Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07271995 PZ/O"NN City of Sebastian 1225 MAIN STREET o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570 AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 27, 1995 7:00 P. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. � 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 4. OLD BUSINESS. S. NEW BUSINESS. a. Minor Subdivision Revision - J&W Subdivision ' b. Preliminary PUD -Sebastian Lakes Sebastian Lakes Shopping Center, Winn-Dixie 6. 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 SPECIAL MEETING JULY 27, 1995 Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:03p.m. ROI~L ~ALL: PRESENT: Mr. Munsart Ms. Kilkelly Chron. Thompson Mr. Goldstein Ms. Brantmeyer Mr. Barnes Mr. Johns Mr. Fischer Mr. Sehulke ALSO PRESENT: ANNOUNCEMENTS: Devin Rushnell, Masteller and Moler/Consulting City Engineer Dorri Bosworth, Secretary Bruce Cooper, Director of Community Development/Building Official Mr. Tim Williams, Assistant City Attorney Chrrm. Thompson welcomed Ms. Shirley Kilkelly back to Planning and Zoning. MOTION by Fischer/Barnes I make a motion that we put on the J&W Subdivision. A voice vote was taken. Motion carried. MOTION by Fischer/Barnes I make a motion that we put on the Nationwide Insurance. ~-'~'~ -~,~.~ C~. ~o~n ~o~ ~ at Ci~ Co~ M~ on ~e pr~ous ~~ouncil ~ccept~ · e Co~ssion's reco~dation to drop ~e t~s "first" & "second" in ref~ce to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEET~.....G OF JULY 27, 1995 the Commission Alternates. PAGE TWO NEW, BUSINESS: MINOR SUBDIVISION REVISION - J & W SUBDIVISION Mr. Cooper noted that the revision for J & W Subdivision is necessary because HRS will not allow 3 lots on septic tank and wells, so the developers created 2 lots which eliminates any previous problem with length and width of the lots. Staff recommends approval. MOTION by Bames/Munsart I make a motion to approve the revised J & W Subdivision based on James Fowler survey revised 5/26/95 and 7/24/95, sheet 1 of 2, and revised 6/15/95 and 7/24/95, sheet 2 of 2. Chron. Thompson noted that the motion has to be that "we recommend City Council approve it". Mr. Barnes stated "so changed". Roll call was taken. 7-0 motion carried. P, .~ELtMINARY,P.UD - SEBAS~ LAKES - SEBASTIAN ~S SHOPPING CENTER. WINN-DIXIE Mr. Cooper introduced Devin Rushnell from Masteller and Moler, and Mr. Tim Williams, the Assistant City Attorney. He also explained that to his knowledge, there seems to have been three conceptual plans designed since 1984. He noted how PUD zoning and regulations allow for some Commercial, which would include Winn-Dixie, and that Ron Howse, the project engineer, has informed him that they have come to an agreement with Indian River County for the proper alignment of Roseland Road. In response to a question from Chmn. Thompson, Mr. Cooper explained the connection that the County has in regard to Roseland Road intersection. Mr. Williams noted that proceduraly, this Commission can do whatever is in the City's best interest, since there is little guidance in the Code. He also noted that the City does not have to get involved in any dispute between Lenars and the developers or Sebastian Lakes. Our interpretation of the developers agreement is that all owners of any property in this PUD are equally responsible for 100% compliance with the developers agreement. If the Commission recommends approval, it might want to make it conditional on their reaching agreement with City Council regarding construction of the road improvements as referred to in the development agreement, and provisions for public utilities. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 27, 1995 PAGE, THRF~ Mr. Cooper mentioned a list of conditions that he had worked up, and suggested that Mr. Fischer discuss his own list of conditions, as a way of comparison. Mr. Fischer noted some conditions such as the building must be 30 fi. from Roseland Road, and the right-of-way needs to be 80 ft. Mr. Ron Howse, Engineer of record, and the design engineer, Bill Nairn, explained that in a meeting with the County held earlier today, they came to agreements on how they are going to build Roseland Road and Laconia St. intersections. The County would like the end product to be an. 80 fi. right-of- way. Rose. land Road will probably be shifted 70 ft. to the West to line up with the existing apron that the County has already paved. Roseland Road would be three lanes past the. intersection of our driveway which is the walrt entrance of the shopping center, and they would like us to put an apron on the lane towards the Library. The County will let us vacate the portion of the old right-of-way to move it over to align with the way things are in the field. After speaking with Mr. Christianson of PTC, Mr. Cooper understands that he has reached an agreement with the property owners that the old right-of-way will be conveyed to be able to realign Roseland Rd. to its proper configuration. This will involve a swap of right-of-way property between the County and the property owner. Mr. Howse mentioned that they would be adding an extra 10 fi. to Laconia to provide a better buffer zone in the green areas. Mr. Cooper noted that if the landscape buffer is to be 20 fi., it is in harmony with the second conceptional plan. Staff had no objections to a 38.16 fi set-back. He discussed the fencing and believed there had been a change from concrete block to other fence material. They will also provide a berm type effect to soften the fencing and still supply the same landscaping that is shown on the landscape plan. The buffer and berm detail is a different type, but it was suggested by the developers, not the code. Mr. Williams pointed out that they must be careful in buffering against a residential neighborhood. The recent plan shows minimal trees in a certain area. The conceptual plan shows a 20 ft. on center for trees down the complete line which would buffer the commercial building. Mr. Howse suggested using myrtles and petunias on the sides; there are many trees on the site that can be moved to this Mr. Cooper noted that what has been proposed is adequate, and more than meets code even for PUD or Commercial General zoning. Mx. Thompson, Ms. Kilkelly and Mr. Howse discussed the hedge proposed for outside the fence. It was determined to use wax myrtles planted on 5 ft., 3 ft., or 2 1/2 ft. centers. Ifa berm is used, it would be sculpted 3 1/2 fi. to 5 fi. with wax myrtles meandering along it. PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETINO, OF kY 27, 1995 Ms. Kilkelly noted the height of the fence, and Mr. Howse responded that an 8 fL fence seems to provide more shadow, looks more institution-like, and with a thick myrtle thicket, a 6 fL fence would be plenty adequate to slow down climbing children. Aier lengthy discussion on zoning classifications, it was determined to be Commercial General within a PUD-R, and accepted by all members. The land use designation is MD-8 (medium density) of 8 units per acre except for 17.57 acres of Commercial General which was the underlying zoning. Mr. Howse responded to Ms. Brantmeyer that a pedestrian entrance is a very good idea, but not a sidewalk along Laconia. Mrs. Kilkelly discussed the Bald Cyprus trees and the fact that they will lose needles in the winter, and Mr. Howse explained that they were for the retention ponds, not for the buffer. Mr. Goldstein asked Mr. Howse if, in the right-of-way swap, it would leave a hiatus of land that they do not own on the west side between their development and Roseland Road. Mr. Howse responded that they would force the issue with Lenar and that they will assure the Commission that there will be some recorded access to the west side of the development from Roseland Road, as depicted on the plan. In answer to a question from Mr. Johns, Mr. Howse responded that Laconia will not drain into their system. He noted that Laconia drains into the ponds behind the sewage treatment plant. Mr, Johns also asked Mr, Cooper if there was a condition for Laconia Road.to be completed in the Developers Agreement and did it include drainage. Mr, Cooper responded yes. Laconia must be accepted by the City and all drainage associated with it. It is obvious that we are looking at some major reconstruction. It is a possible negotiation factor to be considered as a condition. Mr. Cooper noted that this issue will come to a solution before City Council gets it. Mr. lohns noted the drainage pipes from Roseland Road across the proposed parking lot for Winn- Dixie. Mr. Howse noted that it is their intention to give the City a blanket easement for all drainage pipes on the entire site. Mr. Cooper explained that Laconia Road will end in a cul-de-sac and be done simultaneously with Roseland Road. Mr. Thompson asked who would pay for that modification, and Mr. Cooper responded that it is part of the requirement of W'mn-Dixie. Mr. Munsart suggested continuing the three lanes of Roseland Road to the southern entrance for large 1 S-wheel tracks making deliveries, allowing through traffic to have easy access, north or south. Mr. Howse responded that he would discuss it with the County. PLANNING .AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE FIVE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 271995 Mr. Fischer asked Attorney Williams if the Sebastian Lakes PUD -R is in compliance with the Resolution 93-62 which is the Developer's Agreement. Mr. Williams responded that from what he has heard, he would think it is clear they are not because of Laconia. Mr. Cooper recommended an agreement be reached and ratified by the City to insure not only Laconia, but also that the utilities be taken care of. Thereby, the responsibility will be on all parties involved. Mr. Williams responded to Mr. Schulke's question about amending the conceptual plan with the opinion that it is not required to go back and change the conceptual plan for every change they make. It is contemplated that the preliminary plan is going to have a lot of elements in that are not included in the conceptual plan. He agreed that the code is not really clear, but doesn't see where the code requires an amendment to the conceptual plan; more like they have the option. Chinn. Thompson announced a break at 8:36 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:47 p.m. with all members present. At this point, Mr. Cooper summed up his list of conditions as follows: 1) Applicant to provide a southbound left -turn lane at the main driveway on Roseland Boulevard (Roseland Road extension) pursuant to Indian River County requirements. 2) Sidewalks to be provided on both sides of Roseland Boulevard. 3) Street lights shall be provided in accordance with Section 20A-17.1. 4) Pursuant to Section 20A-8.51, the Planning and Zoning Commission waive the requirement of wheel stops. 5) A Right Turn Only sign to be placed at the intersection egress from the parking lot of Winn-Dixie. 6) DEP permit and City Right-of-way permit will be included on the TRC dated July 14, 1995 7) The Assistant City Attorney is preparing the language for the plat regarding the drainage easements, and will have available at the time of the meeting on July 27, 1995. 8) Provide a 30 foot setback. 9) Provide pedestrian Access to Laconia 10) Twenty foot Landscape Buffer with a 6 foot stockade fence and meandering berm 3 ft to 5 ft in height, and wax myrtles be planted on 5 ft. centers 11) Owner to provide blanket easement for drainage improvements from Roseland Road 12) Owner reach agreement with City Council as to construction of all roadways Also included is: a memorandum dated July 21, 1995 from Mr. Tim Williams regarding the plat; any conditions outlined in the letter dated July 13, 1995 from Masteller and Moler regarding the subdivision plat; any conditions outlined in Masteller and Moler's letter of July 11, 1995 regarding the site plan; and all conditions re ' - included in theTRC dated July 14, 1995. PLANNING AND ZONIN,(3 COMMISSION SPECIAI~. MEETING OF IULY ,:2.7. 1995 PAGE SIX There was some discussion as to whether the Commission wanted to go further than the engineering analysis in reference to the third lane, and extending the apron to Laconia St. Members did not support this suggestion. MOTION by Bames/Goldstein I make a motion that we approve a pr'~ PUD for the Sebastian Lakes Shopping Center with the twelve (12) conditions previously discussed including the letters from Masteller & Moler, the memo fi'om Tim W'dliams, and the TRC dated July 14, 1995, and including the drawings: 1 - 10 by Parsons Surveying, sheet 1 of 1, dated 4/25/95 identified as a Boundary Survey; sheet 3 of 10, identified as a Project Geometries Plan, dated 7/12/95, revision 7/3/95; sheet 4 of 10, identified as a Site Utility Plan, revision date of 7/3/95, approval date of 7/12/95; sheet 5 of 10 identified as Paving and Grading Plan, revised 7/3/95, approved 7/12/95; sheet 6 of 10, identified as Roseland Boulevard Plan Profile, approved 7/12/95; sheet 7 of 10, identified as General Details, revised 7/3/95, approved 7/12/95; sheet 8 of 10, identified as Water and Sewer Detail, approved 7/12/95; sheet 9 of 10 identified as Paving and Grading Details, approved 7/12/95; sheet 10 of 10, identified as Minimum Landscape Plan, revised 7/3/95, approved 7/12/95; sheet 10A of 10, identified as a Lighting Plan, approved 7/20/95; the Plat is undated, marked as received 6/16/95; drawing marked A-5 by the architects in partnership Fig Bar which is the elevation drawings and was received July 12, 1995. Mr. Goldstein suggested changing the above motion slightly to make a recommendation that City Council approve these, and Mr. Barnes concurred. Roll call was taken. Chron. Thompson yes Mr. Goldstein - yes Mr. Barnes - yes Mr. Johns - yes Mr. Fischer - no Mr. Schulke - no Mr. Munsart - yes 5-2 motion carded. N. ATIONWmE IN~.,,[IIIANCE r EX'I~,~IlON FOR C0MPL~TI0N OF IANDI~CAPIN(~ Mr. Cooper explained that Nationwide Insurance is ready for Certificate of Occupancy, and due to some financial burden, Mr. I-Iaeseler is asking to phase his landscaping over a period of time. MOTION by Barnes/Fischer I make a motion that we approve the extension of the completion of the landscaping for 990 U.S. 1, the Nationwide Insurance property, as outlined in his letter of July 17, 1995 from Mr. David Haeseler to Bruce Cooper. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 27, 1995 Staff recommends approval. Ms. Brantmeyer questioned the same action with University Auto Sales in regard to the phasing of the curb cut. She noted that the time allowed is up. Mr. Cooper explained that Skip has been dealing with FDOT, who has allowed it to go a little fiarther, they find no problem with it at this point. Roll call was taken. 7-0 motion carried. Mr. Schulke asked Mr. Cooper what Masteller & Moler were to review on these plans. Does it vary job to job? Mr. Cooper responded that right now, they are to review the site plan, or any other proposals before you. They have been generally limited to drainage, but it's been expanded, depending on each project. We want to talk to the City Manager, and may get them into the full realm. Also, we want to develop Mr. Goldstein*s TRC with Devin Rushnell so that we can provide an easier review process that would hopefially expedite these reviews. In response to Mr. Schulke's question of what Masteller & Moler were to review in regard to the V~rmn-Dixie site, Mr. Cooper responded that they were to review the plat requirements and the PUD portion. Mr. Rushnell explained that he reviewed Article 10. He did not look at zoning or setbacks, but was looking mainly at site plan, approval and the drainage aspects. He did not review the traffic report, and had no involvement in it. Mr. Cooper explained that the City does not have a traffic engineer and they rely on the County traffic engine, and they will not review it unless it is part of their thoroughfare plan or adopted plan. There was no need to have Mr. Rushnell review it when the County would do it for no charge. Mr. Schulke asked who would have reviewed stop bars, stop signs, those items on a site plan. He pointed out that it was the P & Z Commission that found some problems with lack of stop signs and stop bars, and this should be the job of the City consulting engineer that we are paying for. Mr. Cooper concurred. Mr. Johns asked what is the status of the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Cooper responded that the State will be sending the Contract documents. We get a little over $14,000 for that review from the State, and he needs to get with the City Manager again to discuss how to proceed. He should be able to report at the next meeting. Chmn. Thompson adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.