Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12211995 PZCity of Sebastian 1225 MAIN STREET a SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 a FAX (407) 589-5570 AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1995 7:00 P. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2 . ROLL CALL. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meetings of November 16, 1995, and December 7, 1995 S. OLD BUSINESS: Discussion - Off -Street Parking Requirements - Possible Amendment 6. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing - Model Home Permit Renewal - Ameron Homes - - 1414 & 1426 Barber Street Public Hearing - Home Occupational License - Thomas Karr - 1104 U.S. Highway rel - Mobile Locksmith Public Hearing - Home Occupational License - Priscilla Lowe - 342-A S. Wimbrow Drive - Lawn Maintenance/Auto Detailing Public Hearing - Home Occupational License - Matt Nassan - 955 Clearmont Street - Mobile Motorcycle Repair Minor Site Plan Review - Paradise Hair Design - 389 Fellsmere Road - Additional Parking Lot 7. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: 8. MEMBERS MATTERS: 9. ATTORNEY MATTERS: 10. STAFF 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 WHO NEEDS SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1995 Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. PRESENT: Mr. Munsart Ms. Kilkelly Chmn. Thompson Ms. Brantmeyer Mr. Barnes Mr. Fischer Mr. Schulke EXCUSED: Mr. Pliska Mr. Johns ALSO PRESENT: Dorri Bosworth, Secretary ANNOUNCKI~N~S: Ms. Kilkelly will be voting in place of Mr. Johns, who was absent and excused from the meeting. Mr. Fischer made a motion to place the Public Hearing for a model home permit renewal for MGB Construction, Inc. on the agenda under Old Business and move the discussion of Off-Street Parking to the last item of the agenda. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.. Roll call was taken. Motion carried 7-0. AP~0VAL OF ~rdTES: None. QI~D BUSIHESS~ PUBLIC HEARING - MODEL HOME PERMIT RENEWAL - MGB CONSTRUCTION, TNC. -- '1043 BARBER STREET . .Mr. John La/nan was present and was representing the .a~~ Ks one of the general contractors for the compa~n~\~,~.~%~} The public hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. ?Lg" ' ~ ~~0~-~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETI~G.,OF DECEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE TWO There were 17 notices of the hearing sent out. objection or non-objection letters received back. There were no There was no public input. p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:11 Ms. Brantmeyer verified that the model home was existing and not under construction. Mr. Laman stated that was correct. Ms. Brantmeyer made a motion to approve the application for a model home permit renewal for MGB Construction, Inc. for Lot 7, Block 218, Unit 8 (1043 Barber Street). Mr. Munsart seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. 7-0 motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - MODEL HOME PERMIT RENEWAL - AMERON HOMES, INC. - 1414 & 1426 BARBER STREET The applicant or representative was not present. Mr. Barnes made a motion to postpone the application until the next meeting, with the applicant being notified. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion was approved. The following applicants for home occupational licenses were sworn in according to quasi-judicial procedures. PUBLIC HEARING - HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - THOMAS KA~R - 1104 U.S. HIGHWAY #1 - MOBILE LOCKSMITH Mr. Karr was present and stated he lived at 1104 U.S. Highway #1. The public hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. There were 5 notices of the hearing sent out. No objection or non-objection letters were received back. Mr. Karr stated his property was zonedCL (Commercial Limited), not residential. He held a license previously, but recently moved to this address and was told he now needed a home occupational license. Chmn. Thompson read staff's memorandum indicating they had no objections. Staff stated the existing non-conforming residence may obtain a home occupational license since the use does not increase its non-conforming status. There was no public input. p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:17 PI2UNNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1995 Mr. Munsart stated he thought the home occupational license ~.as an increase of the non-conforming use of the residence. Mr. Barnes made a motion to approve the home occupational license for Karr's Locksmith business at 1104 U.S. Highway #1 in Sebastian. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. 7-0 license approved. P~BLICHEARING - HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - PRI$CILLA LOWE - 342A S. WIMBROW DRIVE - LAWN MAINTENANCE/A%FTO DETAiLiNG Priscilla Lowe was present and stated she lived at 342-A S. Wimbrow Drive. The public hearing was opened at 7:21 p.m. There were 11 notices of the hearing sent out. There were 2 objection letters received back. Chmn. Thompson read staff's comments indicating the applicant stated her lawn maintenance equipment would be stored in Fellsmere. The auto detailing service will be mobile and not conductedat her residence. Ms. Lowe stated her materials for the auto detailing were kept in a box in the back of her car. Dr. John Crichton of 334 S. Wimbrow Drive, stated he was not against the applicant using her phone only, but wanted that verified by the applicant. He did not want to see any equipment brought to or stored on the property. Chmn. Thompson verified that it was on the application all equipment would be stored in Fellsmere. Ms. Lowe stated that was correct. The public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. Ms. Kilkelly made a motion to approve the application for a home occupational license for Priscilla Lowe's Grounds Maintenance at 342-A S. Wimbrow Drive. The approval includes her auto detailing business. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. 7-0 motion carried. P~BLIC HEARING - HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE - MATT NASSAN - 955 CLEARMONT STREET - MOBILE MOTORCYCLE REPAIR Matt Nassan was present and stated he lived at 955 Clearmont Street. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~ULAR MEETING OF DECEMBEK 21. 1995 The public hearing was opened at 7:29 p.m. There were 14 notices of the hearing sent out. No objection or non-objection letters were received back. Chmn. Thompson read staff's comments indicating the applicant intended to use his residence for Phone and mail purposes only and his tools would be stored in his vehicle. Mr. Nassan stated that was correct. Staff had no objections. Mr. Bernard Ramirez of 945 Clearmont Street voiced his concerns that motorcycles might be brought to the residence. Mr. Nassan verified that would not occur. Mr. Ramirez stated he then had no objections. The public hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Munsart made a motion to grant a home occupational license to Matt Nassan of 955 Clearmont Street to conduct a mobile motorcycle repair business from his home. Ms. Brantmeyer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. 7-0 motion carried. The representative for Ameron Homes was now present. Mr. Barnes made a motion to restore the model home permit renewal for Ameron Homes back to the agenda. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.' A voice vote was taken. All members were in favor. PUBLIC HEARING -MODEL HOME PEI~MIT RENEWAL- AMERON HOMES - 1414 & 1425 BARBER STREET Mr. william Brognano of 1586 Emerson Lane was present and was representing the applicant. The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. There were 14 notices of the hearing sent out. No objection or non-objection letters were received back. Mr. Brognano was sworn in according to quasi-judicial procedures. He indicated the model homes had been in operation for i year. There was no public input. The public hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m. Mr. Barnes made a motion to approve the model home permits for Ameron Homes at 1414'& 1426 Barber Street. Mr. Fischer Seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. 7-0 permits approved. pLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULARMEET.ING OF DECEMBER 21. 1995 MINOR SITE PLAN REVXEW- PARADISE HAIR DESIGN- 389FELLSMERRROAD - ADDITIONAL PARKING The applicant, Mr. Lonnie Powell of 885 Roseland Road, was present. His wife owns Paradise Hair Design and he stated they bought the adjacent property for additional parking. The Board received a copy of the TRC report prior to the meeting. Mr. Barnes asked the applicant if he agreed with the conditionsfor approval suggested in the report. Mr. Powell stated yes. Mr. Barnes made a motion to approve the site plan for the Paradise HairDesign parking lot at 389 Fellsmere Road with the conditions noted in the Technical Review Committee report dated 12/19/95. Ms. Brantmeyer seconded the motion. Ms. Kilkelly wanted to note for the record that in comments received from Masteller & Moler dated 12/15/95, page two, comment number #4, the reference should read"Section 20A-13.14"instead of Section 20A-13.13. She asked the applicant how many chairswere in operation since this was a request for additional parking. This information could be used for reference for future requirements of hair salons when the off-street parking requirements were reviewed. Mr. Powell stated there were 4 chairs in use. Mr. Schulke questioned if the recent landscape buffer requirement amendment for C-512 zoning affected this'site plan. The code did not appear to have been addressed by staff. The Board found the code and reviewed it on page 659 (Section 20A-10.2.F) of the LDC and found the applicant's site plan in compliance. Mr. Fischer noted the site property had plenty of native vegetation in the rear. Mr. Munsart asked the applicant if he would be adverseto putting in another handi-capped parking space? Mr. Powell stated hewould put it in if the Board required it but, pointed out in the 8 years the business had been in operation, they had maybe one customer who was handi-capped come in every two weeks or so. It would be hard to give up a regular parking space for a space that would be hardly used. The secretary requested that the specific site plan be noted in the motion. PLANNING AND~ONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE SIX Mr. Barnes added to his motion that the plans being approved were by Mosby & Associates, Inc., Job #95-529, dated 11/19/95 with a revision date of 12/18/95, titled Paving and Drainage Site Plan. Page two, titled Paving and Drainage Details and Notes were dated 11/95 with no revisions. Roll call was taken on the motion. 7-0 site plan was approved. DISCUSSION - OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS - POSSIBLE AMENDMENT Chmn. ThOmpson stated that from his review, he thought the Board should request staff to prepare an amendment that would add to the existing codes a paragraph that stated in general "It isupto the applicant to prove they don't need what is required in the present code." He felt it was the only change needed. Mr. Schulke agreed and drew reference to the Indian River County's off-street parkingcode, pages 954/11 and 954/12, paragraph 2: Non- concurrent Parking, and paragraph 3: No similar UseStudy. He didn't necessarily concur withthe code verbatim but, statedit was an avenue by which a developer could determine how much parking he would need for a particular use. Chmn. Thompson'S'suggestion required the applicant to prove a parking amount. ThiS'.section shows the applicant how to prove it. Mr. Fischer stated he would like to see a change to"the medical office requirements. He felt i space per 200 sq. feet would be adequate. Mr. Barnes agreed. The current code of 10 spaces per doctor was too high. Mr. Fischer also felt Chmn. Thompson's suggestion should be added too. Mr. Barnes suggested medical office requirements be changed to 1 space per 200 sq. feet plus one space for each doctor. Mr. Munsart thought I space for each employee should also be required. :This was for full-time medical offices. Part-time doctors were a different situation. Ms. Kilkelly told a story regarding an experience she had with a friend who had to be taken to a medical plaza. After her experience she stated she felt the existing requirements should remain as it is, and thought Mr. Schulke's suggestion should be added also. Mr. Munsart stated because of the different scenario between part- time and full-time doctors, he was leery of making a general rule for all medical offices and reducing the requirements. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 21. 1995 PAGE SEVEN Ms. Brantmeyer stated she also felt the code should remain as is but a section should be added similar to the County's so that a part-time doctor would be allowed to prove his parking needs. Chmn. Thompson stated his past experiences with walk-in clinics verified to him that changing the requirements to 1 space.per 200 sq. feet plus I space per doctor/employee would not work for most medical.offices. Ms. Kilkelly noted it would be hard to monitor the changing number of employees if adding and firing the staff occurred. Mr. Barnes pointed out that requiring the applicant to hire an engineer to do a parking study, as required in the County's code, could be expensive. He was OK with applicants coming before Planning and Zoning to explain exceptions rather than have them hire an engineer to conduct a traffic study. Mr. Schulke stated that the suggested addition to the code was not only for medical offices. It would apply to major developments as well, and that possibly could save valuable property by having a required study done that proves less parking area is needed. It would only cost an applicant to hire an engineer if he wants an exception to the code. If he complies with the existing requirements, it will not cost him anything. The Board should set the minimum requirements. Requiring the maximum will cost a developer. A smart businessman will want to provide adequate parking to its customers. Mr. Barnes stated he does agree with Mr. Schulke's logic, and now tended to agree with amending our code with similar requirements like the County's. Mr. Schulke suggested the Board get input from staff and the consulting engineer since he felt the County's code was little stringent and needed a little consideration. Ms. Kilkelly suggested the Board review the City of Naples' Parking Needs Analysis code (Section 106-107, page CD106:18) which is similar to Indian River County's code. Also, she pointed out that doctors who are constructing their own building may have different parking needs than doctors who are just renting space, as in the case of most part-time doctors. Mr. Schulke brought to the Board's attention the ,,Statement of Remedies" in the Naples' code and felt it was something that should also be added to the proposed changes in the Sebastian code. pLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1995 After further discussion, the Board's suggestion to staff was to review the possibility of putting together an amendment to the off- street parking ordinance based on the following three items: 1) a Parkinq...j~eeds Analysis based on Section 106-107 (page CD106:18) of the City of Naples' code. 2) a No-Similar Use Study based on Chapter 954.08(3) (page 954/12) of Indian River County's land development regulations. and 3) a ~.ared Parking Study (Non-concurrent Parkina) based on Chapter 954.08(2) (page 954/11) of Indian River County's land development regulations. C~IHNAN NATTE~S: None Mr. Barnes stated that if the Board agreed, he would like to direct staff to prepare an amendment to allow parki~na only on the east side of Indian River Drive when a property is divided by Indian River Drive. The applicable code would be on page 533 of the LDC. He did not want to see any more buildings being constructed on the east side of the road blocking the view of the river. This had been discussed previously bythe Board when Mel Fisher's site plan for expansion had been reviewed. Mr. Fischer suggested it should be an option or recommended, but not restrictive to the developers. Mr. Schulke stated he felt it would be violating the property owner's rights. He felt if there was a situation where someone could build on the east side, already owned the property with intentions to build, and now the Board told them they could only build a parking lot, it would not legally be upheld. The City would end up having to buy the property. Mr. Barnes understood previously that it was the Board's consensus they did not want anymore buildings on the east side of Indian River Drive. Mr. Schulke felt the Board did not have the right to tell property owners they could not build. The Board decided to put this discussion on the next agenda and request the City Attorney be present to answer any questions. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1995 Mr. Munsart questioned the status of the construction of the bike path along indian River Drive and plans for the CAY property. Mr. Barnes questioned the Board if they would be interested in reviewing the Accessory Structure ordinance again, possibly limiting the number of structures a property owner could have. After last meeting's review of a homeowner's proposed detached garage, it was noticed he had another accessory structure on his property, all permitted by code. Mr. Barnes asked the Board how many sheds did they want to allow on residential property? Ms. Brantmeyer stated she had previously questioned Mr. Cooper on this matter and he had stated a homeowner could have two accessory structures on their property, both allowed to be 75% of the primary structure in size. Mr. Fischer stated open space and impervious area requirements for residential zoning would have to be reviewed too. Ms. Kilkelly stated she would like to see the size of the accessory structures limited. The Board requested the secretary to put this discussion on the next agenda. ATTOHNE~ M~T~ER~ None STAFF NATTEP~: None Chairman Thompson called the meeting to adjourn at 8:50 p.m.