Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09211995 PZe"k) City of Sebastian 1225 MAIN STREET o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 f] FAX (407) 589-5570 AGENDA. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - 5. OLD BUSINESS: Discussion - Riverfront Architectural Review Board Discussion - Quasi-judicial Procedures Discussion - Parking Requirements - Article VIII Discussion - Recommendation to City Council - PUD -C Mini -Warehouses 6. NEW BUSINESS:. Public Hearing - Home Occupational License - Deborah Furrer - 160 S. Wimbrow Drive - Domestic Cleaning Service 7. CHAIRMAN - MATTERS : M I P& A. mo o %F% c qT, Em v t R-oc PA F_ 8. MEMBERS MATTERS: 9. ATTORNEY MATTERS: 10. BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS: 11. 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 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 SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. PRESENT:, Ms. Kilkelly Chmn. Thompson Mr. ~oldstein Ms. Brantmeyer Mr. Barnes Mr. Johns Mr. Fischer Mr. Schulke EXCUSED: Mr. Munsart ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Tim Williams, Assistant City Attorney Jan King, Zoning Technician Dorri Bosworth, Secretary ANNOUNCEM~N~ Ms. Brantmeyer will be voting in place of Mr. Munsart, who was absent and excused from the meeting. Mr. Barnes asked to be excused from the October 19th regular meeting. Ms. Brantmeyer asked to be excused from the October 5th regular meeting.. Mr. Goldstein made a motion to move New Business ahead of Old Business. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. There were no objections. Chmn. Thompson made a motion to add a site plan minor modification review for Envirocraft to the agenda as item #1under Old Business. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, motion approved. NEW BUSXNESS~ PUBLIC HEARING - HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - DEBORAH FURRER -160 S. WXMBROW DRIVE - DOMESTIC CLEANXNG SERVICE Ms. F.u. rrer was present,, stated her address$SB&8]]AN~.~_.~.in according to quasi-judicial procedures. ~kANNING SUBJECTTO?, - PLANN!N~ AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULARMEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE TWO The public'hearing was opened at 7=08 p.m. There were 18 notices of the hearing sent out. There was one objection letter received back. Jan King, representing staff, stated the applicant basically wanted an "address of convenience" and that staff had no objection to the application. Ms. Furrer addressed some of the concerns her neighbors had voiced to her during the week. She submitted a picture of her home in its present condition with her application to verify any commercial changes her neighbors are concerned might happen. There was no public input. The public hearing was closed at 7:09 p.m. Mr. Goldstein made a motion to approve the home occupational license for Deborah Furrer's Cleaning Service at 160 S. Wimbrow Drive. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. The application was approved 7-0. OLD BUSXNBSS~ EMVXRO~RAFT - MINOR MODXFXCATXON TO SITE PLAN Ms. King stated they had received a request for a minor modification to the Envirocraft site plan, which normally doesn't have to go before the Commission, but Mr. Cooper wanted to make sure there were no questions or concerns before it was approved. Ms. King explained that Mr. Barnhart is asking to relocate the Phase I building by moving it forward on the property. He will be reducing the green area in front of the building but makes up for the reduction by the increase of green area in the rear of the building. Ms. King visually showed the Board the proposed change by using the overhead projector. Staff recommended the modification be approved subject to approval by the consulting engineer. Mr. Mosby, the project engineer, assured staff the change would not have any affect on the proposed on-site drainage system. Chmn. Thompson questioned if any parking spaces were going to be lost? Staff stated no. Mr. Schulke asked Mr. Barnhart, who was present, why he needed to move the building? Mr. Barnhart explained after re-evaluating the proposed Phase II building, some work space would be inaccessible, which could be correctedby PT.aNNING AND ZONING COMMISSION · REGUnAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21. 1995 moving the Phase I building. Mr. Goldstein questioned if a tree was going to be removed in one of the parking lot green areas being eliminated? Mr. Barnhart stated yes. It would be replaced somewhere on the site when Mr. Mosby worked on the revised site plan. Staff assured the Board the site would be inspected for trees before a C/O was given. Mr. Goldstein wanted to make sure Section 20A-13.10.C (page 891) would still be in compliance. Ms. King stated yes, it was because the green area in the rear of the building covered the requirement of vehicular use area landscaping. Section 20A-13.10.C does not require the landscaping to actually be in the vehicular use area. Mr. Goldstein stated he felt the intent of the Section was not to encourage site plans to,have all their landscaping in back of the buildings but in areas visible to the public, and he disagreed with staff's interpretation of the code. He questioned why staff was looking for Planning and Zoning approval if it was only considered a minor modification. Ms. Kilkelly asked where in the code it stated "moving a building" was listed as a minor modification? The code listed addition of awnings and canopies, parking spaces, attached and detached additions, but not relocating buildings. Ms. King stated it was a staff interpretation. Ms. Kilkelly noted the drain field was also being reversed and she felt this was not covered as a minor modification either. Mr. Williams stated he could not find anything on page 648 or 649 that would allow moving a building to be considered a minor modification. There is a list of minor modifications that states "shall include the following:" but does not state "shall not be limited to". He interpreted that minor modifications were limited to the specific ones listed on those pages. Mr. Johns questioned staff if there were no green areas (cut-outs) in the parking area on the original site plan would it still have been in compliance? Ms. King stated yes. Mr. Fischer made a motion to approve the change to the site plan on the parking area and the relocating of the building subject to the consulting engineer's approval. Mr. Johns seconded the motion. Roll call was taken: Chmn. Thompson Mr. Goldstein Ms. Brantmeyer Mr. Barnes Mr. Johns Mr. Fischer Mr. Schulke YES NO YES YES YES YES YES Motion approved 6-1. P_t~a~NN_INGAND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OFSEPTEMBER,21. 1995 Mr. Fischer suggested at a future meeting that the language of the minor modifications to site plans be looked at with more detail and any conflict be resolved. DXSCUSSXOM - RXVERFROMT ARCHITECTURAL REVXE~ BOARD Chmn. Thompson reviewed that at its August 9th meeting City Council discussed establishing a Riverfront Task Force to come up with architectural standards for riverfront development and questioned if the Planning and Zoning Commission would like the responsibility? Mr. Goldstein discussed his feelings regarding the time Planning and zoning has already spent on the Riverfront Development and the lack of anything being done. He reviewed the Sebastian Architectural Review Ordinance dated/revised 3/19/90 and reminded the Board of Policy 1-1.2.4 of the Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Objectives, and Policies) which states the direction the City would like to take the Riverfront Development. He stated he does not like to see the riverfront being developed in a piece-meal way and that City Council needs an integrated plan. He would not like to see the Planning and Zoning Commission take responsibility. Ms. Kilkelly stated she would like to see Planning and zoning accept the task but, develop the architectural standards in a modified form. She liked the format of the Wabasso Corridor Plan. She suggested creating an "overlay district" which would keep the requirements of the "core" zoning district such .as ~MC and then super-impose special requirements just for the riVerfront. If the Board came up with a plan similar to the Wabasso Plan, permitted and conditional uses, suggested architectural designs, and the like could be listed within that document. Mr. Fischer was in favor of attempting the task but has concerns about restricting types of allowed businesses. He felt the Board should only look at architectural suggestions but didn't know how to enforce existing buildings to adhere to those suggestions too. He did agree with Mr. Goldstein that the Riverfront Development should be done all together and not piece-mealed. Mr. Johns and Mr. Barnes also agreed with Mr. Goldstein. Mr. Barnes stated that alot of time has been already been spent on the Riverfront, but now that the Block Grant for the Riverfront Redevelopment is approaching someone has to do something and'he wouldn't mind if Planning and Zoning approached it. Chmn. Thompson did not want to see the suggested standards become a color scheme ordinance. ~NNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR H~TING OF 8~PTEMBER.21. 1995 Mr. Barnes felt the Board should ask City Council to be more specific in what they actually wanted. Mr. Fischer suggested the City Council revisit the Riverfront Study to determine if that is what they wanted or would like anything changed. Mr. Goldstein made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission transmit to City Council the minutes of this discussion on the Riverfront Task Force and the following message: The Planning and Zoning Commission respectfully declines to participate in a Riverfront Architectural Standards Document pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan - Goals, Objectives, and Policies; Objective 1- 1.2 and Policy 1-1.2.4. The Planning and Zoning Commission strongly urges that City Council refrain from piece-meal strategies on the Riverfront and proceed with all possible expedience the final review and adoption of a comprehensive and well-integrated plan for the Riverfront District. Mr. Schulke seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. Chmn. Thompson YES Mr. Goldstein YES Ms. Brantmeyer YES Mr. Barnes YES Mr. Johns YES Mr. Fischer YES Mr. Schulke YES The motion was approved 7-0. DISCUSSION - QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES Mr. Williams reviewed the change to the Florida Statutes regarding ex-parte communications, site visits, investigations, and expert opinions used in quasi-judicial matters. According to the new statutes, each member must disclose any site visits, investigations, etc. at each quasi-Judicial hearing. The attorneys also streamlined the procedures so that the applicant and affected parties were questioned by both proponents and opponents at one time. Ms. Kilkelly noted that Section 5 requiring any person who wanted to make a presentation or comment on any item needed to sign up with the City Clerk's office prior to the hearing. This should be re-written. Mr. Fischer questioned if the Board was bound to allow public input, as in Section 2(j)? Previously, the Board had voted to allow public input only at the Board's discretion for site plan reviews. Mr. Williams stated any member of the public could speak "where public comment is allowed" as it stated in that subsection. PtANN~NG AND ZONINGCOMMISSION REGUT.A~ ~K~TING OF.SEPTEMBER 21. 1995 The Board further discussed the difference between affected parties and the "public" and the Board's discretion to determine an "opponent". Also they discussed waiving the requirement of a sign- up sheet for presentations as addressed in SeCtion 5. Chmn. Thompson made a motion to accept the updated quasi-judicial hearing procedures presented as an undated draft, pages 1 thru 7, with the provision that Section 5 be deleted, and format be changed on the subsections. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. After a discussion about removing the requirement of the sign-up sheet, Chmn. Thompson withdrew his motion. Mr. Fischer concurred. Chmn. Thompson made another motion to approve the quaSi-Judicial hearing proceduree, presented as an undated draft, with a modification to Section 5 to change "City Clerk" to "Planning and Zoning Secretary" and allowing the Chairman to waive the requirement as noted in Section 5. Also, the subsections of Section 2 shall be changed to alphabetical order. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. 7-0, motion was approved. At 8:30 p.m. a break was called. The meeting resumed at 8545 p.m. and all members were present. DISCUSSION - PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ]tRTXCLE VIII Ms. King explained that lately there were alot of variance requests from doctors/dentists wanting to change the parking requirements for amedical office in an existing building. (Section 20A-8.2.13) The minimum required parking is 15 stalls, no matter how small of operation it is going to be. In 1992 there was a variance granted to a dentist on CR512 to reduce his requirement to 8 stalls. In August another dentist wasgranted a variance from 15 to 7 stalls. The Board of Adjustment's calculation was figured by requiring 2 stalls per dental chair and i stall per employee. Another applicant was going before the Adjustment Board next week and staff received another inquiry today. Staff was requesting the Board consider amending the code concerning medical facilities, and was willing to get any back-up studies the Board might request'such as copies of parking ordinances from other municipalities. Ms. Kilkelly suggested looking intoshared parkingwith neighboring business and incorporate some guidelines into the code. Mr. Schulke explained that the Indian River County parking code provided opportunity for applicants to provide a parking study to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULARMEETI.NG SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 indicate their estimated parking needs. The code procedures and what the applicant had to statistically prove they don't need the required number of stalls. outlined show to Mr. Goldstein questioned staff if after a variance was granted, was the applicant's parking lot ever visually checked to see if the reduced parking was adequate or justified? Staff stated no. Mr. Goldstein made a motion that a survey be done on both offices where variances had been granted and offices that had the required parking stalls and be submitted to the Board. Mr. Johns seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. 7-0, motion approved. Mr. Goldstein also asked staff to find out if our parking requirements were comparable to the County's. Mr. Williams also suggested looking into the shared parking concept but to examine overlap times with certain neighboring businesses such as restaurants, etc. Mr. Schulke reminded the Board that a shared parking situation had already been approved once before for Captain Hiram's, who did provide a parking study with their site plan application. Mr. Barnes noted though, that the businesses and location were all run by the same owner. RI~COMMENDATXON TO CXT~ COUNCIL - pT.T.(~XNG MXNX BTORAGE FACXLXTXES XM THE PUD-C ~ONXNG DISTRICT Mr. Fischer submitted a voting conflict form and withdrew from the discussion citing his conflict of interest as the representative of the PUD. The Board received a memorandum dated 9/14/95 from Mr. Cooper regarding his suggested changes to the PUD-C permitted uses. Mr. Barnes questioned the term "dead storage" and stated he wasn't sure he wanted to allOw contractors and lawn maintenance workers to store e~uipment for their daily work in the facilities. Mr. Goldstein stated he was comfortable with that situation as long as there would be no manufacturing on the site. He also stated that the address of the storage facility should not be allowed for a business address for occupational licenses and home occupational code should be amended to reflect that. PLANNING.A~D ZONING COMMISSION REGur. AR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE EIGHT The Board reflected that previously a request to allow mini-storage facilities in the CG district was turned down because they didn't want contractors to be using the facilities for daily use. PUD-C does allow for light industrial uses and it was the Board's determination storage facilities could be defined as such. However, Other members of the Board did express confusion over the term"dead storage" and wanted to wait until Mr. Cooper was present to answer questions. Mr. Barnes made a motion to postpone the discussion until Mr. Cooper is available to discuss this with the Board. Mrs. Brantmeyer seconded the motion. Mr. Schulke suggested Mr. Cooper could come up with a list of allowed uses under the mini-warehouse section. (vi) Mr. Thompson made an amendment to the motion by asking staff to listen to the tape of tonight's meeting and take into consideration of the Board's discussion for any re-writes of this item. Mr. Goldstein seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken on the amendment, all members vote yes. Roll call was taken on the motion. 7-0, the motion was approved. CHAXRMAM MATTERS3 MEMBERS MATTERS~ Mr. Fischer asked Chessar's Gap. None about the landclearing going on close to Ms. Brantmeyer asked when the new Code Enforcement officers were to begin. ATTO~E~ MATTER~: None BUXLDXMG OFFXCXALMATTERS~ None ADJOURMMEMT~ Chairman Thompson adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.