. MR. WADSWORTH AMENDED HIS SECOND. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. THOMPSON MR. FULLERTON MR. MAHONEY KRULIKOWSKI MR. WADSWORTH MRS. YOUNG CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH NAYS: NONE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION RE: ANTENNA ORDINANCE AND DISCUSSION RE: PLANNING'AND ZONING REVIEWING ALL STRUCTURES INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL, PRIOR TO PERMITTING. MR. KRULIKOWSKI STATED THAT IF THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS BY THE COMMISSION, HE WOULD LIKE' TO PLACE THE DISCUSSIONS AT THE END OF THE AGENDA. BEING NO OBJECTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION, THE TWO ITEMS WERE PLACED AT THE END OF THE AGENDA. CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS: CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH THANKED THE COMMISSION FOR SENDING THE FIITWERS TO HIM AND HIS FAMILY. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT AT THE LAST MEETING HE ASKED THE COMMISSION TO COME BACK WITH SOME CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS THAT COULD BE PUT IN A FORM OF A LETTER, REGARDING THE RE-ALIGNMENT OF C.R. 512. CHARIMAN EISENBARTH ASKED IF ANY MEMBERS HAD ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS SUBJECT. MR. WADSWORTH STATED THAT HE HAD ATTENDED A MEETING REGARDING THE RE-ALIGNMENT OF C.R. 512 AND DREW A SKETCH OF THE PROPOSAL AS SHOWN TO HIM AT THE MEETING. MR. WADSWORTH STATED THAT HE HAD A COPY OF THIS SKETCH AND WILL SUPPLY THE COMMISSION WITH IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. MR. MAHONEY STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THAT POSSIBLY THE NEW SEBASTIAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, LOCATED ON C.R. 512, IS INFRINGING ON THE OLD RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. MRS. YOUNG STATED. THAT I.T APPEARED THAT WAY TO HER ALSO. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH ASKED THAT MR. MAHONEY LOOK INTO THAT MATTER BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING AND REPORT TO THE COMMISSION HIS FINDINGS. MINUTES: PAGE 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION · ~il~ .,.. ' JULY 25, 1985 CHAIRMAN'S MATTER'S (CONTINUED): CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH REVIEWED THE FINANCIAL REPORT AND HAD SOMEQUESTIONS REGARDING REVENUE OF CERTAIN SITE PLANS. 1) MY MOTHER'S KITCHEN - NO FEE WAS CHARGED, CAME IN FOR REVIEW ONLY, LETTER FROM ATTORNEY PALMER JUEY'll, 1985, MEETING PACKETEXPLAINING. NO SITE PLAN REVIEW, WAS MINOR CHANGE. NO FEE SCHEDULE ON APPLICATION FOR MINOR CHANGE. 2) MODEL HOME. PERMIT SCOTT SILVA - A FEE OF $25.00 WAS CHARGED AND APPROPRIATED TO THE GENERAL FUND. 3 ) SEBASTIAN SUN - NO FEE CHARGED, ONLY ATTENDED PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING TO GET THE FEELINGS OF THE COMMISSION. 4) SAN SEBASTIAN LAKES - SECRETARY TO COMMISSION STATED SHE WOULD ASK CITY CLERK AS TO WHETHER FEES WERE CHARGED OR NOT. 5) FISCHER'S SAND MININGPERMIT - SECRETARY WILLCHECK INTO THIS. 6 ) WAUREGAN SUB DIV. ABAND . PAPER STS. - SECRETARY WILL CHECK INTO THIS. 7) WHEATON - REZONING - SECRETARY WILL CHECK INTO THIS. 8) DR. WRIGHT - CHANGE - SECRETARY STATED THIS PARTICULAR ITEM CAME BEFORE PLANNING OF USE AND ZONING COMMISSION BEFORE SHE BECAME THEIR SECRETARY, WILL CHECKINTO THIS MATTER ALSO. 9 ) FATHER & SON - THE SECRETARY STATED THAT THIS ITEM~ WAS SUBMITTED AS A MINOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION, AND THERE IS NO FEE SCHEDULE FOR THIS TYPE OF ITEM ON THE APPLICATION, BUT STATED IT WILL BE LOOKED INTO. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH REQUESTED THAT THE SECRETARY LOOK INTO THESE MATTERS AND REPORT BACK TO HIM AT THE NEXT MEETING. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD EXPECTED TO SEE A LOT MORE REVENUE THE LAST QUARTER~THAN WAS REFLECTED BY THE FINANCIAL REPORT. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH QUESTIONED THE SECRETARY ONTHE $89.25 POSTAGE FEE UNDER DISBURSEMENTS. THE SECRETARY STATED THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO THIS MATTER. MR. THOMPSON STATED THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW IF THESE MATTERS ARE GOING TO BE BROUGHT UP, SO THAT THE NECESSARY FILES AND ANSWERS ARE AT OUR ~ISPOSAL. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT AT THE JULY ll, 1985, MEETING, THE FINANCIAL REPORT WAS GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION, AND IF THE TAPES WERE RESEARCHED, HE BELIEVES IT WOULD BE FOUND THAT HE STATED IT WOULD BE BROUGHT UP AT THIS MEETING. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT ALL THESE MATTERS COULD BE CLEARED UP BY CALLING MRS. KRAGES. ON THE PHONE OR WRITING A LETTER TO HER, AND THAT THESE.MATTERS COULD BE CLEARED UP WITHOUT.TAKING UP ALL OF THE COMMISSIONS' TIME TO DO IT. MINUTES: PAGE 5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 1985 CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT HE FOUND THESE MATTERS TO BE VERY IMPORTANT. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT THEY MAY BE, BUT IT DOES NOT TAKE A COMMISSIONS' DECISION TO FIND OUT WHERE THE MONIES CAME PROM, IF THEY ARE MISSING OR IN THE WRONG ACCOUNTS. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT, THAT WAS NOT QUITE HIS OPINION. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT HE WILL BRING IT UP AGAIN AT THE NEXT MEETING AND POSSIBLY HE WILL RECEIVE MORE ANSWERS. ATTORNEY PALMER AGAIN STATED THAT THE BEST THING TO DO IS FOR CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH TO CALL OR WRITE MRS. KRAGES, AND HE IS SURE SHE WILL HAVE THE ANSWERS. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT THE COMMISSION IS IN RECEIPT FROM MAYOR GALLAGHER REGARDING CHANGING THE WAY THE ENGINEER'S CONTRACT IS WRITTEN. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED HE HAS SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT ALSO, BUT HE WILL WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THE COMMISSION IS IN RECEIPT OF A LETTER FROM MR. MOSBY STATING THAT HE MUST TERMINATE HIS CONTRACT, AND A MEMO STATING THAT MR. MOSBY WILL CONTINUE HIS ENGINEERING SERVICES UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH ASKED MR. MOSBY IF THIS WAS TRUE. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT HE TERMINATED HIS CONTRACT WITH THIRTY DAYS NOTICE, BUT THE MAYOR REQUESTED HIM TO STAY UNTIL OCTOBER 1, 1985, WHICH MR. MOSBY HAS AGREED TO. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT HE HAS INDICATED TO THE MAYOR THAT HE WILL ASSIST AFTER THAT DATE WITH ANY QUESTIONS THAT WERE NEEDED BECAUSE OF THE KNOWLEDGE HE HAS ACQUIRED. OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS IN WORKING WITH THE COMMISSION. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT, THAT BEING THE CASE, THE COMMISSION WILL HAVE TO START LOOKING FOR AN ENGINEER. MR. MOSBY STATED FOR THE RECORD.THAT HE AND HIS FIRM HAVE BECOME VERY BUSY, AND TO PROPERLY SERVE THIS COMMISSION, HE FEELS THAT HIS FIRM DOES NOT HAVE THE TIME. MR. MOSBY STATED HE IS NOT TERMINATING HIS CONTRACT WITHOUT GOOD'REASON. MR. THOMPSON STATED THAT HE BELIEVES BEFORE THE COMMISSION BEGINS TO LOOK FOR A NEW ENGINEER, PERHAPS THEY SHOULD SEE WHAT PATH THE CITY IS GOING TO TAKE REGARDING THAT MATTER. MR. FULLERTON STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO'THANK MR. MOSBY FOR HIS SERVICES, AND THAT MR. MOSBY HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY HELPFUL WHENEVER MR. FULLERTON HAS ASKED FOR HIS ASSISTANCE. MR. THOMPSON STATED THAT HE AGREED ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WITH MR. FULLERTON, AND THAT MR. MOSBY HAS DONE THE COMMISSION A GREAT SERVICE IN EXTENDING HIS CONTRACT WITH THE CITY UNTIL OCTOBER 1, 1985. MR. THOMPSON STATED THAT HE OBJECTS TO PUTTING THE ITEM OF HIRING A NEW CONSULTING ENGINEER ON THE AGENDA, UNTIL THE COMMISSION SEES WHAT PATH THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE TAKING IN THIS MATTER. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT HE FEELS fT MUST BE AN AGENDA ITEM BECAUSE OF THE IFS AND MAYBES. MINUTES: PAGE 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS MATTERS: MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MR. WADSWORtH, TO PURCHASE TWO HUNDRED MANILA FILE FOLDERS NOT TO EXCEED $30.00. MOTION CARRIED., MOTION BY MR. FULLERTON, SECONDED BY MRS. YOUNG, THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW THE SITE PLANS FOR THE BARBER STREET FIRE SUB STATION, WITH ALL FEES WAIVED. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. THOMPSON MR. FULLERTON MR. MAHONEY MR. KRULIKOWSKI MR. WADSWORTH MRS. YOUNG CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH NAYS: NONE MOTION CARRIED. MR. MAHONEY ASKED IF IT WAS LEGAL FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO SELL ITS' WASTE TREATMENT SERVICES TO A MUNICIPALITY? ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT IT IS LEGAL, IF THEY COME TO A MUTUAL AGREEMENT. ATTORNEY PALMER ALSO STATED THAT THERE COULD BE A CONDITION, THAT HE COULD CONCEIVE OF, THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT. IF THE PUD HAD AN AGREEMENT OF ALL THE LA~I9 OWNERS, IN THE PUD, THAT IN THE EVENT THEY WANTED TO SELL THE SYSTEM, THAT THE LAND OWNERS HAD A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, AND THEY CHOSEi'TO ACCEPT THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL. THEREBY, THEY COULD, IN EFFECT, TAKE OVER THE SYSTEM AND IN THAT EVENT, YOU COULD NOT SELL IT TO ANY OUTSIDE PARTY. MR. MAHONEY ALSO ASKED IFIT WAS POSSIBLE TO AMEND AN EXISTING ORDINANCE BY INCORPORATING: IN IT, IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO BE APPROVED? ATTORNEY PALMER REQUESTED AN EXAMPLE. MR. MAHONEY STATED THAT ON PAGE 10-2 OF THE ORDINANCE, OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE LATEST ISSUE, WE HAVE A REVIEW OF MINOR SITE PLAN, THAT IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. .ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT, THAT ORDINANCE MR. MAHONEY WAS LOOKING AT, HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED. MR. MAHONEY AGAIN ASKED IF iT WAS LEGAL, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE INCORPORATED IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED, BY THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN? WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED A DIFFERENT ORDINANCE? ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD SUPERCEDE OUR EXISTING CRITERIA. ATTORNEY PALMER ALSO STATED THAT THIS SECTION ABOUTALL THE SITE PLAN REVIEW WILL SUPERCEDE OUR PRESENTLY EXISTING SITE PLAN REVI~W PROCEDURES. THIS WOULD BE A NEW ARTICLE X. MINUTES: PAGE 7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS MATTERS (CONTINUED): MR. FULLERTON STATED THAT THE WAY HE UNDERSTANDS THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT IS THAT THE ZONING DEPARTMENT WILL BE DOING ALL THE MINOR SITE PLAN, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE CHAIRMAN, AND THEN IT COMES BACK TO THE COMMISSION, AFTER IT IS APPROVED. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT IS NOT CORRECT. THECHAIRMAN REPORTS BACK TO THE COMMISSION AT THE NEXT MEETING WHAT MINOR SITE PLANS HE HAS APPROVED. THE:iCHAIRMAN APPROVES THEM WITH THE CITY ENGINEER, IT TAKES JOINT APPROVAL. THE CITY ENGINEER, AND THECHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, APPROVES IT, IF IT FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY, THEN THEY REPORT TO THE COMMISSION, AT THE NEXT MEETING, THOSE THINGS WHICH THEY HAVE DONE. THERE ARE ALSO A NUMBER OF CERTAIN THINGS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CAN DO IN REGARD TO CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS, AND MERELY COMES BACK AND REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION, AT THE NEXT MEETING, WHAT HE HAS DONE. MR. FULLERTON ASKED, THEN IF THE CHAIRMAN APPROVES A MINOR SITE PLAN WITH THE CITY ENGINEER, THEN IT IS ALL APPROVED? ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT YES IT IS. IF IT IS A MINOR MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT HE CANNOT POSSIBLY AGREE WITH THAT. IT GIVES TO0 MUCH POWER TO ONE PERSON. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN ENACTED YET, AND THE COMMISSION CAN TRY TO GET IT CHANGED. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT IT DID NOT GO THROUGH THE WORKSHOPS OR ANYTHING. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT, THAT IS TRUE, BUT IT HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS NOW FOR AT LEAST SIX WEEKS. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED IF THERE ARE ITEMS IN THERE THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT AGREE WITH, THEN THEY SHOULD MAKE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND IT. MR. MOSBY STATED HE BELIEVES THAT EACH SUBMITTAL LOOKS AT ONLY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND THAT IS THE WAY THE COUNTY WORKS. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT IS A LOOP HOLE THE COUNTY FALLS INTO. MR. MOSBY STATED THE COUNTY AND THE CITY. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING SITE THAT HAS 7500 SQUARE FEET ON IT, AND YOU ADD 600 SQUARE FEET TO IT, YOU HAVE A MAJOR SITE PLAN, IF IT IS LESS THAN 500 SQUARE FEET, IT IS A MINOR, AND THE COUNTY'S BREAK DOWN IS 5000 SQUARE FEET. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT THERE IS A CLAUSE THAT SAYS THESE CHANGES, AS MODIFIED, MUST REMAIN UNDER THE 7500 SQUARE FOOT FIGURE. YOU CANNOT PIECE-MEAL IT, TO GET OVER THE AMOUNT. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT POSSIBLY THAT IS ONE POINT THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED, BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT READ THAT WAY TO HIM. MR. MOSBY ALSO STATED, THAT IF HE WERE THE DESIGN~NG~ENGINEER, AND A CLIENT WANTED TO DO THAT, MR. MOSBY BELIEVES YOU COULD PROBABLY WORK AROUND THAT RULE, BY THE WAY IT READS, IT IS NOT THAT CLEAR. IT SAYS NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, SO YOU COULD COME IN ONE DAY WITH 7000 SQUARE FEET, CONSTRUCT MINUTES: PAGE 8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 1985 MEMBERS MATTERS (CONTINUED): IT, AND NOW IT IS NO LONGER NEW, AND THEN YOU CAN COME IN THE NEXT DAY, BECAUSE NOW IT IS EXISTING, AND ADD ANOTHER 7000 SQUARE FEET, THAT IS NEW. THE WORD "NEW" MEANS NEW TO THE SITE PLAN. THE WAY MR. MOSBY READS IT, IS THAT AN OWNER COULD KEEP ADDING ON. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT THE WORD "NEW" SHOULD NOT BE IN THERE. ATTORNEY PALMER ALSO STATED THAT PARAGRAPH C STATES THAT CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS, WHICH DO NOT, AS CHANGED OR ADDED TO, EXCEED THE THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED IN A AND B ABOVE. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT IT SEEMED TO HIM, THE COUNCIL TOOK OUT THE WORD "NEW" AT THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE. MR. MOSBY ASKED ATTORNEY PALMER WHAT SHOULD YOU DO IF SOMEONE COMES IN WITH 7000 SQUARE FEET, AND THEN COMES IN WITH ANOTHER 7000 SQUARE FEET? DO YOU DENY THEM THE SECOND SITE PLAN APPROVAL? ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT IF IT IS PART OF THE SAME RROJECT, YES. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT HE THINKS THIS IS VERY UNCLEAR. MR. MOSBY ALSO STATED THAT AS A DESIGN CONSULTANT, HE WOULD HAVE A VERY HARD TIME ADVISING HIS CLIENT, AS HOW TO DESIGN UNDER A MINOR/MAJOR SITE PLAN. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT HE BELIEVES PARAGRAPH C PRECLUDES JUST EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE TOWN NOW, AND BELIEVES IT IS QUITE CLEAR. MR~ MOSBY STATED THAT PARAGRAPH C, AS HE READS IT, DOES NOT PREVENT THE EXTENSION OF A MINOR SITE PLAN. ITiSTATESiTHAT "CHANGES OR ADDITIONS, TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS, INCLUDING AWNINGS, POOLS, FENCES, WALLS, PARKING AREAS, AND DRIVEWAYS, WHICH DO NOT, AS CHANGEDOR ADDED TO, EXCEED THE THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED IN A AND B ABOVE." MR. MOSBY STATED THAT IT DOES NOT REALLY TELL HIM TOO MUCH, AND IT DOES NOT STATE THAT YOU CANNOT ADD ON TO A MINOR SITE PLAN AND DOUBLE IT. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT LANGUAGE £S VERYUNCLEAR. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MINOR SITE PLAN BE MUCH LESS THAN 7500 SQUARE FEET. MR. THOMPSON SUGGESTED THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION REVIEW THIS SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE AND COME BACK TOTHE AUGUST 8, 1985, MEETING, WITH CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS, WHICH COULD BE PUT IN LETTER FORM, TO BE GIVEN TO CITY COUNCIL, FOR THEIR AUGUST 14, 1985, MEETING. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT WHEN THE COMMISSION, ON THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, DRAWS A LINE BETWEEN MINOR/MAJOR SITE PLANS, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, IT IS?THAT~'.LINE THAT TRIGGERS THE EXTENSIVESURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHICH IS OTHERWISE CONTAINED IN THE ORDINANCE. ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT ATTORNEY GREGORY GORE HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST IN BEING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S ATTORNEY. MAYOR GALLAGHER STATED THAT IF THE COMMISSION WAS INTERESTED IN HAVING MR. GORE AS THEIR ATTORNEY, HE WOULD ADJUST THE COMMISSION'S BUDGET WITH AN ADDITIONAL $4,000.00 TO COVER THE EXPENSES OF MR. GORE'S SERVICES. ATTORNEY'S MATTERS (CONTINUED): ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT THE MONEY WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL. IF THE COMMISSION IS AGREEABLE TO THIS, MR. GORE'S SERVICES WOULD BEGIN OCTOBER 1, 1985. MR. GORE WOULD ATTEND ALL MEETINGS. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT HE DID NOT FORESEEA PROBLEM OF MR. GORE'BEING ON THE CODE ENFORECEMENT BOARD AND BEINGTHE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S ATTORNEY.' THE COMMISSION AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO CONTRACT MR..'GOREAS.THEIR ATTORNEY. NEW BUSINESS: MODEL HOME PERMIT - EDMISTEN: MR. EDMISTEN WASPRESENT, AND ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION ON HIS REQUEST. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION REGARDING PARKING SPACES AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. MOTION BY MR. WADSWORTH, SECONDED BY MRS. YOUNG, IN VIEW OF THE ATTORNEY'S COMMENTS, WE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL, TO APPROVE THIS MODEL HOME PERMIT REQUEST. MR. WADSWORTH AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE, TO INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE FIVE FOOT REAR YARD ENCROACHMENT. MRS. YOUNG AMENDED HERSECOND. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES MR. MAHONEY MR. WADSWORTH MRS. YOUNG NAYS: MR. THOMPSON MR. FULLERTON MR. KURLIKOWSKI CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH MOTION DENIED. ATTORNEY PALMER REQUESTED THAT EACH MEMBER THAT VOTED NAY, STATE THEIR REASON FOR DOING SO. MR. THOMPSON STATED HE VOTED NAY BECAUSE OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK DOES NOTMEET THE CITY'S ORDINANCE. MR.~THOMPSON ALSO STATED THAT THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THAT THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE BARKING SPACES ON THE PLAN AND THAT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 150 FOOT RADIUS BE NOTIFIED. MOTION BY MR. WADSWORT~I, SECONDED BY MR. THOMPSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES: RAGE 10 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 1985 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): MR. FULLERTON STATED THE REAR SET BACK ENCROACHMENT IS WHY HE VOTED NAY. MR. KRULIKOWSKI STATED HE VOTED NAY BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS AFTER THE FACT, AND ALSO THE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS BOTHER HIM. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT THE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS ARE WHY HE VOTED NAY. MOTION BY MR. MAHONEY, SECONDED BY MR. THOMPSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. WADSWORTH, SECONDED BY MR. MAHONEY, TO RECONSIDER THE PRIOR MOTION. 3i. ROLL".CALL VOTE: '. AYES MR. THOMPSON MR. FULLERTON MRS" MAHONEY MR. WADSWORTH MRS. YOUNG CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH NAYS: MR. KRULIKOWSKI MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. WADSWORTH, SECONDED BY MRS. YOUNG, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL, TO GRANT APPROVAL OF MR. EDMISTEN'S MODEL HOME REQUEST, BASED ON THE ATTORNEY'S OPINION THAT THERE ARE NO VIOLATIONS OF ANY SET BACKS. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. THOMPSON MR. FULLERTON MR. MAHONEY MR. WADSWORTH MRS. YOUNG CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH NAYS: MR. KURLIKOWSKI MOTION CARRIED. HAMILTON - SITE PLAN APPLICATION: MR. HAMILTON WAS PRESENT AND ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION ON HIS SITE PLAN REQUEST. DISCUSSION WAS HELD REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE PORTION OF THE SITE PLAN. MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MR. WADSWORTH, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. THERE WAS AGAIN A DISCUSSION HELD ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE PLAN. MINUTES: PAGE 11 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 1985 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): MR. HAMILTON STATED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER, ADJACENT TO HIS PROPERTY, COULD PUT A BUILDING RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER BECOMES USELESS. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT MR~ HAMILTON'S ON SITE PARKING AREA HAS TO HAVE A TEN FOOT (10')· LANDSCAPE BUFFER. MR. MOSBY ALSO STATED, BASED ON HIS CALCULATIONS, AN ADDITIONAL TREE IS REQUIRED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT ANY APPROVALS, SHOULD BE CONTINGENT ON THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT THE ONLY WAY MR. HAMILTON COULD COME IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, AS IT EXISTS NOW, IS TO DECREASE THE SIZE OF HIS BUILDING. MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON'~ ·SECONDED' BY·MR·. WADSWORTH'.. TO EXTEND::- THE MEETING UNTfL:: 11: O0. P. M ' (CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH VOTED NAY) MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. KRULIKOWSKI, SECONDED BY MR. WADSWORTH, TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN CONTINGENT UPON'~THE!.L'ETTER'~FROM MOSBY-ROBBINS AND ASSOCIATES, INC., DATED JULY 24, 1985, WITH THE FOUR (4) ITEMS TO BE FOLLOWED. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. KRUL£KOWSKI MR. WADSWORTH MRS. :,YOUNGi NAYS: MR. THOMPSON '.. ' MR. FULLERTON MR. MAHONE.Z' CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH MOTION NO~.'.:CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. WADSWORTH, SECONDED BY MRS. YOUNG, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AEENDING THE ~.ANDi~S~PE~[~DRDZNANCE~i~'~2~2.%X$'C~O A~LOW,:iTHE RL~NING=,.AND. Z~N~NG~DMRI~SI~B~'TDi~SR~ W~Z~ERSSTO,'.~.THE ~D:~TSEAPE~REQUIREMENTS~.~ E~R~.:G~Df AND..: F~LID REPONS iN INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES. MOTION BY MR. MAHONEY, SECONDED BY MR. W~SWORTH, TO EXTEND THE ~G UNTIL 11:05 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT MR. HAMILTON DOES AGREE WITH ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN MR. MOSBY'S LETTER, DATED JULY 24, 1985, EXCLUDING THE LAND SCAPE RECOMMENDATION. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. THOMPSON MR. FULLERTON MR. MAHONEY MR. KURLIKOWSKI MR. WADSWORTH MRS. YOUNG NASY: CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES: PAGE 12 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25, 1985 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): MOTION BY MR. FULLERTON, SECONDED BY MR.WADSWORTH TO PAY MOBSY-BOBBINS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED IN THE AMOUNT OF $575.67, AND SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC. FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $117.94. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:05 P.M. MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:05 P.M. Jim Gallagher Mayor City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 127 Ct SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958-0127 TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 25~ 1985 Deborah C. Krages City Clerk CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 11, 1985 OLD BUSINESS: MODEL HOME PERMIT - SILVA INDIAN RIVER BAIT AND TACKLE SHOP - FEY FATHER AND SON PLAZA DISCUSSION RE: ANTENNA ORDINANCE DISCUSSION RE: PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWING ALL STRUCTURES INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL, PRIOR TO PERMITTING. CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS: DISCUSSION REGARDING CONSULTING ENGINEER - RANDALL MOSBY MEMBER'S MATTERS: NEW BUSINESS: MODEL HOME PERMIT - EDMISTEN HAMILTON - SITE PLAN APPLICATION APPROVAL OF PAYMENT - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED - MOSBY-ROBBINS AND ASSOCIATES APPROVAL OF BILLS ADJOURN NOTE: IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING, 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 PRO- CEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED.