Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2019 PZ MinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING $ ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 17, 2019 1. Call to Order — Chairperson Kautenburg called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m co 2. Pledae of Alleaiance was recited by all. (� OC tr) C ._ m _ 3. Rall Call C N Present: Mr. Roth Mr. Mauti (a) C W n Mr. Simmons (a) Mr. Qizilbash WE FE Ms. Kautenburg Mr. Hughan Q. �A g. g O W Mr. Carter Mr. Alvarez 0 c Cis Not Present Mr. Reyes — Excused 0 cc._ > > r Also Present: Mr. James Stokes, City Attorney C a 1 Ms. Dom Bosworth, Planner C) rn (nN raa in Ms. Janet Graham, Technical Writer Ms. Dale Simchick, Indian River County School Board, was not present. 4. Announcements and/or Aaenda Modifications Ms. Kautenburg announced that, since Mr. Reyes is absent, Mr. Mauti will be voting in his place. 5. ADDroval of Minutes A. Regular Meeting of October 18, 2018 Ms. Kautenburg asked for any additions or corrections to the Minutes as presented. Hearing None, Ms. Kautenburg asked for a motion to accept the Minutes. A motion to accept the Minutes as presented was made by Mr. Roth, seconded by Mr. Carter, and approved unanimously by voice vote. 6. Quasi -Judicial and Public Hearinas A. Public Hearing -- Recommendation to City Council — Land Development Code Amendment — Amending Article XXII, Language and Definitions -- Section 54-5-22.3 Land Use Classifications — Clarifying Adult Personal Service Businesses PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2019 Mr. Stokes read the Agenda title, being a recommendation to City Council. This public hearing is regarding an amendment to the Land Development Code of the City of Sebastian, Florida -- Ordinance 0-19-01 -- Amending Article XXII, Language and Definitions -- Section 54-5-22.3(c) Land Use Classifications -- Clarifying Adult Personal Service Businesses, providing for severability, providing for repeal of laws in conflict, providing for codification, providing for scrivener's errors, and providing for an effective date. Ms. Kautenburg asked for staff presentation on the matter. Ms. Bosworth gave the background on how this amendment to the Ordinance came to be before the Committee. Included in the Agenda packet for this meeting is a copy of the Minutes from the City Council meeting in November where a gentleman presented who had been working with Ms. Bosworth, and he was attempting to find a location for an artist studio and a tattoo parlor. She reviewed the conditional use criteria for adult entertainment establishments which she had included in the packet. Also included is a definition of those establishments as set forth in the Use section of the Code, which is where tattoo parlors, considered as adult personal services, is contained. All the criteria necessary for a tattoo parlor is very onerous regarding distances from a residential district, from churches, from other adult entertainment establishments, and from a bar or lounge, etc. She stated there is currently a tattoo parlor along Route 512 which is in the industrial zoning district. They were granted a conditional use permit by this Commission after they obtained a variance due to being within 200 feet from a bar and grill. When the applicant came before City Council, the discussion of Council was that the attitude towards tattoo parlors and tattoo artists has changed over time. The section of the Code that is currently in place is from 1985. Council agreed that the City Code was too restrictive and asked staff to adjust the Code so as to not make it so onerous to find a location. She was contacted by the applicant several times, and a location could never be found that would conform to all the conditional use criteria necessary for his business. Staff's initial thought was to create a definition for tattoo establishments, then go back to Article V and insert the use in the zoning districts that would be permissible for tattoo parlors. She described that that process can be very costly and burdensome for the City because it would be changing conditional and permitted uses in the zoning districts, and the process is regulated by the State. Staff then looked into the Definition section to make it clearer and further define what constitutes Adult Personal Service Businesses and place it under one of the existing categories in the Code. Thus, it would not be necessary to change the zoning districts where these establishments are permitted; it would be only changing definitions and getting the criteria established. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2019 Staff further investigated how the State considers tattoo parlors in their licensing and what regulations would have to be followed. It was discovered that tattoo artists are regulated by the Department of Health, and the same licensing regulations are applicable to tattoo artists as for hair and nail salons who perform permanent make-up. Thus, it was a concern for how to regulate tattoo artists when the City has no regulations for the hair and nail salons that have those personnel working there and offering those services without creating non -conforming businesses. After further investigation and discussion, staff created a definition that would allow adult personal businesses which were licensed by the State and is proposing that these establishments be considered a retail type of establishment as opposed to adult entertainment. Ms. Kautenburg then asked for discussion or comments from the members of the Commission. Mr. Alvarez: • Inquired whether the applicant has a specific address for his business. Ms. Bosworth stated no, that the question regarding adult entertainment personal businesses versus retail establishments needs to be settled before any applications can be entertained. Mr. Roth: • Wanted to clarify that the description contained in the Agenda packet which is displayed in blue ink is the language that is proposed to be changed. Ms. Bosworth stated that is correct. It will be located immediately below the Adult Entertainment Establishments section and further clarifies the Adult Personal Service Businesses. • Voiced a concern about having these businesses in the Commercial Riverfront Area. He stated that, although beauty salons are permitted there, some of the clientele for the tattoo parlors might be a little different than clientele of beauty salons. Ms. Bosworth explained that, if tattoo parlors were not permitted in that zoning district, then beauty/nail salons that are existing and are subject to the same regulations/licensing, they would become a non -conforming use. Mr. Carter: • Asked about over the past five years what is the estimate of how many people have inquired about tattoo parlors. Ms. Bosworth estimated that approximately two to three times a year she will get an inquiry regarding tattoo parlors. Mr. Carter stated his only concern would be if a large number of parlors would be setting up in the City. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2019 • Inquired if a business such as a bar would be allowed to have a tattoo parlor inside that business. Ms. Bosworth stated that in that case the site specifics would have to be adhered to such as parking, landscaping, etc. She also stated that she is not sure if State statutes would allow a tattoo parlor to operate inside a bar or lounge. • Inquired whether a tattoo parlor could also have a liquor license for their establishment. Ms. Bosworth stated she would follow up on that question. • Inquired as to what type of art the applicant will have inside his establishment. Ms. Bosworth said she is not certain, but he is looking to have an art studio and a tattoo parlor. Mr. Qizilbash: • Favors a clearer definition for a tattoo parlor instead of labeling it under an Adult Personal Services Business. Ms. Bosworth stated that if a more specific definition for tattoo establishments and artists is established, that would have to be specifically added into some of the zoning districts. The Trade and Skilled Services title is more of an umbrella that includes different types of businesses and could include tattoo artists. She also stated that, after researching how the neighboring municipalities treat tattoo parlors in their codes, staff could not find any that specifically address tattoo parlors or any that have specific definitions. Mr. Hughan: • Regarding the section on the last page of the Agenda packet where it mentions Adult Entertainment Establishment Businesses and describes what kinds of businesses are included, he inquired whether all those businesses are going to be also included in the same section of the Code where tattoo parlors are permitted. Ms. Bosworth stated no, those businesses mentioned there are limited to conditional uses in the industrial zoning district. She further described that if a business holds a license from the Department of Health such as a massage therapist or a tattoo artist, that business is not going to be considered as adult entertainment. Those businesses are considered as retail. • Does not agree with having tattoo parlors along the River. LVA NLVA W 0 • Stated that when considering having or not having tattoo parlors along the River, some of the businesses that are already there may have clientele somewhat akin to tattoo parlor clientele. Ms. Bosworth mentioned that the City now allows medical marijuana dispensaries in most of their zoning districts. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2019 PAGE 5 Ms. Kautenburg: • Stated she believes the update to the Code is appropriate if it is licensed and regulated by the State. Ms. Bosworth stated these businesses still have to receive a tax receipt from the City so that annually staff verifies that they are up to date. There being no further discussion on this matter, Ms. Kautenburg called for a motion on the recommendation. A motion to recommend to City Council Ordinance 0-19-01 amending Article XXII, Language and Definitions -- Section 54-5-22.3, Land Use Classifications -- clarifying Adult Personal Service Businesses was made by Mr. Roth and seconded by Mr. Hughan. ROLL CALL: Mr. Hughan -- Yes Mr. Qizilbash -- Yes Ms. Kautenburg -- Yes Mr. Roth -- Yes Total vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 7. Unfinished Business -- None. 8. Public Input -- None. 9. New Business -- None. 10. Commissioners Matters Mr. Carter: Mr. Mauti (a) -- Yes Mr. Alvarez -- Yes Mr. Carter -- Yes • Addressed the question of the Commissioners receiving their Agenda packets not through the mail. Ms. Bosworth stated staff is open to suggestions as to how to make delivery more timely. She will check with MIS so that members can open the packets on their computers that have been sent by email Mr. Roth: • Inquired as to the status of the "Spirit of Sebastian" project. Ms. Bosworth reviewed that the developer has submitted its preliminary plat application. Staff has not completed its jurisdictional reviews. The consulting engineer has been reviewing the traffic impact study. The developer is also conferring with the County relating to Old Dixie Highway. The application is only for Phase 1 and Phase 2. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2019 There is also a plan submitted for the entranceway on Del Monte , and the developer has scheduled a meeting with the homeowners along that street regarding landscaping at the entranceway. • Asked what is still needed for the master plan on the riverfront lots. Ms. Bosworth stated staff wants more detail, and what has been presented so far is more conceptual. She added that this master plan includes all the property in the CRA, and staff wants more detail also on the lots in the CRA that are not riverfront lots. Mr. Mauti: • Inquired if only Del Monte is being addressed. Ms. Bosworth stated that staff will review the area for any off-site improvements needed, but staff is not yet working on that part of the review. • Stated that neighbors are inquiring about the new traffic pattern. Ms. Bosworth stated staff has just received a revised traffic report, and that report is still being reviewed by the City's consulting engineer. Mr. Hughan: • Asked if the packets were sent out for the vacation rental properties. Ms. Bosworth stated they have them at the office, and there is a link on the City's website. Anyone can obtain a packet at the Community Development Department. Ms. Kautenburg: • Inquired if there has been any activity regarding various other uses for the small riverfront lots. Ms. Bosworth stated it was planned by staff to get an inventory of those lots. At that same time a riverfront market analysis was performed as well as a CRA master plan. Staff has received two different drafts of the master plan regarding those lots, and another revision is in the works. Staff will present the master plan to the Commission as soon as it is completed. Mr. Alvarez: • Brought up the situation where motor vehicles are being sold on residential lots along Barber Street. He inquired whether this Commission can recommend to City Council that an ordinance be added to the Code restricting the number of vehicles sold in the City by private citizens to two a year. Ms. Bosworth stated there are restrictions in place regarding the sale of autos on residential properties, including the fact that every vehicle on private property must be registered, licensed and insured by a resident residing at the property. She will follow up with Code Enforcement regarding this matter. She will also look into State licensing regarding this matter. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2019 • Inquired regarding the status of the lots along Sebastian Boulevard (CR 512) next to the Library. Ms. Bosworth reported that a letter has been sent to the developer and, per Code, the developer has until April 2019 to present the final plat and have the lot sodded, graded, and completed. 11. City Attornev Matters -- None. 12. Staff Matters -- None. As a point of order, Mr. Roth inquired as to when elections will be held. Ms. Bosworth stated elections can be placed on the Agenda for next meeting. 13. Adiournment -- Ms. Kautenburg called for any further business. Hearing none, she adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. L