Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12151994 PZlei City of Sebastian 1225 MAIN STREET o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570 AGENDA►, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1994 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of November 17, 1994 5. OLD BUSINESS: Recommendation to City Council - Amendment to the Land Development Code - Accessory Structures 6. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing - Model Home Permit - Perugini Construction 1835 Barber Street Public Hearing - Home Occupational License - Pure Country Entertainment - 1079 Gardenia Street - Public Hearing - Home Occupational License - Preuss International - 116 Hinchman Avenue Public Hearing - Recommendation to City Council - Special Use Permit for Sandmining Operation Richard Fey - Old Dixie Highway 7. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: 8. MEMBERS MATTERS: 9. ATTORNEY MATTERS: 10. BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS: 11. ADJOURNMENT. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MAi'•-'1'ERS,- " WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY -NEED TO ENSURE "WHAT • A ' VERBATIM RECORD OF THE 'PROCEEDINGS" IS MADE, WHICH RECORD"'INCLUDES TWE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. SAID APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 'f! . WXTHXN 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 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1994 Chairman Thompson opened the meeting at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Munsart Mr. Shroyer Chmn. Thompson Mr. Goldstein Mr. Falke Mr. Fischer Mr. Schulke EXCUSED: Mrs. Brantmeyer Mr. Barnes ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Tim Williams, Assistant City Attorney Bruce Cooper, Director of Community Development/ Building Official Dorri Bosworth, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Schulke will be voting in place of Mr. Barnes, who is not present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Falke questions an incorrect abbreviation which is misleading on page two, third paragraph under New Business/Building Official Matters. Mr. Falke then makes a motion to approve the minutes of November 17th, 1994, conditional that the correction to the abbreviation be made. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken, minutes were approved 7-0. Chmn. Thompson makes a motion to move Old Business to after New Business on the agenda. Mr. Falke seconded it. A voice vote was taken, motion carried. SEBASTIAN ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION' APPROVED �� DATE`_ APPROVED SUE �71N -- 0su, 'x - �O� eooll) /006 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE TWO REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1994 NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING - MODEL HOME PERMIT - PERUGINI CONSTRUCTION - 1835 BARBER STREET The applicant and staff were sworn in according to quasi-judicial procedures. The public hearing was opened at 7:08 P.M. There were 14 public hearing notices sent out. No objection or non- objection letters were received back. No public input. Staff had no objections to the permit. The public hearing was closed at 7:11 P.M. The board members had no questions for the applicant, Mr. Gregory Perugini, who was present. Mr. Munsart made a motion to approve the model home application for Perugini Construction, Inc., Lot 9, Block 445, Sebastian Highlands Unit 17, at 1835 Barber Street. Mr. Shroyer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken, 7-0 motion approved. PUBLIC HEARING - HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - PURE COUNTRY ENTERTAINMENT - 1079 GARDENIA STREET The public hearing was opened at 7:15 P.M. There were 16 notices sent out. There were 2 objection and 0 non- objection letters received back. Mr. Omas Morris, the applicant, was sworn in for the quasi-judicial procedure. Chmn. Thompson reads the staff's recommendation letter to the Commission citing Mr. Morris' intention of keeping his musical equipment on a small utility trailer to be kept in the garage. Mr. Morris states that is true. Staff then has no objection to the license. A copy of the codes regarding home occupational licenses will be sent to the objectors. A"01 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE THREE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1994 Mr. Falke questions one of the objection letters stating Mr. Morris' home business would be one of many in the area. He would like to know if this is true? Mr. Cooper states only if we have specific addresses could we validate that information. Some home licenses are not renewed and neighbors are not informed of that. Mr. Goldstein asks if there are any other employees? Mr. Morris states no. Mr. Schulke asks if the applicant practices at home, and if so does it cause a noise disturbance problem? Mr. Morris states he does practice in the house but previously has never had a neighbor complain. Mr. Falke asks Mr. Morris what instrument does he play? Mr. Morris states he sings with pre-recorded tapes and plays an instrument along with the tapes when he performs. Mr. Munsart asks if there is any advertising on his trailer? Mr. Morris states yes, there is a sign attached to the trailer, which is parked in the garage. The public hearing is closed at 7:20 P.M. Mr. Falke made a motion to approve the home occupational license for Omas Morris doing business as Pure Country Entertainment at 1079 Gardenia Street in Sebastian. Mr. Goldstein seconded the motion. Roll call was taken, 7-0 motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING - HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - PRUESS INTERNATIONAL - 116 HINCHMAN AVENUE The public hearing was opened at 7:24 P.M. The applicants, Mr. Adam Pruess and Ms. Traci Henderson, are present and are sworn in by Chmn. Thompson. Pruess International is a wholesale business for Amway Products. There were 20 public hearing notices sent out. No objection or non -objection letters were received back. At this time staff is hesitant on approving this license and has questions for the applicants. Mr. Cooper asks if customers are coming to 116 Hinchman to pick up their products? Ms. Henderson states yes. Mr. Cooper inquires if PLANNING AND .~ONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15. 1994 the applicants have meetings for distributorships at their home? Mr. Pruess states no. Presentations are usually done in the customer's home. Mr. Cooper reviews Section 20A-6.1(C)14(B)6 where it states "No commodity or product of any home occupation shall be delivered from the Premises to any person or carrier. Any commodity or product shall be'removed from the Premises only by a member of the family permanently residing in the dwelling on the premise." Ms. Henderson states they have designated one night a week for 3 or 4 customers to pick up their products at the applicant's home. Mr. Cooper informs the applicants that is in violation of the code. Also, only one delivery a week is allowed by an outside carrier. Mr. Cooper inquires how many are made to the applicant's residence in a week's time? Ms. Henderson states they usually have 1 delivery a month by UPS for special catalog orders. Mr. Cooper asks if they could make accommodations to provide, under the Section, other arrangements of pick-up for their customers, or if they could deliver the products to their customers themselves? Ms. Henderson states there would be a large volume of goods to deliver and it would be inconvenient, but Mr. Pruess states that if that is the only problem concerning the license, they would make other arrangements. Mr. Cooper asks if they can stop the customers from coming:~to their residence? Ms. Henderson states yes, they will have to find another location for pick-up. There was no public input. The public hearing was closed at 7:35 P.M. Mr. Shroyer recalls a previous Amway application that was camouflaged as a "networking" business. He feels a license should be issued to the applicants with a condition that other arrangements are made to eliminate the excess traffic in their area. Mr. Falke asks the applicants how long they have been cOnducting this Amway Business? Mr. Pruess states for approximately 3 years but they have only been at the 116 Hinchman address since AuguSt of 1994. Mr. Falke asks if the applicants expand their base of dealership by acquiring other distributors and by doing so, would this affect the amount of UPS deliveries to their home each week? Ms. Henderson states the UPS deliveries are for their own personal use. They pick-up the Amway products themselves at a distribution pLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~GULAR~.ET..ING OF DECEMBER 15, 1994 PAGE FIVE center, bring them home, and have their distributors pick their orders up at their house at 116 Hinchman. This arrangement will be changed now so that the distributors will not be picking up orders at their home anymore. She states as your business grows, the distributors usually break off from you. Mr. Goldstein made a motion to grant the home occupational license to Adam Pruess and Traci Henderson doing business as Pruess International at 116 Hinchman Avenue subject to the condition that the applicants shall personally carry goods off the premises. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken, 7-0 the license was approved. PUBLIC HEARING - RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A SAMDMXNXNG OPERATION - RX(3~ARDFEY - OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY Chmn Thompson asks Mr. Fey if Mr. Wayne Westerman is allowed to represent him during this public hearing? Mr. Fey states yes. This is a request by Richard Fey for a permit to operate a sandmine based on the west side of Old Dixie Highway approximately 410'south of Woodmere Road. The public hearing was opened at 7:48 P.M. Mr. Cooper reviews the application for a sandmining operation through the Land Development Code, Section 20A-5.30 (a), which is an application for a Special Use Permit, required to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which will make a recommendation to the City Council for a final permit. The application was reviewed by Masteller & Moler. The property was granted previous approval for sandmining under the.previous owners and is adjacent to the Morchesky sandminin~ operation which is currently near completion. The operation is to remove an overburden of fill on a sandridge. One requirement is excavating on the sandridge cannot be to more than to an elevation of 25 ft. mean sea level, which the plans do represent. Theonly Section in the Code that staff has concern with is Section 20A-5.30(d)(5) which requires all slopes and banks to not be any steeper than 3 feet horizontal to one foot vertical, which is met, but indicates they must be graded and grassed, and stabilized. With this amount of land, staff recognizes sodding this amount of land would be a hardship, and therefore has no problem with a seed and hay type solution to this requirement. The site plan shows a conservation area which the Fish & Wildlife Department has reviewed, and has given approval for Mr. Fey to remove any other vegetation on the property. ~LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1994 PAGE SIX Mr. Wayne Westerman, a consulting engineer, states his business address as 1835 20th Street, Veto Beach, and home address as 1305 20th Avenue. Mr. Fischer asks why the previous owners permit? Mr. Cooper explains they let it never posted. never activated their expire, and bonds were Mr. Fischer asks what is the zoning of property adjacent to the south of the proposed site? Mr. Cooper states the property is in the County and there are three different classifications which are agricultural, multi-family, and industrial. Mr. Fischer questions where the nearest resident is to this site? Mr. Westerman states they are west of the site across a canal and does not think there are any residences to the south. Mr. Fischer feels the 150' setback requirement will be a concern to the residential abutting areas. Mr. Cooper states the intention of the 150' setback was for excavating done below the adjacentgrades. The code states this requirement can be waived for removing a mound of fill. Mr. Westerman states there will be some lowering of the ground in some areas, about 8 feet, consistent with the mining operation to the north. He states one reason to waive this requirement is to not create a saw-tooth effect on ground level between the neighboring sandmines. The area would be kept consistent. Mr Fey would like to work with the owner to the north and remove the mound in a joint effort. The only slope would be by the south property line. Mr. Fischer questions the code where it says the setback can be waived at site plan approval, whereas this was a special usepermit review. Mr. Cooper states this is the only time to approve or disapprove the sandmining operation. Other sandmining operations have been approved without site plan approval. Mr. Fischer asks if there is any correspondence from Fish & Wildlife on file? Mr. Cooper states that he personally met with Brian Toland on the site andgot verbal approval for the. applicant to remove scrub Outside the conservation area. Mr. Fischer alsovoices concern over whether Section 20A-5.30(c)(5) applies to any residential zoned property to the south? It requires a 50-foot bufferyard and type "A" screening along said boundary to abutting residential property. Mr. Cooper states yes, there is property classified on the map as RM-6 which abuts the southern boundary. It may be the land use type and not the zoning classification. Mr. Cooper will check with the County and if it is zoned RM-6 the requirement will apply. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~EGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER!5. 1994 ~AGK SEVEN Mr. Westerman asks even though it is County property vs. City property, does the requirement still apply? Mr. Cooper states yes. Mr. Westerman states he thought the County also had an application for a sandmining on that RM-6 property. Mr. Fischer also asks if there has been a FDOT traffic impact study, as the code requires? Mr. Cooper states no, that is for a minor site plan. A traffic impact study has never been required for a sandmining operation, only for permanent developments. Mr. ~oldstein asks if the applicant would agree to install a type "A" screening along the western perimeter which abuts residential property? Mr. Westerman states his client is going to transplant some of the existing scrub that is going to be cleared off prior to the sandmining and replant them in the conservation area. This would enhance the existing landscaping, and any scrub that doesn't survive would be replaced. Mr. Goldstein states type "A" screening in this situation would have to be 6 feet in height and 100% opaque, as stated on pages 342 and 343 in the LDC. Mr. Westerman states the conservation area is 150 feet of tall oaks and scrub and doesn't think this will be a problem to meet. Mr. ~oldstein also voices questions regarding the 150 foot setback required for adjacent property lines, specifically the north and south property lines. There is no Deed of Easement to show agreement with the property owner to the north of removing the mound. Mr. Westerman states the applicant has planned for a 10 foot setback on both property lines. Mr. Goldstein states the site plan shows the adjacent properties to have grade levels of 31, 32, and 26 feet, and Mr. Fey's property will be mined to 25 feet. He reminds Mr. Westerman of the requirement of having a 150 foot setback to adjacent properties when mining below their level. Mr. Westerman states they are requesting a waiver to this requirement for the southern property line. The proposed property to be mined is only 300 feet wide. This requirement places an undue burden on the property owner not to be able to use his whole property. Some of the property is already lost with the cOnservation area. Mr. Cooper states the requirement can only be waived for removing a mound. Mr. Shroyer asks if the sandmining operation to the north is excavating within 150 feet of Mr. Fey's property? Mr. Cooper states yes, according the their approved plans, with the proper slope. Mr. Shroyer asks what both propertiesare zoned? Mr. Cooper states they are both zoned Industrial and are not developed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1994 PAGE EIGHT Mr. Schulke asks if there is a safety/security plan proposed as required in the ordinance. He has concerns with the heavy equipment that will be in the area, and with no proposed fence, children from the residential area may venture onto the property. Mr. Westerman states at this time no provision has been made for fencing the property. Mr. Cooper states a safety/security plan doesn't have to mean fencing, but this concern should be addressed. In the past NO TRESPASSING signs have been accepted. Mr. Schulke asks if there are plans to have a temporary trailer or facility for the employees. Mr. Cooper states they are required to have a Port-A-Let. There is a residence right on the property. Mr. Cooper asks how many truck loads do they anticipate it will take to remove the amount of fill they want to excavate? Mr. Westerman states approximately 2000 trips. Chmn. Thompson discusses some discrepancie~ on the site plan elevatiOns with what appears to be on the property. Mr. Westerman explains the discrepancies and also goes over his methods on calculating how much fill is proposed to be removed. The public hearing is closed at 8:54 p.m. Mr. Fischer suggests that because the question of .the 150 foot requirement affects the approval of the operation's proposed site plan, the exact zoning designation should be determined, the plans revised if needed, and then brought before the Board again. A question on the waiver requirement is opined by the City Attorney that both provisions of Section 20A-5.30(c)(2) are needed for any exceptions. Mr. Schulke feels the relative elevations of the proposed property is consistent with neighboring properties, and highest point of a neighboring property should not be used in saying the proposed property is going will below the adjacent grade. Drainage should not be a concern with this operation, considering the consistency of all adjacent properties. Mr. Shroyer states that the sandmining proposed is to prepare the land for future use, and this should be considered. The Board should not get carried away with buffers and should consider the future land use and how it will benefit the city. The land is useless now and should be allowed to be developed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULA~M~ETI.~G.Q~.....DECEMBER 15. 199{ Mr. Goldstein made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council deny the Special Use Permit based on the applicant's presentation, particularly the inability of the applicant to comply with the setback requirement shown in Section 20A-5.30(c)(2). Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. Mr. Shroyer No Chmn. Thompson No Mr. Goldstein Yes Mr. Falke No Mr. Fischer Yes Mr. Schulke No Mr. Munsart No Motion Denied 5-2. Mr. Shroyer made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of the Special Use Permit for a sandmining operation for Richard Fey on Old Dixie Highway pursuant to any conditions that have been established by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Falke seconded the motion. Mr. Goldstein made a motion to amend the original motion to require that the applicant provide type "A" screening adjacent to any residential zoned property, and provide asafety/security plan for the property. Mr. Shroyer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken for the amendment. Mr. Goldstein Mr. Falke Mr. Fischer Mr. Schulke Mr. Munsart Mr. Shroyer Chmn. Thompson Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Motion Carried 7-0. Chmn. Thompson made a second amendment to the motion that the sandmining operation is'shown on R. Wayne Westerman Jr.'s drawings on 5 sheets, identified as Project #9402, all sealed, signed, and dated. Sheet I of 5 is dated 8/94, Sheet 2 of 5 latest revision is dated 11/30/94, and Sheets 3,4,and 5 of 5 are dated 10/26/94. Also, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council that they require a written authorization for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be received prior to issuance of a notice to proceed, require the applicant to make some method of stopping traffic from entering and leaving Georgia Blvd, and that the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1994 PAGE TEN Planning and Zoning Commission have found the Finding of Facts as outlined in Section 20A-2.6(B), page 69 of the Land Development Code has been met. Mr. Falke seconded the motion. Roll call was taken on the 2nd amendment: Mr. Falke Yes Mr. Fischer Yes Mr. Schulke Yes Mr. Munsart Yes Mr. Shroyer Yes Chmn. Thompson Yes Mr. Goldstein No Motion carried 6-1. Roll Call was taken on the main motion as amended: Chmn. Thompson Yes Mr. Goldstein No Mr. Falke Yes Mr. Fischer No Mr. Schulke Yes Mr. Munsart Yes Mr. Shroyer Yes Motion carried 5-2, recommendation approved. A recess was taken at 9:29 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:39 p.m.. All members were present. OLD BUSINESSc AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ACCBSSORY STR~CTURRS Mr. Cooper states this is more of a further discussion/fine tuning than a recommendation to City Council. at this point. He reviews that there is nothing in the codes that prevents a property owner from putting a metal building on a residential lot anddesigning it inside to be habital for residential uses as long it meets windload requirements and building codes. Even though this proposed amendment is for accessory structures, somewhere in the code it should state metal buildings will not be permissible fOr residential uses. Mr. Cooper reviews the existing accessory code (Section 20A-5.7.C) and would like to come up with some requirements for detached/attached structures with a door opening higher than 7 feet. By setting up specific requirements for a structure with PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1994 PAGE ELEVEN this size opening to be reviewed by the Board, some sore thumb structures can regulated. The Board may not want to limit it to only accessory structure but, any structure with a 7 foot high door opening. Mr. Shroyer states steel siding shoUld qualify separately from metal building criteria because it is more of a facade than "structure" material. Mr. Falke agrees. Architectural material can be steel. What is trying to be avoided is an industrial looking type building, which is difficult to objectively describe. Mr. Cooper suggests to incorporate into the amendment that anytime a building of 200 sq. feet or more with a metal facade has to be reviewed by Planning and Zoning. Mr. Cooper also feels a maximum height should be placed on accessory structures, whether metal or not. Mr, Goldstein asks if there is definition of "facade" anywhere in the code book? Mr. Cooper states no, and various other terms need to have obvious definitions also, such as "accessory',, and "facade" vs. "siding". As the meeting approached 10:00 p.m., Mr. Goldstein made a motion to extend the meeting an extra 10 minutes. Mr. Shroyer seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, 7-0 motion carried. The Board discusses other considerations they would like to see in the amendment, and agree to send it back to staff for further revisions. The meeting was adjourned at 10:11 p.m.