Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09051985 PZPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 MINUTES 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 MR. ROBERT MCCARTHY (ALTERNATE MEMBER) ALSO PRESENT: MR. RANDY MOSBY, CONSULTING ENGINEER.AND MR. THOMAS PALMER, CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MRS. YOUNG, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 22, 1985, MEETING AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS: INDIAN RIVER BAIT & TACKLE - FEY: MR. GREGORY GORE, ATTORNEY FOR MR. RICHARD FEY, ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION ON HIS CLIENT'S BEHALF. MR. GORE STATED THAT MR. FEY IS IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING ANOTHER SITE PLAN PREPARED, AND WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO STATE WHAT CONCERNS THEY HAD REGARDING THiS SITE, SO THAT IT COULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE NEW SITE PLAN. MR. GORE STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS SITE IS TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL/WHOLESALE OUTLET FOR THE SALE OF BAIT, TACKLE, AND BEVERAGES. MR. GORE ALSO STATED THAT THE RETAIL PORTION OF THE SITE IS THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY-FIVE (395') SQUARE FEET. THE CODE CALLS FOR ONE (1) PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY TWO HUNDRED SQUARE FEET (200') OF RETAIL. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY DETERMINES THAT THE STORAGE AREA ALSO COMPRISES RETAIL FOOTAGE, MR. GORE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BEST TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND REQUEST PERMISSION TO LEASE THE NORTHERN THIRTY-FIVE FEET (35'). MR. GORE STATED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AGREED TO ~EASE THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TO MR. FEY, AND THE TERMS ARE BEING WORKED OUT. MR. GORE STATED THAT FROM READING FORMER MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS, THE MAJOR CONCERN OF THE COMMISSION IS THE PARKING. MR.. GORE' ALSO STATED THAT MR. FEY HAS OBTAINED AN ALCOHOLIC SALES BEVERAGE LICENSE, FOR BEER AND WINE. MR. FEY HAS ALSO RECEIVED HIS APPLICABLE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT LICENSES, AND IS PREPARED TO ENTER INTO A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT REGARDING USE THE ARTESIAN WELL WATER, WHICH AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO WITH FORMER PROPERTY OWNERS. MR. GORE ALSO STATED MR? FEY HAS ~ APPLIED FOR AN OCCURATIONALiLICENSE. MR. GORE STATED THAT HIS CLIENT IS CONSIDERING PUTTING IN A POROUS PARKING LOT, HOWEVER THE ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW FOR NON'POROUS PARKING, AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A DETERMINATION MADE WITH THE ENGINEER, WHICH MR. FEY WILL BE USING, AS TO WHICH WILL BE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE. MINUTES: PAGE 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5,1985 INDIAN RIVER BAIT & TACKLE (CONTINUED): MR. GORE STATED THAT HE HAS SPOKE WITH MR. HECTOR FRANCO, BUILDING OFFICIAL, AND MR. FEY WILL HAVE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES, SINCE THE LEASE WITH THE CITY HAS BEEN GRANTED, AND MR. GORE AND HIS CLIENT ALSO HOPE TO ENTER INTO AN OPTION TO PURCHASE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD WITH THE CITY. MR. GORE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THE SEPTEMBER 19, 1985, AGENDA, AND SUBMIT A MORE DETAILED SITE PLAN. MR. RANDY MOSBY, CONSULTING ENGINEER, STATED THE ITEMS 'HE~ WOULD LOOK FOR, . IN REVIEW- ING THE SITE PLAN ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1 ) SITE DATA, PARKING CALCULATIONS, STANDARD ITEMS AN ENGINEER WOULD PUT ON THE PLANS; 2 ) LANDSCAPE DATA, AND LANDSCAPE PLAN, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS A MINOR SITE PLAN, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE PORTION OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE A PLAN, TO ANY IMPERVIOUS AREAS THAT MR. FEY IS ADDING, TO BE ABLE TO RETAIN THE ONE INCH (1") THAT WOULD BE CREATED ON THE SITE; 3) TOPOGRAPHIC DATA TO SHOW THAT THIS SITE IS NOT GOING TO BE ELEVATED ABOVE INDIgeN RIVER DRIVE, AND HAVE DRAINAGE RUNNING OFF INTO THAT ROAD. MR. GORE ASKED MR. MOSBY IF IT WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE A SURVEY DONE. MR. GORE STATED THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME AND THE LAND ADJACENT TO IT ON BOTH SIDES IS PRETTY WELL LAID OUT. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEYS ARE THE VERY MOST BASIC PART OF THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL. MR. GORE ASKED IF THAT COULD BE WAIVED AT THIS TIME. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS ANY MEANS OF WAVERING SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THAT IS A VARIANCE REQUEST. MR. GORE QUESTIONED THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. MR. MOSBY STATED THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOULD IDENTIFY THE NUMBER OF TREES BEING ADDED, TO ENSURE THAT THE SITE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. ALSO THE PLAN MUST LABEL THE TYPES OF TREES AND'HEDGES THAT'ARE~REQUIRED~ MR. MOSBY STATED THAT IF MR. FEY GOES WITH POROUS PARKING THE ONE INCH (1") RETENTION IS DECREASED DRAMATICALLY BECAUSE THERE IS SOME -ABILITY FOR THE POROUS PARKING TO PERCOLATE SOME OF THE RUN OFF, SO THE RETENTION FOR THAT FIRST ONE INCH {1" ) WOULD BE MINIMIZED. IF MR. FEY DECIDES TO GO NON-POROUS, THERE WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE GENERATION OF RUN OFF FROM THIS SITE. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT THEY MUST MEET THE SITE PLAN DATA SECTION. MR. GORE ASKED IF IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE IS THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY-FIVE FEET (395 ' ) OF RETAIL SPACE. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT IN THE PAST, STORAGE HAS BEEN TREATED BASICALLY AS WAREHOUSING, AND HAVE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR STORAGE AREA. MINUTES: PAGE 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 INDIAN RIVER BAIT & TACKLE (CONTINUED): MR. GORE STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED UNDER THE OLD CODE, AND HE NEEDS TO KNOW WHICH CODE THEY SHOULD BE WORKING UNDER. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION WAS BOUND TO COME UP AGAINST. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THAT IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE AS FAR AS THE PARKING IS CONCERNED. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH ASKED ATTORNEY PALMER WHICH CODE SHOULD BE USED WITH AN IN-PRO- CESS APPLICATION. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE USING THE NEW CODE. MR. GORE STATED THAT HE REALIZED FROM PAST MEETINGS THAT MR. FULLERTON HAS BEEN CONCERNED REGARDING THE SEPTIC TANK USE. MR. GORE STATED THAT THECITY HAS BEEN PROVIDING THAT SINCE 1979, THE SEPTIC TANK AND THE ARTESIAN WELL. MR. GORE STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THE SEPTIC TANK HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT. MR. FULLERTON ASKED MR. GORE WHERE THE SEPTIC TANK IS LOCATED. MR. GORE STATED THAT HE WAS NOT SURE AND WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR THAT, BUT THERE IS A SEPTIC TANK THERE. MR. FULLERTON STATED THAT IT IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, AND IS A SEALED IN UNIT. THE WATER IS COMING FROM THE CITY PROPERTY PARKING LOT. MR. FULLERTON STATED THAT HE KNOWS THIS PARTICULAR SITE WAS TURNED DOWN SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST WHEN PEOPLE TRIED TO OPEN A BUSINESS THERE. MR. MOSBY ASKED IF THE BUILDING IS IN USE NOW. MR. GORE STATED THAT THE BUILDING WAS IN USE AS AN INTERIOR DESIGN SHOP, ALTHOUGH JUDGE SHARP'S WIFE APPARENTLY NEVER APPLIED FOR AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE.FOR THAT USE. MR. GORE STATED THAT THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN OUT AT THE SITE. MR. GORE ALSO STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THAT AS LONG AS THE SITE COMPLIES WITH THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AS FAR AS THE HEALTH MATTERS, SEPTIC AND WATER, THAT SHOULD SATISFY ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE ON THIS. MR. FULLERTON STATED THAT HE DID CALL THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BUT AS FAR AS THE PACKAGE AND LIQUOR STORE IS CONCERNED, FOR CARRY OUT, THEY DO NOT EVEN COME OUT AND CHECK IT. MR. FULLERTON ALSO STATED THAT HE CALLED THE LICENSING DEPARTMENT, AND THEY DO NOT EVEN COME OUT AND CHECK THE BUILDING WHERE THE LICENSE IS GOING TO BE HELD. MR. FULLERTON STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE SEPTIC TANK IS LOCATED. A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC STATED THAT ASTATEMENT MR. FULLERTON MADE WAS INCORRECT. THE GENTLEMAN STATED THAT THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT DID COME AND MAKE AN ON SITE INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE LIQUOR BOARD DID SEND REPRESENTATIVESTO INSPECT THE SITE.~ THE GENTLEMAN STATED THAT HE THINKS MR. FULLERTON SHOULD GET HIS FACTS STRAIGHT~ MINUTES: PAGE 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 INDIAN RIVER BAIT & TACKLE (CONTINUED): MR. FULLERTON STATED THAT THE PEOPLE HE TALKED TO STATED THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO INSPECT A PACKAGE STORE, BUT HE, MR. FULLERTON, MUST BE WRONG, BUT THAT IS WHAT HE WAS TOLD ON THE PHONE. MR. GORE STATED THAT MR. FEY HAS THE APPLICABLE HEALTH PERMITS, AND ASKED IF THAT WAS ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED ON THIS. MR. PALMER STATED THAT HE COULD NOT GIVE A DEFINITE ANSWER ON THAT, BUT HE BELIEVES THAT MR. GORE IS CORRECT. MR. THOMPSON ASKED MR. GORE IF MR. FEY HAS HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL.. MR. GORE STATED THAT MR. FEY DOES HAVE THE APPROVAL. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY CONCERN THE COMMfSSION WOULD ADDRESS. MR. MOSBY ALSO STATED THAT STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR SYSTEMS LIKETHIS, IF THEY ARE ON SEPTIC TANK, THE ENGINEER WOULD GIVE APPROVAL CONTINGENT ON THE APPLICANT RECEIVING THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVALS, BUT IF MR. FEY HAS RECEIVED THESE APPROVALS, THAT IS ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT IF THE POINT IS WHETHER IT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE RECONSTRUCTED TODAY, THEN THAT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT POINT, AND THE COMMISSION CANNOT REALLY ADDRESS THAT. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THAT THE NEW CODE REQUIRES IT TO BE ON THE SITE PLAN. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT IS CORRECT. THE WASTE WATER FACILITIES HAVE TO ~ SHOWN. THAT IS ONE THING THAT NEEDS TO BE LOCATED AND SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE WATSE WATER AND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS. IT IS A REQUIREMENT TO SHOW THAT THE SITE DOES HAVE WASTE WATER AND WATER SUPPLY SERVICE, BUT THE APPROVAL OF THE LOCATION ISREQUIRED BYTHE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT, THAT IS THE KIND OF DATA THAT IS NEEDED TO BE SHOWN ON'THE SI~E PLAN. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO HELP WITH ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SECTION OF THIS SITE PLAN. MR. MAHONEY ASKED IF THE MINIMUM GREEN AREA REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MEANT. MR. MOSBY STATED THAT THERE ARE NO AREA CALCULATIONS OR DRAINAGE SITE ON THE PRESENT PLAN, AND WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO START RUNNING THROUGH CALCUALTIONS WITH NO SQUARE FOOTAGE SHOWING. THIS WOULD BE A STANDARD ITEM THATWOULD BE LOOKED FOR DURING MR. MOSBY'S REVIEW OF THE REVISED SITE PLAN. MR. GORE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO ENSURE THE COMMISSION THAT THEY WILL BE WORK- ING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY ENGINEER TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. MR. MAHONEY STATED THAT HE HAS CONCERNS WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OFINDtAN RIVER DRIVE ENCROACHING INTO THE GRASS AREA IN THE FRONT. MR. MAHONEY STATED THAT WILL BE~ AN~ AREA THAT WILL NEED LOOKING INTO ALSO. IT MAY TAKE AWAY A SECTION OF THE FRONT PROPERTY. MINUTES: PAGE 5 PLANNING 'AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 INDIAN RIVER BAIT & TACKLE (CONTINUED): CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH ASKED MR. PALMER HOW WIDEWOULD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BE FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ON INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. MR. PALMER STATED HE COULD NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITHOUT HAVING SOME KIND OF DOCUMENTATION WITH HIM. MR. KRULIKOWSKI STATED THAT A SURVEY WOULD SHOW THAT. MR. THOMPSON ASKED MR. GORE IF THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY WILL BE WORKED OUT BY THE SEPTEMBER 19, 1985, MEETING. MR. GORE STATED THAT HE WOULD BELIEVE THERE COULD BE AN APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON THE LEASE. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED THAT WHEN THIS SITE PLAN COMES BACK TO THE COMMISSION, HE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW MUCH THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY IS, AND WHERE IT INFRINGES, WHERE THE COMMISSION POSSIBLY THINKS,THE FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY IS. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COUNTY HEALTH APPROVAL ON THIS, AND HE WOULD ALSO LIKE IT SHOWN ON THE DRAWING WHERE THE SEPTIC TANK IS AND WHERE THE FIELD LINES ARE. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH QUESTIONED THAT IT HAS BEEN SHOWN ON ALL THE PLANS SUBMITTED, AN EXISTING WALK IN COOLER, AND DID ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEA WHY A HOUSE WOULD HAVE A LARGE WALK-IN COOLER. MR. PALMER STATED THAT TALK ABOUT THERE BEING A PREVIOUS BUSINESS ON THIS SITE IS A LOT OF NON-SENSE. THE LAST REAL USE FOR THIS SITE WAS A RESIDENTIAL USE. MR. PALMER ALSO STATED THAT THE TALK ABOUT iT BEING USED FOR A INTERIOR DESIGN SHOP, IS A LOT OF SALES TALK, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT WHATSOEVER. MR. PALMER STATED THAT THE LEASE AGREEMENT IS NOT WORKED OUT YET, BUT HE BELIEVES IT IS GOING TO LEASED, SUBJECT TO THE COUNCIL APPROVAL, OR SOLD. MR. PALMER STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THAT THE COUNCIL HAS A PREFERENCE TO AN OUT RIGHT SALE, BUT THAT WILL BE WORKED OUT. MR. PALMER STATED THAT COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED THEY WOULD PREFER TO EITHER LEASE OR SALE. MR. PALMER ALSO STATED HE BELIEVES THAT EVERYONE WOULD BE BETTER OFF IN THE LONG RUN IF THEY COULD WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT ON THE PURCHASE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. MR. GORE STATED THAT, THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO BE NEGOTIATED, AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WAS GOING ON RIGHT HERE. MR. GORE STATED THAT AS FAR AS THE SALE, IT WOULD BE TWO TO FOUR MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD, BUT WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO NEGOTIATE FIRST WITH THE CITY IS AN OUT RIGHT LEASE, WITH AN OPTION TO PURCHASE, BUT DID NOT FEEL IT WAS RELATIVE TO THIS COMMISSION MEETING. MR. PALMER STATED THAT IT IS RELATIVE TO THE EXTENT THAT AN ASSERTION HAS BEEN MADE THAT THE LEASE AND OR SALE ISA FOREGONE CONCLUSION, WHEN IT IS NOT. MR. PALMER STATED THAT UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE APPLICANT IT IS NOT FIRM. MR. PALMER ALSO STATED THAT HE HAS A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH A LEASE, WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE, AS HE HAS EXPRESSED TO MR. GORE BEFORE. MR. PALMER STATED THAT A LEASE WITH AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE IS ONE THING, BUT A LEASE WITH AN OPTION TO PURCHASE IS A DANGEROUS THING FROM EVERYBODY'S POINT OF VIEW. MR. PALMER STATED THAT IF ~HE~'DO-NOT.-.OPT. TO MINUTES: PAGE 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 INDIAN RIVER BAIT & TACKLE (CONTINUED): PURCHASE AND THE LEASE EXPIRES, THEN THE PERSON IS IN A NON-CONFORMING SITUATION~ WHERE HE HAS A BUSINESS WITHOUT THE PARKING SPACES, AND COULD BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS. MR. PALMER STATED THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER FOR THE APPLICANT TO KNOW THAT HE IS GOING TO HAVE THIS PARKING FOR HIMSELF AND SUCCESSIVE PURCHASERS, IN THE EVENT HE WOULD WANT TO SELL, RATHER THAN A LEASE, BECAUSE LEASES RUN OUT. MR. PALMER STATED THAT WHEN LEASES RUN OUT, UNLESS YOU HAVE A SUBSITUTE PARKING SPACE, THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE A VIABLE BUSINESS. MR. PALMER STATED THAT IT IS BETTER FOR MR. FEY'S AND THE CITY'S POINT OF VIEW FOR AN OUTRIGHT PURCHASE. MR. PALMER STATED THAT HE DOES NOT THINK THE CITY IS GOING TO GO WITH A LEASE, WITH AN OPTION TO PURCHASE, BUT THEY MIGHT GO WITH A LEASE, WITH A PROMISE TO PURCHASE. MR. PALMER STATED THAT HE CANNOT SPEAK FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL GO FOR JUST A LEASE. MR. PALMER STATED THAT HE HAS ADVISED CITY COUNCIL THAT A LEASE IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR BOTH THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT, AND IT LEAVES A LOT OF LOOSE ENDS THAT EVENTUALLY BECOMES SOMEBODY'SfPROBLEM. MR. PALMER ALSO STATED THAT THE LAST HE HAD HEARD, THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN APPRAISAL DONE ON THE PROPERTY, TO ASSCERTAIN ITS' FAIR MARKET VALUE, WITH A VIEW TOWARD A SALE. MR. PALMER STATED THAT HE BELIEVES IT CAN BE WORKED OUT, BUT WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COMMISSION, THAT THIS LEASE OR SALE IS NOT FIRM, BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT MADE A COMMIT- MENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. MR. PALMER STATED THAT MR. GORE APPEARED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEY HAVE EXPRESSED AN ATTITUDE OF COOPERATION, TO WORK IT OUT, AND CERTAINLY DID NOT REJECT IT OUT OF HAND, AND WOULD LIKE TO WORK IT OUT, BUT IT IS NOT LOCKED IN. MR. PALMER STATED HE DOES NOT WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT AND MISLEAD THE COMMISSION THAT IN FACT IT IS SETTLED, IT IS NOT. MR. PALMER ALSO STATED HE DOES BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO WORK IT OUT. PROPOSED PIZZA PARLOR - REVISED SITEPLAN - DEMASO: MR. EARL MASTELLER ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF ~HE APPLICANT MRS. DEMASO. MR. MASTELLER ADDRESSED THE THREE COMMENTS OF MR. MOSBY'S LETTER DATED AUGUST 27, 1985, REGARDING REVIEW OF THE REVISED SITE PLAN. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO NEED SOME KIND OF EASEMENT FROM THE CONDOMINIUM REGARDING THE PARKING LOT. THE LETTER FROM MR. VAN DE VOORDE IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THERE~ WAS A DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING THE RE-ZONING OF C.R. 512 TO CL-512, AND THE PARKING SITE. MOTION BY MR. WADSWORTH, SECONDED BY MR. KRULIKOWSKI, TO APPROVE THESITE PLAN CONTINGENT ON 1) THE LAND DESIGNATION USE AND ZONING FOR THIS SITE IS CHANGED TO CL-512; 2) APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'S HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVAL; 3) IF AN EASEMENT CANNOT BE OBTAINED, THEN THE DRIVEWAY CONNECTION MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE PLAN. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. THOMPSON MR. FULLERTON MR. MAHONEY MR. KRULIKOWSKI MR. WADSWORTH CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH NAYS: MRS. YOUNG MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES: PAGR 7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 DISCUSSION RE: RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITY'S THOROUGHFARES: THERE WAS A LENGTHY DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING THE CITY'S THOROUGHFARES. MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MR. KRULIKOWSKI, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE DRAWING AND THAT IN THE LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION IT STATE THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE RAILROAD CROSSING ON OLD DIXIE NOT BE TRADED FOR ANOTHER CROSSING, BUT BE USED FOR FUTURE USE. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. THOMPSON MR. FULLERTON MR. MAHONEY MR. KRULEKOWSKI MR. WADSWORTH MRS. YOUNG CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH NAYS: NONE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. WADSWORTH, SECONDED BY MR. KRULIKOWSKI, TO RECESS THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH RECONVIENED THE MEETING AT 8:40 P.M. ALL THOSE MEMBERS WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, WERE PRESENT AT THE RECONVIENING. CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS: THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON A LETTER CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH HAD WRITTEN ON THE RE-ROUTING OF C.R. 512. MOTION BY MR. FULLERTON, SECONDED BY MR. WADSWORTH, TO SEND CHAIRMAN'S EISENBARTH'S LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS READ, AS THE COMMISSIONS' PROPOSAL. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. FULLERTON MR. MAHONEY MR. KRULIKOWSKI MR. WADSWORTH MRS. YOUNG CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH NAYS: MR. THOMPSON MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. WADSWORTH, SECONDED BY MR: KRULIKOWSKI, THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REQUIRE TWELVE (12) COPIES OF ALL PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED. MEMBER'S MATTERS: A DISCUSSION WAS HELD REGARDING CHARGING FEES FOR PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCES AND CONSULTATIONS WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. MINUTES: PAGE 8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 MEMBER'S MATTERS (CONTINUED): MOTION BY MR. WADSWORTH, SECONDED BY,MRS. yOUNG; TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THATTHEY ESTABLISH A FEE OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) WHEN SOMEONE APPLIES FOR A PRE APPLICATION CONFERENCE ON MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, TO BE STATED ON APPLICATION WHETHER THEY WISH TO SPEAK WITH CITY STAFF OR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MRS. YOUNG, TO PURCHASE 'ONE HUNDRED (100) LEGAL SIZE FILE FOLDERS, NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($25.00). MOTi~O~ ~ARRIED. MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MRS. YOUNG, TO REVISE THE AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS MEMBER'S MATTERS ATTORNEY' MATTERS ENGINEER'S MATTERS ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED. MR. THOMPSON STATED THAT HEHAS CONCERNS OF'NOT HAVING"A~?FLORIDA REGISTED P.E. REVIEWING SITE PLANS AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1985. THERE WAS A LENGTHY DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS MATTER. ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: DISCUSSION WAS HELD REGARDING THE DRAFT OF THE ANTENNA ORDINANCE. MOTION BY MR. KRULIKOWSKI, SECONDED BY MR. WADSWORTH, TO PLACE DISCUSSION OF THE ANTENNA ORDINANCE UNDER OLD BUSINESS FOR THE SEPTEMBER 19, 1985, AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS: BARBER STREET FIRE STATION - SITE PLAN - CITY OF SEBASTIAN: MR. HECTOR FRANCO, BUILDING OFFICIAL, CITY OF SEBASTIAN, WAS PRESENT AND ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION ON THIS SITE PLAN. MINUTES: PAGE 9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 BABBER STREET FIRE STATION (CONTINUED): MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MR. WADSWORTH, TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN DRAWING FOR THE BARBER STREET FIRE STATION CONTINGENT ON THE PLANS BEING SIGNED AND SEALED. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. THOMPSON MR. FULLERTON MR. MAHONEY MR. KRULIKOWSKI MR ~ WADSWORTH MRS. YOUNG CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH NONE MOTION CARRIED. MODELING AGENCY - SITE PLAN -'FEY: MR. MOSBY STATED THAT THE REVISED SITE PLAN WAS COMPLETED IN CONNECTION OF HIS LETTER DATED AUGUST 13, 1985, AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITHOUT REVISION. MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MR. WADSWORTH, TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. THOMPSON MR. FULLERTON MR. MAHONEY MR. KRULIKOWSKI MR. WADSWORTH MRS. YOUNG CHAIRMAN EISENBARTH NAYS: NONE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MRi WADSWORTH, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED CONSULTATION WITH PLANNING AND ZONING - PRELIMINARY SiTEPLAN - SNELL: MR. SNELL WAS PRESENT AND ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION ON HIS SITE PLAN. THERE WAS A LENGTHY DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. AND NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. MOTION BY MR. THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MR. MAHONEY, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M. City of Sebastian Jim Gallagher POST OFFICE BOX 127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958-0127 Deborah C. Krages Mayor TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330 City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1985 OLD BUSINESS: INDIAN RIVER BAIT & TACKLE SITE PLAN - FEY PROPOSED PIZZA PARLOR - REVISED SITE PLAN - DEMASO DISCUSSION RE: RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITY'S THOROUGHFARES CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS: MEMBER,S MATTERS: ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: ENGINEER'S MATTERS: NEW BUSINESS: BARBER STREET FIRE STATION - SITE PLAN - CITY OF SEBASTIAN MODELING AGENCY - SITE PLAN - FEY CONSULTATION WITH PLANNING AND ZONING - PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - SNELL 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 PRUPOSES, 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 BASED.