Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11161989 PZ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1989 CHAIRMAN KRULIKOWSKI CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT ?;00 PM PRESENT; MRS. TAYLOR, MR. FULLERTON, MR. KRULIKOWSKI, MR. MAHONEY, MR. GiLCHER, MRS. KILKELLY, MR. WADSWORTH, MR. THOMPSON AND MR. SHROYER BOTH ALTERNATES. ABSENT; NONE ALSO PRESENT; PETER JONES, BRUCE COOPER, LINDA KINCHEN ANNOUNCEMENTS; CONGRATULATIONS WERE GIVEN TO MR. SHROYBR FOR HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD ALSO THE CHAIRMAN ASKS IF THE COMMISSION WOULD CONSIDER REVERSING THE ORDER OF BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA - TAKING NEW BUSINESS FIRST AND OLD BUSINESS LAST MR. WADSWORTH SO MOVED SECOND BY MR. GILCHER- PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 11-2-89 - CHANGE THE WORD WATER TO WATERFRONT WHEN REFERING TO THE SEBASTIAN WATERFRONT DISTRICT ON PAGE FIVE REQUESTED BY MR. GILCHER A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED BY MR. WADSWORTH SECOND BY MR. FULLERTON PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS; HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - CUSTOM LAWN SERVICE RICHARD SMITH IS PRESENT 1029 CROQUET LANE SEBASTIAN MR. THON_PSON BRINGS OUT THE FACT THAT THIS IS A CORNER LOT AND THE HOUSE FACES NEWHALL TERRACE WHICH IS CONFUSING WHEN TRYING TO FiND THE LOCATION, MR, THOMPSON ASKS HOW THE EQUIPMENT IS TRANSPORTED - HE STATES HAS A TRAILER WHICH HE ATTACHES TO HIS TRUCK AND STORES IN HIS GARAGE WHEN NOT IN USE. MR. COOPER STATES THAT A TRAILER CANNOT BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS AND STORED AT THE HOUSE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE STORED OFF SITE. ALSO MR. GILCHER STATES THERE ARE TWO PICK UP TRUCKS USED IN THIS BUSINESS AND ONE OF THOSE WILL HAVE TO BE STORED OFF SITE AS WELL. A MOTION TO APPROVE THE HONE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FOR RICHARD SMITH AT 1029 CROQUET WITH CONTINGENCIES THAT A TAX REGISTRATION NUMBER IS OBTAINED AND THE TRUCK AND TRAILER ARE STORED OFF SiTE WITHIN 5 DAYS WAS MADE BY MR, FULLERTON SECOND MRS. KILKELLY PASSED 5-2 WITH TAYLOR AND GILCHER VOTING NO. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1989 PAGE TWO HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - CAROL HARPER - 666 JENKINS ST MEDICAL CONSULTANT NO EMPLOYEES - PHONE ONLY PH OPENED AT 7;26 P.M, CLOSED AT 7;26 P.M. A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LICENSE WAS MADE BY MR. WADSWORTH, SECOND BY Nd~. GILCHER PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - GAIL FOSTER 509 SAUNDERSS ST. CLEANING SERVICE TELEPHONE ONLY - NO EMPLOYEES PH OPENED AT 7;31 P.M. CLOSED AT 7:31 P.M. A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LICENSE WAS MADE BY MBS. KILKELLY SECOND MR. FULLBRTON PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MODEL HOME PERMIT - TRI-C HOMES - GERALD CAREY PRESIDENT MR. THOMPSON QUESTIONS THE VISIBILITY OF PARKING ON A CIRCULAR DRIVE ON THE CORNER - BRUCE STATES IT MEETS THE CODE REQUIREIfENTS - CHAIRMAN STATES THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE PARKING PLAN ON A CIRCULAR DRIVE AND HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE RENEWAL OF THE APPLICATION. PH OPENED AT 7:40 P,M, CLOSED 7:40 P.M. A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RENEWAL FOR TRI-C MODEL HOME WAS MADE BY MR. WADSWORTH, SECOND MR. GILCHER PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. OLD BUSINESS; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - TOM1KIE STATES HE HAS A MOTION PREPARED BUT HE CANNOT PROPOSE IT BECAUSE ALL REGULAR MEMBERS ARE IN ATTENDANCE, COMMISSION ASKS HiM TO READ IT FOR THE RECORD; I MOVE THAT WE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECONYdEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BE ESTABLISHED IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMNISSION FOR A TRIAL PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS MADE AFTER EXTENSIVE REVIEW AND DEBATE. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS GONE OVER THIS ISSUE IN TWO DIFFERENT MEETINGS INCLUDING A SPECIAL MEETING. THE SUBJECT HAS BEEN WELL REVIEWED AND THIS IS OUR WHOLE-HEARTED FEELING. AT THE END OF THE TRIAL PERIOD FURTHER ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN TO CONTINUE OR TERMINATE. REFERENCE MR. DAVE FISHERS MEMO DATED 7 NOVEMBER 89 ON THiS SAME SUBJECT. WE RECOMN, END PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1989 PAGE THREE THIS BOARD BE COMPRISED OF FIVE MBMBERS PLUS ONE ALTERNATE WHO SHALL BE RESIDENTS OF SEBASTIAN OR HAVE A BUSINESS OPERATION WITHIN SEBASTIAN. WE FURTHER RECOMMEND THAT YOU REQUEST YOUR STAFF TO PREPARE CRITERIA FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF THIS BOARD USING THE CITIZENS FOR BEAUTIFUL SEBASTIAN PRESENTATION DATED OCTOBER 12, 1989 AS A BROAD BASIS WITH CHANGES TO MAKE THIS BOARD ADVISORY NOT REGULATORY AND OTHERS AS APPROPRIATE, THIS RECOI~rMENDATiON IS THE FIRST STEP OF A MANY STEP PROCESS TO GET THIS BOARD IN OPERATION, MR, WADSWORTH SO MOVED ON MR. THOMPSONS MOTION WITH A SECOND BY MRS. KILKELLY - MRS, TAYLOR FEELS THE TRAIL PERIOD SHOULD BE ONE YEAR AND MR, MAHONEY AGREES - MR. KRULIKOWSKI FEELS TWO YEARS SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM MR. GILCHER MADE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION THAT THE TIME SPAN OF TWO YEARS BB FROM APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND A MAJOR REVIEW BE DONE AFTER ONE YEAR SECOND BY MR. FULLERTON BRUCE COOPER STATES A RESOLUTION NOT AN ORDINANCE IS NEEDED TO CREATE THIS BOARD. DONNA KEYS ASKS TO SPEAK AND ASKS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RESOLUTION AND AN ORDINANCE -BRUCE TRIES TO EXPLAIN. DONNA KEYS ALSO STATES SHE WOULD LIKE IT TO SAY " MAKES A LIVING IN SEBASTIAN" AS A QUALIFICATION FOR THE BOARD. THAT WAY AN EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY IN SEBASTIAN COULD APPLY IF NOT THE OWNER. LONNIE POWELL 885 ROSELAND ROAD SPEAKS STATING HIS WIFE IS THE OWNER OF PARADISE BEAUTY SALON ON 512 AND HE WAS UPSET THAT THIS BUSINESS WAS SINGLED OUT iN THE PAPER BY THE CHAIRMAN AS BEING THE TYPE OF BUILDING WE DO NOT WANT ON 512. MR. POWELL STATES THIS BOARD WOULD CAUSE UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP ON DEVELOPERS. HE STATED THAT ACTUALLY THE DENTIST'S OFFICE WAS THE ONE OUT OF PLACE WITH THE OTHER BUILDINGS ON 512. ROLL CALL ON THE AMENDMENT BY MR. GILCHER - UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL ON THE MAiN MOTION - UNANIMOUS FIVE MINUTE RECESS CALLED AT 8:05 P.M, BACK TO ORDER AT 8:iOP. M. ALL F/EMBERS STILL IN ATTENDANCE. MR. THOMPSON MAKES A STATEMENT REGARDING THE LENGTH OF HIS MOTION STATING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL LIKES A LOT OF BACKUP PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1989 PAGE FOUR MATERIAL WITH THEIR INFORMATION AND THAT IS WHY HE GAVE THEM ALL THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE MEETINGS HELD AND THE COPIES OF THE CITIZENS FOR BEAUTIFUL SEBASTIAN PROPOSAL AND DAVE FISHER'S LETTER AS WELL. HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE ACTION CHAIRMAN KRULIKOWSKI GIVES A BRIEF STATEMENT AND INDICATES HE AGREES WITH MRS. TAYLOR THAT HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES SHOULD BE ELIMINATED ALTOGETHER. MR. GILCHER STATES A POLL SHOULD BE TAKEN INCLUDING THE ALTERNATES WHETHER TO REVISE THE PRESENT ORDINANCE OR ELIMINATE ALTOGETHER. MR. KRULIKOWSKI AND MRS. TAYLOR WISH TO ELIMINATE. ALL OTHER MEMBERS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MR. SHROYER WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE EXISTING ORDINANCE WITH CHANGES MADE TO IT. MR. SHROYER SAYS THE ORDINANCE SHOULD STAY AS IT IS WITH CLOSER ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES. CHAIRMAN KRULIKOWSKI STATES IF THE ORDINANCE IS TO REMAIN IT NEEDS TO BE TIGHTENED UP A LITTLE BIT. THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF DO A ROUGH DRAFT FOR REVIEW AND ELIMINATION. SOME OF THE ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED BY STAFF ARE AS FOLLOWS: OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OR NO NOTIFICATION SHOULD BE DONE. LICENSE SHOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON A COUNTY LICENSE BEING REQUIRED. DEED RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A VALID REASON FOR TURN DOWNS. ONE LICENSE PER HOME ONLY. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS VERBATIM FROM THE TAPE. MRS. TAYLOR, MR. SHROYER AND MR. MAHONEY ALL FEEL THAT THE LETTERS OF OBJECTIONS SHOULD HAVE SOME CONSIDERATION IN APPROVING THE LICENSE. MR. WADSWORTH ALSO AGREES BUT WANTS TO ADD THAT IT SHOULD BE THE TYPE OF HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE WHICH CANNOT BE SEEN FROM THE OUTSIDE AT ALL AND IS CARRIED ONLY ENTIRELY WITHIN THE HOME. NO STORAGE OF ANY KIND. MR. GILCHER AGREES WITH THE CONVERSATION AS IT COMES DOWN THE TABLE AND ALL OF THE ABOVE ITEMS ARE ON THE LIST HE HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT SOME SUGGESTED WORDING FOR DEED RESTRICTIONS CAN BE SUPPLIED. STATES GOT HUNG UP ON THE IN THE HOUSE AND OUTSIDE THE HOUSE IT CLEARLY STATES IN OUR CODE AND I'LL READ A HOME OCCUPATION SHALL BE CARRIED ON ENTIRELY WITHIN A DWELLING AND IT GOES ON FROM THERE. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1989 PAGE FIVE A LAWN MOWING SERVICE ISN'T CARRIED ON WITHIN A DWELLING IT'S CARRIED ON ELSEWHERE. A CARPENTER, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THOSE ARE OUTSIDE THE HOME AND I DON'T BELIEVE THOSE ARE HOME OCCUPATIONS WITH ONE EXCEPTION AND THATS THE ADDRESS OF CONVENIENCE. NOW THE ADDRESS OF CONVENIENCE DEFINITION IN OUR CODE I BELIEVE IS GARBLED, IT IS GARBLED MAINLY BECAUSE I THINK IT HAS BEEN EDITED TWO OR THREE TIMES. LET ME READ WHAT I THINK AN ADDRESS OF CONVENIENCE SHOULD SAY: AN ADDRESS OF CONVENIENCE IS A HOME OCCUPATION WHEREIN THE RESIDENCE IS USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR RECEIVING PHONE CALLS, AN ADDRESS FOR BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE, OR THE KEEPING OF BUSINESS RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH A PROFESSION OR BUSINESS OCCUPATION. NOW THE PROFESSION OR BUSINESS OCCUPATION IS ELSEWHERE. THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION AS A DEFINITION SHOULD WE GET THAT FAR. WE SEEM TO GET CAUGHT UP WITH THE VEHICLE AND I'VE OFFERED A SUGGESTION THAT WE TAKE THE VEHICLE WORDING OUT OF SUB SECTION ONE IN OUR CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT HOME OCCUPATIONS AND VEHICLES ALL IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH AND AGAIN DEVOTE A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH TO IT. THATS WHERE WE ARE KIND OF CUNFUSING THE HOME OCCUPATION AND THE VEHICLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOME OCCUPATION. NOW I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH AN AVON LADY THAT TAKES HER PERSONAL CAR AND GOES OUT AND SELLS HER PRODUCTS ALL OVER THE CITY OR WHEREVER. WHY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TELL SHE'S IN A HOME OCCUPATION. BUT I DO HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH A GUY THAT HAULS A TRAILER FULL OF LAWN MOWING EQUIPMENT, PAINTING EQUIPMENT OR LADDERS OR PIPE AND RUNS AROUND THE CITY AND DOES CONSTRUCTION AND THEN COMES HOME AND STORES THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS IN HIS DRIVEWAY. THEREFORE I HAVE SUGGESTED A RATHER TIGHT RESTRICTION ON THE VEHICLE WHICH CAN QUALIFY AS AN ADJUNCT TO A HOME OCCUPATION, AND i WON'T READ iT AT THIS TIME BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT IT HAS A TIGHT DEFINITION AND ITS MAIN FEATURE IS THAT YOU CAN'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF A HOME OCCUPATION-WHEN ITS EITHER PARKED OR IN TRANSIT OBVIOUSLT THE GUY HAS TO LOAD IT AND UNLOAD IT BUT ONCE ITS UNLOADED YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE HOME OCCUPATION. NOW THIS GETS INTO ANOTHER PART OF THE CODE WHICH ADDRESSES PARKING OF VEHICLES IN THE CITY. AND IT GETS IN MIXED UP WITH MOBILE HOMES RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, TRAILERS, CARGO VEHICLES, AND I THINK THESE TWO SECTIONS OF THE CODE ARE SOMEWHAT INTER-RELATED. LETS TAKE THE CASE OF THE GUY WHO WORKS FOR SOUTHERN BELL. HE IS TOLD OK YOU CAN TAKE THE COMPANY VEHICLE HOME BECAUSE YOUR GOING TO SERVICE TELEPHONES IN SEBASTIAN. THATS NOT A HOME OCCUPATION BUT HE HAS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKED AT HIS RESIDENCE. THAT CASE IN GILCHERS' OPINION IS NOT CURRENTLY COVERED IN THE CODE. PERSONAL VEHICLES ARE BUT NOT THOSE KINDS OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. BIG TRUCKS, TRUCK TRAILERS AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT IS BUT THIS IS ONE AREA THAT ISN'T. THATS NOT TO BAD BUT SUPPOSE WE HAVE LIKE I SAW ON THE ROAD THIS MORNING A VAN FOR AN INSULATION COMPANY THAT WAS PAINTED BRIGHT ORANGE. WE NEED TO PUT SOME LIMITS ON THIS, THAT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE IF I MAY USE THE TERM NOW HAS TO HAVE SOME REASONABLE APPEARANCE STANDARDS PUT ON IT AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT GARISH WHICH I KIND OF LiKE NOW SINCE I HAVE A DEFINITION FOR IT. BUT THAT'S THE SORT OF THING I'M THINKING OF. THERE ARE OTHER VEHICLES WHICH ARE SHAPED LIKE AN ORANGE OR OTHER THINGS THAT YOU CERTAINLY WOULD NOT WANT PARKED IN A RESIDENCIAL AREA. THEN WE GET DOWN TO THE CASE THAT IS NOT QUITE AS CLEAR. WHAT ABOUT THE CARPENTER NOW. CARPENTER TOOLS ARE REALITIVELY SMALL, THEY MAY CARRY A SMALL LADDER, THEY MAY CARRY A LITTLE SAW OR SHELF SAW TO SET UP AND A GENERATOR. I SEE NO REASON WHY THE CARPENTER CANNOT ENCLOSE THIS IN A VAN OR A CAB AND KEEP iT SCREENED. AND I WOULD SAY TO THIS GENTLEMEN HE SHOULD APPLY FOR AN ADDRESS OF CONVENIENCE AND ABIDE BY SOME RULES WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST, THAT APPLY TO HIS VEHICLE. SO IF WE CAN GET THE VEHICLE SOLVED, I THINK WE HAVE EIGHTY PER CENT OF OUR HOME OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEMS SOLVED. I THINK I PREFER TO LEAVE IT AT THIS POINT, I HAVE MADE THE MAJOR POINTS, I AGREE WITH NO MORE THAN ONE HOME OCCUPATION, I AGREE WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ALTHOUGH I DISCUSSED IT WITH MR. COOPER AND HE ADVISES THERE MIGHT BE SOME REAL LEGAL WOLVES IN THE WOOD HERE AND I CAN APPRECIATE THAT BUT I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE IT A WACK AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT. I'M EMBARASSED THAT A NICE DEVELOPMENT LIKE SAN SEBASTIAN SPRINGS AND SOUTH MOON UNDER, THE DEVELOPER HAS TO COME TO US IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOME OCCUPATION. THE DEVELOPER SAYING WE DON'T ALLOW THAT UNDER THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND WE SiT UP HERE SANCTIMONIOUS AND LOOK AT OUR CODE AND SAY OH YEA WE HAVE TO GIVE HIM A HOME OCCUPATION CAUSE THERE ARE NO RULES THAT SAY WE CAN'T. SO HERE'S THE POOR APPLICANT HE HAS A PERMIT FROM THE CITY AND HE HAS A DEVELOPER SUING HIM FOR PUTTING A HOME OCCUPATION IN HIS HOME. I THINK THAT IS UNNECESSARY AND PERHAPS SOMEWHAT LUDICROUS. i WOULD SUGGEST TYING OUR CODES INTO THAT BUT THERE MAY BE SOME REAL LEGAL BEARS ON THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO READ IN CLOSING IF I MAY WHAT I THINK A VEHICLE ASSOCIATED WITH A HOME OCCUPATION SHOULD BE " NO MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE SHALL BE KEPT OR PARKED ON THE PREMISES IN CONNECTION WITH A HOME OCCUPATION. NO VEHICLE OTHER THEN A CONVENTIONAL FULLY ENCLOSED PASSENGER VEHICLE, STATION WAGON, MINI-VAN, MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE OR A FULLY ENCLOSED COMPACT PICK UP TRUCK MAY BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH A HOME OCCUPATION. THE GROSS CARRYING WEIGHT OF ANY SUCH VEHICLE AMOUNTING TO 1/2 TON. RIGHT NOW THE CODE STATES 3/4 I WON'T GET HUNG UP ON 1/4 TON. BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE A SMALLER VEHICLE. NOW HERES THE KICKER: ALL EQUIPMENT, TOOLS, MACHINERY OR PRODUCTS ASSOCIATED WITH A HOME OCCUPATION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1989 PAGE SEVEN SHALL BE COMPLETELY CONTAINED WITHIN THE VEHICLE WHEN PARKED ON THE PREMISES OR IN TRANSIT AND SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM ANY ADJACENT PROPERTY. NO ADVERTISING OF ANY SORT SHALL BE ALLOWED ON ANY VEHICLE USED IN CONNECTION WITH A HOME OCCUPATION. VEHICLES OR TRUCKS EXCEEDING 1/2 TON AND TRAILERS OF ANY TYPE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED IN CONNECTION WITH A HOME OCCUPATION." I THINK iF THOSE RESTRICTIONS WOULD BE PLACED AND ENFORCED I THINK A GREAT DEAL OF OUR PROBLEMS WITH HOME OCCUPTIONS WOULD BE SOLVED. MRS. KILKELLY IS IN AGREEMENT WITH EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS BUT I HAVE A BIT OF DIFFICULTY IN COMPREHENDING THAT THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL BE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE HOME BUT YET SUGGESTIONS ARE MADE ABOUT THE VEHIICLES THAT SHALL NOT BE APPARENT AT ALL THAT THEY ARE INVOLVED IN ANY COMMERCIAL USE. THATS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS ALSO I FEEL THAT YOU CANNOT PUT RESTRICTIONS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT YOU ARE NOT ALSO ON OTHER USES WITHIN THE CITY SUCH AS NOT HAVING SIGNS ON YOUR TRUCKS BUT YET SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE A HOME OCCUPATION CAN BRING A TRUCK IN SO ALL OF THIS HAS TO BE STRAIGHTENED OUT WiTH AMBIGUITY. I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. ~ MR. FULLERTON STATES MR. GILCHERS POINT OF ADDRESS OF CONVENIENCE AND WHETHER HE MEANT A PROVISION CAN BE PUT IN THE CODE TO ALLOW A REAL ESTATE PERSON FOR EXAMPLE TO PUT A SIGN ON THE SIDE OF HIS CAR. MR. GILCHER STATES HE MEANT NO SIGNS IN CONNECTION WITH A HOME OCCUPATION. MR. FULLERTON STATES WELL IT WOULDN'T BE A HOME OCCUPATION ACTUALLY. MR. GILCHER STATES THEN IT WOULD ONLY BE AN ADDRESS OF CONVENIENCE. MR. FULLERTON STATES THATS WHAT I AM TRYING TO DETERMINE, IF A PERSON COMES HOME WITH A COMPANY CAR THAT STATES FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT ON IT, MR. GILCHER STATES WELL THEN THATS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE NOT A HOME OCCUPATION. MR. FULLERTON SAYS LETS TAKE A REAL ESTATE MAN HE HAS A LICENSE ON THE FRONT OF HIS CAR THAT SAYS JO-JO'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY. WERE_NOT GETTING INTO THIS BUT HE STILL USES HIS PHONE AT HOME BUT HE HAS AN OFFICE HE GOES TO. MR. GILCHER STATES NO SIGNS. MR. FULLERTON ASKS MR. COOPER iF HE HAS CHECKED AT ALL IF DEED RESTRICTION CAN BE PUT IN THE CODE. MR. COOPER STATES HE CAN ONLY STATE WHAT HE HAS STATED BEFORE, THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS IS "ARE THEY VALID" I DON'T KNOW. THE ATTORNEY HAS ADVISED IN THE PAST YOU CANNOT DO THAT AND HE HAS TO ABIDE BY WHAT THE ATTORNEY STATES. THE REST OF MR. COOPERS COMMENTS ARE INAUDIBLE DUE TO NOT BEING ABLE TO HEAR WHAT HE IS STATING. PETER SPEAKS ON DEED RESTRICTIONS BUT ALSO CANNOT BE HEARD. MR. WADSWORTH STATES HE WOULD LIKE TO ADD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS I THINK WE MISSED THE POINT ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. I MENTIONED THE DEED RESTRICTIONS DURING ONE OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AND IF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS SO STATE THAT THERE WILL BE NO HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE ISSUED I THINK THAT KIND OF SPELLS IT OUT. I DON'T THINK WERE TALKING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1989 PAGE EIGHT ABOUT IN ALL DUE RESPECT BRUCE BLUE VEHICLES OR RED VEHICLES OR NO CLOTHES LINES OR WHATEVER BUT IF IT STATES IN THERE THAT THERE WILL BE NO HOME OCCUPATIONS AND THE BUYERS ARE GIVEN A COPY OF DEED RESTRICTIONS PRIOR TO PURCHASE, AND I'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION ON BOTH OCCASIONS AND BOTH PARTIES ANSWERED YES THEY KNEW IT THEN I THINK THiS BOARD SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO, IF IT SPELLS OUT HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE. OK i CAN SEE THAT BUT LETS SAY THE THEORY COMES HOW DO YOU KNOW THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE VALID, BRUCE COOPER ASKS. MR. WADSWORTH ANSWERS IF THEY ARE RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY. BRUCE STATES THAT STILL HAS NO BEARING AND I'M SURE THE ATTORNEY WILL ADVISE YOU BECAUSE I JUST KNOW I'VE HEARD IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. JUST GO AHEAD AND LEAVE IT IN BRUCE STATES BECAUSE I THINK THE ATTORNEY WILL ADVISE YOU ON THE MATTER. MR. THOMPSON STATES HE IS A MINORITY BUT HE DOESN'T THINK THEY NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO THE CODE. REALLY HE HADN'T THOUGHT OF IT IN THE SAME WAY AS HIS COUNTERPART DOWN AT THE OTHER END BUT I'M NOT TO SURE HE iSN'T COMPLETELY RIGHT IF WE ENFORCE WHAT WE HAVE THAT WE WON'T GET ALONG REAL WELL. AND I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF LIMITING A PICK UP TRUCK IN THE FRONT YARD OF A 1/4 TON OR iN THE BACK YARD. I WOULD REFER YOU TO PAGE 403 HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE PARAGRAPH 14 AND A AND IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET RID OF THEM YOU CAN DO IT VERY EASY BY DELETING RS-20, RE-40, RS-15 AND YOU'VE GOT RID OF IT RIGHT THERE CAUSE THAT IDENTIFIES WHERE YOU CAN HAVE THEM SO IF YOU REALLY WANT TO ELIMINATE THEM ITS VERY EASY. (THIS REFERS TO DEED RESTRICTIONS DISCUSSION) BUT I DO NOT CONCUR IN THAT APPROACH. I DEFINATELY DO NOT CONCUR THAT WE AS A CITY DEFINATELY DO NOT WANT TO TELL A PERSON LIVING HERE THAT HE CANNOT BRING HIS COMPANY TRUCK HOME AT NIGHT. I DON'T THINK WE AS A COMMISSION WANT TO LIMIT OUR RESIDENTS TO SUCH AN EXTEND THAT THEY HAVE A HARD TIME MAKING A LIVING AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT SOME OF THIS CONVERSATION IS DOING AND I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT WHATSOEVER. THANK YOU. MR. GILCHER STATES THAT BOTH TOMMIE AND EARL HAVE MADE THE POINT THAT THE CODE SHOULD STAY AS IT IS BUT THEY HAVE ALSO PUT IN THE QUALIFIER IF WE FOLLOW IT. AND I HAVE BEEN ON THIS BOARD AND HAVE PROTESTED VIGOUROUSLY EVERY TIME A LAWN MOWING OPERATION CAME BEFORE US I HAVE WRITTEN A WHITE PAPER WHICH HAS BEEN WIDELY DISTRIBUTED TO EACH OF YOU AND IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN INTO THE RECORD GIVING REASONS A MULTITUDE OF REASONS WHY IT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A HOME OCCUPATION AND YET WEEK AFTER WEEK THIS BOARD APPROVES LAWN OCCUPATIONS. WE GO AND TURN HAND SPRINGS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN HERE ON THE RULES OF THE HOME OCCUPATIONS AND GIVE HIM ALL KIND OF LATITUDE TO KEEP DOING WHAT HE IS DOING. AS LONG AS THIS BOARD INTERPRETS EVERYTHING LITERALLY, AND TO THE FULLEST EXTEND OF CODE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1989 PAGE NINE THEN NOTHING WE WRITE CAN DO ANY GOOD AND I WOULD AGREE THAT THE CODE WE HAVE IF FOLLOWED WOULD TAKE CARE OF A GREAT MANY OF OUR PROBLEMS. ONE REASON I FEEL IT NEEDS REWRITING IS THAT WE SEEM NOT TO WANT TO FOLLOW IT TO THE LETTER. MR. KRULIKOWSKI STATES WITH THE WAY THE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES HAVE BEEN ISSUED I SEE A POTENTIAL EXPLOSIVE SITUATION IN OUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. WHILE EVERYTHING WAS BEING DISCUSSED I HAVE COME UP WITH A FEW MORE ITEMS. I WANT TO RUN BY YOU. 1) THE POSSIBILITY OF PERMITING A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES PER YEAR. 2) AS IN OUR MODEL HOME PERMITS HAVE A RENEWAL PERIOD OF SAY EVERY TWO YEARS TO SEE IF THE BUSINESS HAS EXPANDED IF THERE HAS BEEN COMPLAINTS, IF THAT IS THE POINT IT COULD BE A BASIS FOR DENIAL ON RENEWAL. 3) TO GET IT BACK INTO WHAT THE CODE WAS DESIGNED FOR HAVE SPECIFIC OCCUPATIONS THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS. MR. THOMPSON STATES THAT THE MODEL HOME PERMIT IS RENEWED EVERY YEAR, MR. KRULIKOWSKI STATES HE IS AWARE BUT HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES SHOULD HAVE A TWO YEAR RENEWAL. MR. COOPER GIVES SOME COMMENTS ON A COUPLE OF THE ITEMS ONE BEING THE COUNTY LICENSE HE STATES THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE WAS INFORMED BY PAST CITY ATTORNEYS THAT THEY CANNOT REQUIRE A COUNTY LICENSE SO THIS IS AN ITEM WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND ONE THING I WANT TO GET CLEARED UP EVERYONE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE MAIL OUTS - THEY ARE OF COURSE REQUIRED OF ALL CONDITION USES. HOWEVER, IF ANYONE WHO HAS APPLIED FOR A MODEL HOME OR HOME OCCUPATION AND COMES BEFORE AND THEY DO NOT COMPLY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TURN THEM DOWN. AND AGAIN WHETHER YOU HAVE ONE LETTER, TWO LETTERS OR THREE LETTERS, JUST BECAUSE THEY OBJECT THE ATTORNEY WILL ADVISE YOU IF THE APPLICANT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS YOU CANNOT TURN HIM DOWN. STAN STATES THAT IF WE DON'T TIGHTEN UP NOW WITHIN FIVE YEARS WE WILL BE GOING THROUGH THE SAME THING AGAIN. HE STATES SINCE HE HAS BEEN ON THE BOARD THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 360 HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES IN SEBASTIAN. MR. MAHONEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE TRADES FROM THE HOME OCCUPATIONS, THAT SHOULD NARROW IT DOWN CONSIDERABLY. MRS. KILKELLY ASKS WHAT IS THEIR ALTERNATIVE THEN GETTING A REGULAR OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE. STAN STATES YES IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTION. AND MRS. KILKELLY STATES BUT THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO BRING HOME THEIR VEHICLES WITH ALL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1989 PAGE TEN THEIR EQUIPMENT WHICH iS THE VERY THING WE ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF. SO EXERCISING THE BUILDING TRADES FROM HOME OCCUPATIONS WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. STAN STATES THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME THERE IS NOTHING TO PROHIBIT THAT FROM HAPPENING, I THINK IT IS BASED ON A MATTER OF GOOD CONSCIOUS IF SOMEONE HAS HIS OWN BUSINESS AND HE BRINGS THE BUSINESS VEHICLE HOME OR IF THE LINE MAN IS WORKING FOR FPL OR SOUTHERN BELL AND IS PERMITTED TO BRING THE TRUCKS HOME. MRS. KILKELLY STATES THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CODE TO STOP HIM FROM DOING THIS, STAN STATES NO. MR. GILCHER STATES I THINK A NEW DEFINITION FOR A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SHOULD BE ADDED AND IT CAN BE ALLOWED TO BE PARKED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE. I HAVE A DEFINITION I CAN OFFER YOU. VERY SIMILAR TO THE HOME OCCUPATION "ANY TRUCK, TRAILER, PASSENGER CAR, STATION WAGON OR SIMILAR VEHICLE IN CONNECTION WITH A FOR PROFIT BUSINESS WHEN NOT PERMITTED FOR A USE WITH A HOME OCCUPATION. THATS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. ANY MATERIALS, PARTS, TOOLS OR EQUIPMENT CONTAINED IN OR MOUNTED ON A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SHALL BE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED AND NOT VISIBLE FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY WHEN PARKED OR IN TRANSIT. SIGNS ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLES SHALL NOT BE GARISH. DOESN'T THAT COVER IT. DOESN'T THAT ALLOW SOUTHERN BELL TO BRING HIS TRUCK HOME DOESN'T THAT ALLOW THE COP TO BRING HIS CAR HOME AND YET IT DOES NOT ALLOW THE GUY WITH PIPES HANGING ALL OVER HIS TRUCK TO BRING IT HOME. THAT STAYS IN HIS COMMERCIAL ZONE, WHERE HE PRESUMEABLY IS CONDUCTING HIS COMMERCIAL BUSINESS. MR. GILCHER ASKS IF ANY OF US WANTS A TRUCK LIKE THAT PARKED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, DEPRECiATiNG THE VALUE OF THE HOMES I DON'T THINK SO AND THATS THE WHOLE POINT. THOSE TYPES OF VEHICLES DEPRECIATE VALUE AND DEPRECIATE THE CITY AND I THINK WE SHOULD START RAISING OUR STANDARDS AND NOT LOWERING THEM, BECAUSE SOME GUY CAN'T AFFORD TO DO ANYTHING BUT WELD A COUPLE OF PIPES ON A PICK UP TRUCK. IF HE CAN AFFORD TO BE IN BUSINESS THEN HE HAS TO AFFORD THE EQUIPMENT TO BE IN BUSINESS WITH. MR. THOMPSON STATES MR. CHAIRMAN OF COURSE I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT ED HAS KNOWN IT FOR QUITE AWILE CAUSE I HAVE OBJECTED EVERY TIME THIS COMES UP FROM DOING ANYTHING BUT IN MY OPINION WE ARE NOT A RICH COMMUNITY WE ARE A BEDROOM COMMUNITY AND AS SUCH SHOULD NOT GO AGAINST OUR WORKING PEOPLE. AND IF WE GO TO PUTTING SUCH RESTRICTIONS AS MINI VANS AND MINI PICK UPS ON WHAT YOU CAN PARK IN YOUR DRIVEWAY THEN IN MY OPINION YOU HAVE GONE OVERBOARD AND I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU NOT DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THANK YOU. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1989 PAGE ELEVEN MR. GILCHER STATES THAT THE DIFFERENCIATION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND HOME OCCUPATION VEHICLES IS APPARENTLY TO OBSCURE FOR EASE OF UNDERSTANDING AND I'M SORRY, I TRIED. CHAIRMAN ASKS FOR ANY OTHER INPUT ANY FROM STAFF - BRUCE STATES JUST IN REFERENCE TO THE RECENT DEFINITION, HE WILL NOT STATE WHETHER HE AGREES OR NOT BUT THE ENFORCEMENT OF IT WILL BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. MR. THOMPSON STATES HE FEELS THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS PRETTY HARD. BRUCE AGREES BUT THIS WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS LOAD TO MONITOR AND KEEP UP WITH THAT. MR. THOMPSON ASKS JUST IN THE LAST YEAR HOW MANY CASES THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HAS HAD AS RELATED TO HOME OCCUPATIONS. BRUCE STATES THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THAT HAVE NOT HAD ANY LICENSE AND BEEN CAUGHT AND HAD TO COME TO THE BOARD BUT AFTER APPROVAL THERE HAVE BEEN NO HOME OCCUPATIONAL VIOLATIONS COME BEFORE THE CODE BOARD. CHAIRMAN ASKS FOR THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD. MR. GILCHER SUGGESTS THAT THE BOARD DIRECT STAFF TO COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDED MODIFICATION TO THE HOME OCCUPATION SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE AND INCLUDE ANY OF THE COMMENTS WE DISCUSSED THIS EVENING WHICH SEEM REASONABLE AND BRING iT BACK FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. BRUCE REQUESTS THAT HE HAVE A LITTLE MORE DIRECTION BECAUSE HE HAS HEARD A LOT OF THINGS TONIGHT BUT NOT ALL OF THEM EVERYONE HAS AGREED UPON. MR. GILCHER STATES THE BALL JUST CAME BACK INTO OUR COURT. BRUCE STATES OTHER THEN THE SPECIFIC ITEMS WHICH WERE MENTIONED HE IS NOT SURE OF ALL THE THINGS THEY WANT TO PROHIBIT. CHAIRMAN STATES BASED ON EVERYTHING PRESENTED, THE EASIEST APPROACH WOULD BE TO DO A ROUGH DRAFT SO THEY CAN TOTALLY SEE THE PICTURE THEN THEY CAN GO FROM THAT POINT. BRUCE STATES ARE WE PLAYING PING PONG. BRUCE STATES HE WILL GIVE IT A SHOT. MR. WADSWORTH STATES HE AGREES WITH STAN LETS GET A ROUGH DRAFT AND INCLUDE ALL THE THINGS TALKED ABOUT IN IT AND LETS KICK IT AROUND AGAIN BRUCE STATES ED HAS A DRAFT THAT IS PRETTY SPECIFIC ALL THAT IS NEEDED IS TO ADD THESE THINGS DISCUSSED LIKE ONE AND ONLY ONE HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE RENEWAL DATE OF EVERY TWO YEARS TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION BRUCE STATES HE FEELS IF THEY VIOLATE THE RULES THEY SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK RIGHT AWAY AND HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHY THAT WAS IN THERE. MR. KRULIKOWSKI STATES HE BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE OF THE NIGHT WE HAD ALL THOSE NEIGHBORS IN HERE COMPLAINING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1989 PAGE TWELVE ABOUT THE PAINTER ON THE BLOCK CAUSING ALL THE PROBLEMS AND THEY COMPLAINED TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND NOTHING WAS EVER DONE ABOUT HIM. THE REASON FOR MY SUGGESTIONS FOR A ROUGH DRAFT WAS FROM EACH ONE OF US GIVING OUR PARTICULAR POINTS, I KNOW EVERYONE ISN'T SITTING HERE IN SHORTHAND JOTTING EVERYTHING DOWN SO THAT IF IT WAS PUT IN ROUGH DRAFT FORM AND YOU COULD PiCK UP ONE TWO THREE FOUR OR FIVE PAGES AND RUN THROUGH IT YOU CAN THEN SIT AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST ON OTHER CITY LEGISLATURE AND WE CAN GO THROUGH IT AND BRUCE CUTS IN AT THIS POINT BUT IS UNABLE TO BE HEARD FOR TRANSCRIPT. MRS. KILKELLY SUGGESTS PERHAPS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE MINUTES WOULD HELP. BRUCE STATES HE WILL DO HIS BEST AND BRING SOMETHING BACK. NOTE: SOME OF THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT IS MISSING DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOUR VOICES ARE NOT BEING PICKED UP ON THE MICHROPHONES. PLEASE SPEAK AS LOUD AS YOU CAN AND INTO THE MIKE WHENEVER POSSIBLE. THANK YOU CHAIRMANS MATTERS: NONE MEMBERS MATTERS: MRS. KILKELLY STATES THAT THE BOOKS THEY ORDERED ARE IN AND CAN BE PICKED UP FOR REVIEW THROUGH PETER JONES. BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS: BRUCE STATES HE APPROVED MR. SMITHS LICENSE WITHOUT A TRAILER ATTACHED, EVEN THOUGH THE COMMISSION APPROVED HIS LAWN MAINTENANCE BUSINESS AT THE LAST MEETING WITH A SMALL UTILITY TRAILER. NO FURTHER COMMENTS. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 FAX 407-589-5570 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 16TH, 1989 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS APPROVE MINUTES; OLD BUSINESS; NOVEMBER 2ND, 1989 REGULAR MEETING NONE NEW BUSINESS: HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - CUSTOM LAWN SERVICE HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - CAROL HARPER HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - GAIL'S CLEANING SERVICE MODEL HOME RENEWAL-TRI-C CHAIRMANS MATTERS; MEMBERS MATTERS; ATTORNEYS MATTERS; ENGINEERS MATTERS; BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS; CITY PLANNER MATTERS; 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 PURPOSES 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 MADE. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 FAX 407-589-5570 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREBT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL HOLD A REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, NOVBMBER 16TH, 1989 AT 7:00 P,M, IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1225 I~IN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA.