Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-2021 PZ AgendatTNLF sm�v HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND 1225 MAIN STREET a SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (772) 589-5518 ■ FAX (772) 388-8248 AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2021 — 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ALL AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE INSPECTED IN THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA OR ON THE CITY WEBSiTE 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND/OR AGENDA MODIFICATIONS Modifications and additions require unanimous vote of members. Deletions do not apply. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of April 1, 2021 6. QUASI-JUDICIAL and PUBLIC HEARINGS • Chairman opens hearing, attorney reads ordinance or resolution or title • Commissioners disclose ex-parte communication • Chairman or attorney swears in all who intend to provide testimony • Applicant or applicant's agent makes presentation • Staff presents findings and analysis • Commissioners asks questions of the applicant and staff • Chairman opens the floor for anyone in favor and anyone opposing the request (anyone presenting factual information shall be sworn but anyone merely advocating approval or denial need not be sworn in) • Applicant provided opportunity to respond to issues raised by staff or public • Staff provided opportunity to summarize request • Commission deliberation and questions • Chairman calls for a motion • Commission Action A. Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing — Site Plan Modification Approval — North County Library Expansion — 1001 Sebastian Boulevard - Proposed Construction of a New 2,823 SF Building Addition along with Parking, Utilities, Stormwater and Landscaping — Public Service (PS) Zoning District. B. Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing — Site Plan Modification Approval & Riverfront Overlay District Waivers — Squid Lips Restaurant & Fins Marina — 1660 Indian River Drive - Proposed Additions of a New 8,400 SF Over -the -Water Restaurant, a New 2,100 SF Marina Office Complex, and a New 2,300 Smokehouse Restaurant along with Parking, Utilities, Stormwater and Landscaping — Proposed Waivers from Section 54-4- 21.A.5(c)(1) Roofs and Parapets regarding required Roof Pitch, and Section 54-4- 21.A.7(c)(2)b.1 regarding required Foundation Plantings — Commercial Waterfront Residential (CWR) Zoning District. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8. PUBLIC INPUT Public Input on items other than on the printed agenda, is five minutes, however, it can be extended or terminated by a majority vote of members present 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Accessory Structure Review — LDC Section 54-2-7.5 — 1,000 SF Detached Garage- 65 Blue Island Street, San Sebastian Springs — R. Greenberg 10. COMMISSIONERS MATTERS Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson 11. CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS 12. STAFF MATTERS 13. ADJOURN Due to health concerns regarding coronavirus, alternative methods are still in place for the public to provide input regarding this site plan. Interested parties may contact the City at 772-388-8226 or email questions at COSTV cDCOSTV.CITYOFSEBASTIAN.ORG or may visit the City's website at. http://www.citvofsebastian.orq/public-input-methods. No stenographic record by a certified court reporter will be made of the foregoing meeting. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be heard. (F.S.286.0105) In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting should contact the City's ADA Coordinator at 772- 388-8226 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. All government meetings in City Council Chambers will be broadcast live on COS -TV Comcast Channel 25 and ATT UVerse Channel 99 and streamed via the city website — www.ciry ofsebastian.orc; unless otherwise noticed and rebroadcast at a later date —see COS -TV Channel 25 for broadcast schedule 2 CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MINUTES APRIL 1, 2021 0 I. Call to Order -- Chairman Reyes called the meeting to order at 6:00,Fn2 m -� o II. Pledae of Allegiance was recited by all. •2 E Ill. Roll Call a' E Present: Mr. Roth Mr. Reyes cc V �^ c Mr. Simmons Mr. Christino (a) in z Ms. Kautenburg (a) Mr. Qizilbash m ti. Mr. Carter •� c W 0 c a a� Not oresent: Mr. Hughan -- Excused Q Q Fn Mr. Alvarez -- Excused Also Present: Ms. Lisa Frazier, Community Development Director Mr. Manny Anon, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Robert Loring, Planner Mr. Scott Baker, Public Facilities Director/Airport Manager for the City of Sebastian Ms. Barbara Brooke -Reese, MIS Manager Ms. Janet Graham, Technical Writer (Zoom) Dr. Mara Schiff, Indian River County School Board liaison, was not present. IV. Announcements and/or Aaenda Modifications Chairman Reyes announced that Mr. Hughan and Mr. Alvarez are excused this evening, and Ms. Kautenburg and Mr. Christino will be voting in their places. Mr. Reyes announced that staff has asked that New Business, A. Accessory Structure Review, be moved and heard in front of the Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing. He asked for a vote on this matter. A verbal vote was taken, and the request was approved unanimously via voice vote. V. Avvroval of Minutes -- Regular meeting of March 18, 2021 Mr. Reyes asked if all Commissioners have had a chance to review the Minutes. All indicated they had. Mr. Qizilbash asked that a correction be made to page 4. Where it says Mr. Alvarez commented, it should be identified as Mr. Qizilbash making the comment. A motion approving the Minutes of March 18, 2021, with the correction as noted above, was made by Mr. Roth, seconded by Mr. Qizilbash. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 2 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 Roll Call Mr. Qizilbash -- Yes Mr. Roth -- Yes Mr. Reyes -- Yes Mr. Simmons -- Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion passes. VI. New Business Mr. Carter -- Yes Ms. Kautenburg (a) -- Yes Mr. Christino (a) -- Yes A. Accessory Structure Review -- LDC Section 54-2-7.5 -- 141 Royal Palm Street -- 640 SF Detached Garage -- Mr. Kenneth Bleakley Mr. Reyes called on the applicant to present testimony on his project. Mr. Bleakley identified himself and gave his address. He reviewed his history of living in Sebastian and the positions he held during that time. He is present to ask for approval of a proposed 20- x 32-square-foot metal garage on his side lot. He presented to the City Attorney pictures as well as letters from some neighbors. He stated that he has a double lot. The garage will be built by Carolina Carports. It will be a green building and is manufactured in the USA, and it is 180-mile wind rated. He had a metal roof installed on his house in 2020. He also painted his house to match the proposed garage. Mr. Anon stated for the record that the applicant has provided four letters from property owners: Stephen and Stephanie Watts, 190 Royal Palm Street, another from Beverly and Norman Harrelson, 150 Royal Palm Street, another from Charlene Becker, 149 Royal Palm Street, and another from Jeff and Gracie Chandler, 114 Royal Palm Street. These letters are all in support of the applicant. In addition to that, Mr. Anon stated there are two sets of pictures: one is of the residence at 141 Royal Palm Street, and the other is on Easy Street and Main Street, which are pictures of what the garage will look like. Mr. Reyes asked that the pictures be put on the overhead projector in order for everyone to see what they look like. The pictures were placed on the projector. He then called on staff to present their report. Mr. Loring reviewed the Staff Report and read the following additional considerations: The home was constructed in 1980. There is very little information with regard to the roof slopes and the overall building height. Staff had to rely on a poorly preserved drawing via Laserfiche to determine the height of the existing home and the pitch of the existing roof. Staff determined that the proposed structure will be at a height of 15 feet 2 inches, which is just under the height of the home, which is set at 15 feet 6 inches. The roof height as proposed appears to be compliant. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 3 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 The proposed building is a metal structure 20 x 32 feet and will sit on the southern edge of a 32- x 32-foot concrete pad that was constructed earlier this year. The remainder of the concrete pad is to remain open and unenclosed. The existing secondary driveway that will serve the new building was permitted in 1993. Any future improvements to the driveway will require additional permits. The roof pitch of the detached garage and the existing home do not match. This is an item for the Commissioners to consider with regard to granting the request. It appears that the existing home has a 4:12 pitch roof, and the proposed garage has a 3:12 pitch roof. It should be noted, however, that the roof shape and material finish are similar to that of the existing home. It also should be noted that the manufacturer of the proposed building does not offer a 4:12 sloped roof to match the existing home. As a condition of approval, the existing carport and other accessory structures need to be removed prior to the construction of the new garage so that the total square footage of the accessory structures is under the 1,000 square foot threshold. It appears that the existing shed located in the northeast corner along with the proposed building will meet the requirement. The tarpaulin structure of the existing RV parking area appears to exceed the 1,000 square foot area and must be removed prior to new construction. There also exists a 6- x 4.8-foot wooden playhouse structure located in the southeast corner. It is considered playground equipment and not included as accessory square footage count. The structure as proposed is clad in metal. Historically, the City has required structures of this size to closely match the exterior finishes with those of the existing home, which in this case is stucco. It should be noted that pre-engineered metal structures do not lend themselves easily to additional material finishes applied to the surface of exterior wall panels. Staff would ask the Commissioners to make a determination of what material finishes are required for wall finishes for this structure and require those finishes to be present at the time of the final inspection. Alternatives may include exterior insulated finish stucco or HardiePlank stucco panels that are engineered and attached to the structure and painted. The Commissioners may also choose to let the exterior finishes remain as is with a painted finish to match the existing home, or deny the structure altogether. He then called for questions/comments from the Commissioners. Mr. Qizilbash: • On the survey, it shows in front of the shed a proposed concrete pad. He stated the concrete pad is already there. The survey shows a 12-foot-wide proposed pad on the side. Will that be an additional pad? Mr. Bleakley said on the side it is just PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 gravel. It is a 32- x 32-foot slab that was put in, but when he went for a permit, he was told he was not allowed to put up a metal building that big. So, he downsized it to 20 x 32 and just left the slab on the left so he could park his RV there. Asked why there is no landscaping required. Mr. Loring stated that for this particular request landscaping is only required when the accessory structure exceeds 700 square feet. In the case of Mr. Bleakley, he is under the 700 square foot threshold, so there are no landscape requirements. Ms. Kautenburg: As to the comparison with the Tripp home on the corner of Main and Easy Streets, she does not recall that having come before this Commission for a permit. Mr. Loring stated that she is correct. That particular structure was under the 500 square foot threshold; therefore, it was not brought in front of this Commission. She asked if it would be a hardship to install HardiePlank on the exterior of this building. Mr. Bleakley stated yes, it would be a great hardship. Mr. Roth: Regarding the 32- x 20-foot pad, that is an older drawing on which that is shown. As to the structural drawing, there are four illustrations circled on there. He asked staff which drawing is being looked at for approval. Mr. Loring said the applicant is illustrating that they are using epoxy rafter type, which has a bit of an overhang on the sidewall. They are also illustrating the connection to the concrete anchor below in the top left corner. The other two circles are end -post and base -rail connectors that are associated with the vertical girts that are used in this type of building. The illustration he is concerned with is on the far righthand side. It is the third row of drawings down. It is circled, and it has two lean-tos on the side. He wants to make sure that the Commissioners are approving the correct structure. Mr. Bleakley stated he is just putting up a 2-gable to match his house. There are no lean-tos. It is the same company that put up Mr. Tritt's, and there is another one that was just put in on Coconut Street. Mr. Roth stated that he wants to make sure that, because the pad is there, there will not be a lean-to added later. Mr. Bleakley stated he has absolutely no plan to add a lean-to. Regarding the colors that are marked —the tan and the beige —as being a close match to the house, he recommends the sandstone because the tan has too much red in it, and the beige will fade with light and will look more like yellow later on. Mr. Bleakley stated that is correct, and he is going to change that because he thinks it will match the house more closely. Mr. Roth asked Mr. Bleakley if he would be comfortable if the Commissioners recommend the sandstone finish on the exterior walls. Mr. Bleakley stated yes, that would not be a problem. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 5 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 Mr. Simmons: • Asked if the small building that is to the left of the driveway is the playhouse. Mr. Bleakley stated that is his mower shed where he keeps tools, etc. The playhouse is on the other side, and it is very small. He stated he had to remove a carport and a canopy prior to any permits per City staff. The shed that is there now, which is 10 x 13 feet, will be painted to match also. Mr. Anon pointed out that this is mentioned in the fifth bullet point under "Additional Considerations" in the Staff Report where it states, "The 6 x 4.8-foot wooden playhouse located in the southeast corner is considered playground equipment and is not included in the accessory square footage count." • Asked if the proposed apron will be shale. Mr. Bleakley stated yes, it will be. Mr. Carter: • Commented that the drawing of the proposed structure looks like it is larger than 500 square feet. Mr. Loring stated it falls under the 500-square-foot threshold. Therefore, staff has no oversight over it. It does have a lot of frontage to it, but it does not have a lot of depth. Mr. Anon stated for the record, the last bullet under "Additional Considerations" refers to the options according to 54-2-7.5. That is giving the Commissioners three options as to the finish of the metal. The Commissioners would have to make that choice, and the color sandstone must be included in the motion. Also, Mr. Anon read the three recommendations from the staff: 1. The Commissioners are required to make a determination of what material finishes are required for wall finish for this structure. 2. Alternatively, the Commissioners may include exterior insulated finish (E.I.F.S.) stucco or HardiePlank. 3. Leave it as it is. Mr. Reyes called for anyone from the public in chambers or on Zoom who would like to speak in opposition to this project. Seeing and hearing no one, Mr. Reyes called for anyone from the public in chambers or on Zoom who wished to speak in favor of the project. There was no one in chambers or on Zoom. Hearing no further questions/comments from the Commissioners, Mr. Reyes called for a motion. A motion to approve the application for the accessory structure at 141 Royal Palm Street — a 640-square-foot attached garage with the considerations and recommendations of a color proposed to be sandstone instead of tan, with another PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 6 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 recommendation to leave the structure as -is, that being a metal building, as well as including staff recommendations under "Additional Considerations," was made by Mr. Reyes and seconded by Mr. Christino. Roll Call Mr. Qizilbash -- Yes Ms. Kautenburg (a) -- Yes Mr. Roth -- Yes Mr. Simmons -- Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion passes. Mr. Christino -- Yes Mr. Reyes -- Yes Mr. Carter -- Yes Mr. Anon stated for the record he will make all the photos and letters that were submitted part of the official record in this matter. At this time, Mr. Reyes closed the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and opened the Local Planning Agency meeting. A. Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing -- Site Plan Approval -- City of Sebastian Public Works Compound -- 505 Airport Drive West -- Proposed construction of new +/- 36,428 SF vehicle maintenance facility with associated offices and fuel canopy along with the parking, utilities, storm water and landscaping -- Industrial (IN) Zoning District Chairman Reyes asked if any members of the Commission have had any ex parte communications relating to this project. All stated they had not. All witnesses who intended to speak on this matter were sworn in by the City Attorney. Mr. Reyes called on the applicant to make their presentation. Mr. Loring appeared on behalf of the City. He stated that the item for consideration this evening is the City of Sebastian's Public Work Complex. It is a $9.1 million project. It is a large investiture for the City and sits on a 20.0-acre site. The build -out area is 8.7 acres, and as Mr. Anon has mentioned, it is a 36,428 SF building. He drew everyone's attention to the images on the overhead projector, which is the site plan and a landscape plan. Staff worked in concert with the builder and the landscape architect and the site plan engineer in fine tuning the project. The two items that he wanted to emphasize in the Staff Report are: 19: Additional Considerations: Stormwater calculations have been received with the application and reviewed by the city engineer. It should be noted that the project engineer took extraordinary steps to help preserve the existing tree canopy and work around existing gopher tortoise burrows found on the property. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 7 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 23: Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: a. The wetland impact areas to be filled or modified shall require permits prior to construction. b. Existing gopher tortoise habitats within the development area shall be relocated as required prior to construction, with remaining habitats to be properly marked and protected during all phases of construction. C. The applicant shall provide or adjust building and site light shielding if it is deemed a hazard or nuisance to motoring traffic or adjacent property owners along Roseland Road. Mr. Loring called for questions/comments from the Commissioners. Mr. Christino: Regarding the vehicle wash area, he saw nowhere where there is listed equipment to reclaim and filter the water. He hopes the City does not plan to wash all those vehicles and allow runoff. A commercial carwash recycles its water. He would expect to see something like that, especially considering the proximity to the river. Ms. Frazier stated that, regarding the runoff, the entire site's runoff from the car wash, from the pump area, is all being directed and treated in the City's stormwater ponds. Mr. Christino stated his point is to reclaim the water, as commercial carwashes do. It is an expense to the City to use all that water without reclaiming it. He would like to see this modeled after a commercial operation. It will save the City yearly on water costs, and it is ecologically sound. He would like to see what that would cost additionally to have it installed. Mr. Christino said this project is estimated to last the City for 40 years. He thinks it is important at this stage that this project gets done properly, unbudgeted or not. It is up to this Commission to approve this site plan, and this is part of that approval. Mr. Reyes called on Scott Baker, Public Facilities Director/Airport Manager, to provide information on this project. Mr. Baker, being duly sworn, provided the following information: His understanding is that the wash station will have an oil -water separator, and it will capture any solvents and greases, and then it will be treated and deposited into the sewer system. Mr. Baker stated he would put the question to the engineer regarding installing a system for recycling the water at the carwash station. Mr. Anon pointed out that right now the goal is to get initial site plan approval. He does not recall when he first heard about this project that what Mr. Christino is suggesting was even an option. Now at this late stage, if it is going to be an additional cost, it is going to raise the price which was obtained. He does not think that is going to be an option for the City at this time. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 8 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 As to the fuel area, he assumes the fuel tanks will be able to be removed without taking the whole structure apart with the canopy. Is there a plan for that if in the future there is a problem with those tanks. Ms. Frazier stated that typically underground storage tanks are easily replaced/removed/repaired underneath the canopies. Regarding the amount of asphalt being used, he suggested it is substandard for a commercial operation. He does not want to see the City Manager coming back for a million dollars in five years for additional asphalt because there is not enough being put down now. He sees 1-1/2 inches of asphalt in the employees' parking lot. Mr. Reyes suggested that Mr. Christino is not really doing a site plan approval; he is doing an engineering plan review, and that is not up to this Commission right now during this meeting. Mr. Anon stated that is correct. Right now, the site plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Mr. Reyes asked if this Commission will have the chance to review the engineering plans which were provided to them. He has a lot of questions for the engineer in reference to water retention, etc. At this time, it is just site plan approval. Mr. Reyes asked the Commissioners to direct their questions to site plan approval. • Mr. Christino also addressed the review on C13 concerning the turning radius of a 40-foot ladder truck. Mr. Baker said that a 55-foot turning radius has been provided per the Fire Marshal. Mr. Christino opined that it looks like there are some pinch points coming in around the main office building. Mr. Baker stated that was specifically looked at and made to comply. Mr. Qizilbash: • Regarding the pump area for treatment of the stormwater, it should show the catch basin which treats the runoff from the pump area, specifically for grease and oil overflow and during storms, which should be treated before going to the retention area. Regarding the warehouse, he asked what the function of the warehouse is. Is it 100% for storage? Are there some offices in the warehouse? Mr. Baker stated the first phase of the construction will involve the shop area and the offices. The warehouse will be planned for the future. When and if it comes, it will be for the storage of other equipment and supplies that the City uses. Mr. Qizilbash stated that the calculation of the parking based also on the warehouse is not correct. The parking for the offices and the warehouse should be considered separately. Mr. Baker stated there are no offices planned inside the warehouse. Mr. Qizilbash stated that in the parking calculation, each category should be considered. In the drainage plan, all the inward evaluations are wrong, going in the wrong direction. They are lower than the retention area. So those need to be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 9 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 corrected. Ms. Frazier stated staff brought that up to the city engineer and the design engineer. Mr. Loring described that it is considered a hydraulic system so that they are utilizing the downforce of water to push the water up. Mr. Qizilbash stated that the way it is projected, it is going to flood the parking area. Ms. Frazier stated staff discussed this matter with the design engineers, and they assured staff that that would not happen. • Mr. Loring stated that when staff did the site plan review, they broke down the areas of proposed office space and garage/storage/warehouse areas. This totals 73.3 spaces. The engineer provided 78 spaces; therefore, it is compliant. There is a stabilized overflow area in the equipment storage area that is parking, because it was not included as part of that count. After discussion, Ms. Frazier stated Mr. Qizilbash is correct that there are some office spaces within the warehouse area, and he is presenting that they should be counted separately. She suggested that the numbers would be approximately the same when that is calculated. She believes there is enough parking is being provided, but staff will recheck that. • Regarding the visitors' parking area, there should be a walkway provided to the building. That is not shown, and it should be provided in front of the building. There are 14 parking spaces designated for visitor parking. Mr. Reyes stated that it appears this Commission has many questions for the engineers. He stated that some of the questions that the Commissioners have are engineering questions, but there are also questions pertaining to site plan approval that he thinks need to be looked at. Ms. Frazier assured everyone that the stormwater master plan for this particular site has been reviewed and approved by several engineers. Also, it would have to get a permit approval from St. John's. ' Ms. Kautenburg: • Regarding the site plan, she stated that at one time this area was a scrub jay habitat. She is not sure there are any still there. She asked if there was a scrub jay survey done showing they are all gone. Ms. Frazier stated staff is working very closely with US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding this particular question. There are no scrub jays in the area according to Indian River County Parks which maintains that area. It is part of the ITPHCP that the City received from US Fish and Wildlife Service 20 years ago. As part of that permitting process, the City is setting aside a conservation easement to the north of this property to set aside the land that was already taken. Fortunately, there are no scrub jays in this particular area of the site. There has been no survey, but staff has been assured by Indian River County that there are no scrub jays in this area. • She would like to hear from the engineer regarding some of the questions that have been raised. • She is happy that the City is heading toward a much better system than has been present for a very long time. It is way overdue. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 10 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 Mr. Roth: Regarding the approval from Indian River County on the scrub jay area, he asked what department of the County that came from. Ms. Frazier stated the Indian River County Parks and Recreation manages all the scrub jay areas to the north of this project and the whole Sebastian scrub jay area. They are the ones staff has been negotiating with over the last year. Has a lot of questions which are engineering oriented, and he feels this Commission needs some direction. He will discuss this at a later point. Ms. Frazier apologized to the Commission, as it was staffs understanding that there would be an engineer on Zoom to answer some questions. Regarding the stabilized areas that are marked on the drawings, he inquired what type of material is used for stabilization. Mr. Loring stated it is a stabilized area of compressed shells. He believes the particular area that Mr. Roth is referring to is slated for large equipment storage. Mr. Roth asked if vehicles are going to be traversing it on a regular basis. Mr. Loring stated he believes it would be sporadic use. Mr. Baker stated that the area that Mr. Roth is talking about will be the future warehouse building that was discussed earlier. There will be no vehicular traffic over that area. Mr. Roth inquired about another area that is off to the side that has some designations on it for possibly parking. Mr. Baker explained that, to the north on the asphalted area, there is some parking for the electrical charging stations and for vehicular traffic to circle around and get in position for the fuel stations and for the wash station. He stated that this area is not designed to hold vehicles or to support traffic. (AT THIS TIME, MR. RAHJES JOINED THE MEETING VIA ZOOM AND WAS SWORN IN BY MR. ANON). Mr. Rahjes stated it is able to hold traffic, but it is a parking area. Those stabilized areas have been designed so that vehicles could be parked there. The striping designation on the site plan was sizing so that we could make sure it was large enough to hold the City's excess vehicles. Ms. Frazier stated there is now an engineer on Zoom with Wright Construction. Mr. Reyes stated he is not the engineer of record on this project, and when we come to the Public Input he will be asked for his comments. Ms. Frazier stated he is the project manager on this project. He is the design -build engineer. (AT THIS POINT, MR. DUSTIN HEATH JOINED THE MEETING VIA ZOOM AND WAS SWORN IN BY MR. ANON.) Mr. Heath clarified that he is not the engineer, but he is the design -build contractor. He further stated that they hired Carter and Associates as the engineer. He stated he does not think some of the engineering questions are ones he is able to answer. He further stated that Mr. Rahjes, the engineer is on Zoom at this time. Mr. Rahjes stated that the first question was in regard to the recycling of the water at the carwash. The carwash is being designed by Adams, and it is a simple wand wash, so it PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 11 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 does not use nearly the volume of water that is used in a typical commercial wash. It is not going to be like a drive -through wash. He stated that right now on the site plan they do not show the interceptor, because Adams had not yet designed it. It is his understanding that there will be one there. However, he is not sure whether there is going to be a recycling structure as a part of it. Typically, he has not seen those on the wash stations that have just the wand. Mr. Reyes asked Mr. Qizilbash to repeat the concern he has about the stormwater pond. Mr. Qizilbash stated he has a question about the stormwater system going through the pipes to the retention area. All the inverted pipes are two feet below from the outlet in the retention area. Mr. Rahjes explained that, if you look at the grading on the plans, all of the top -of -inlet grades are at least six inches above the top -of -bank grades of the retention area. While the stormwater is going to go uphill from that structure into the retention area, and there might be some vestige water from below the level of the bottom of the retention area after everything has settled out —for example, on the north retention area, the bottom of the retention area is at elevation 14-1/4; the elevation of the adjacent parking lot is at 16-1/2, so roughly 2-1/4 feet above that. Based off the stormwater model staging, we do not even stage up to the 16. At that point we are using a hydraulic gradient in that the water level at the inlet will push the water to equalize whatever is in the inlet with whatever is in the retention area. He explained why this method was used and how the system works. Mr. Qizilbash stated his concern is when there is a lot of rain, there is nothing going into the retention area; the water stays in the pipes. Most of the pipes are 24 inches. So that is the difference between the outlet and the piping. So the pipes are full all the time with old water. He asked why the retention area is so large when it stays dry all the time? Mr. Rahjes stated that, according to how St. John's permits presently, we are not allowed to make it a wet pond, because if we try to make wet ponds, that encourages birds, which is not good to have around airports. We were forced to try to keep these areas dry. Current permitting with St. John's is that we have to ensure that there is no additional nutrient loading that exits the site versus what it currently is. It is currently undeveloped, so that leads to a very high standard of how much treatment volume is required. We are not allowed to go very deep because we want to keep everything dry, and it ends up working out to be a pretty large area that has to be dry retention. Furthermore, the only portion of water that would remain is going to be from basically the bottom of the retention area less a foot or so. Each of those structures is also going to have a weephole in the bottom. So it will also perk it out down into the groundwater table depending on water table elevations at the time. Mr. Reyes thanked Mr. Rahjes for his explanation, but he thinks Mr. Qizilbash is still concerned. Mr. Simmons: 0 Relating to the irrigation, he inquired if that is tied into a well or wells. Mr. Rahjes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 12 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 stated there is one well, and it is located in the area where the fuel storage area is. Mr. Reyes: Regarding the environmental report for the property, he notes that it is an industrial area, and he expects that in the future that the area will be developed. He would like to make sure that the habitat there is relocated properly. It has been mentioned that there is a report that has been done by Laing Environmental on the site in January, and they have only identified gopher tortoises on this site. Is that report available to the Commissioners? Mr. Loring stated he will make it available to all the Commissioners. Mr. Reyes stated he has sighted scrub jays in the area. This area abuts a large preserve that has been developed specifically for those birds. He knows there are a lot of indigo snakes in this area as well as the Florida pine snake. He wants to make sure that whatever is on this site gets relocated properly. He asked if there would be a new report done prior to start of construction for this project. Ms. Frazier stated that indigo snakes have a large range as well as pine snakes. Surveys for those are not typically done; however, if you see them during construction, you are supposed to protect them. In this particular area we know there are gopher tortoises. There has been a preliminary gopher tortoise survey. Prior to —and this is true for every development the City does —any clearing, there will be a 100% review of the area, then it will be cordoned off, and all the gopher tortoises will be relocated. Staff worked really hard with the engineer and Mr. Baker on trying to minimize the impact to the areas that we knew were much more natural. The main area of this project has already been impacted, and a lot of non - natives are in the main area of the compound. Staff tried to concentrate most of the impact there. She said because of drainage issues and stormwater issues, they had to go somewhat into the natural areas, but Carter and Associates worked hard with staff in avoiding a lot of the trees and the highly concentrated gopher tortoise areas. We have been told there are no scrub jays there. She does not know if US Fish and Wildlife is going to require a scrub jay survey. In order to mitigate for the development, there have been 32 acres put into an easement north of this development, so then this habitat area can be developed. She added that the gopher tortoises that have to be relocated will go to a permitted FWC gopher tortoise bank. Ms. Frazier said that staff has been working very hard with the landscape architect that Carter brought on board, and you will see that it is all natives that you will find normally in this area. Hearing no further comments/questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Reyes opened the floor for anyone in favor of this project. Holly Dill, Roseland Road. Her interest is primarily regarding a buffer along Roseland Road. She reviewed the plans that are online, and she is trying to get a sense of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 13 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 buffer along Roseland Road. Those who live in the Roseland area are very concerned about the quality of life of Roseland. She stated there was a mention on the plan that mentioned, "...additional required vegetation to be determined by the City after review of existing buffer." She asked what that meant. Mr. Loring stated the Roseland Road buffer requires a 50-foot vegetative buffer on either side of the road. He stated they have tried to maintain that in its natural state. The landscape architect came back and added additional plantings within the developed area with native species of trees and shrubs. There have also been some areas determined that staff wanted to concentrate on, mostly along Corporate Park Drive where it intersects with Roseland Road, and they have asked for some additional plantings so that motoring traffic or residents living north on Roseland Road have adequate buffers so that they do not necessarily have to see the new development. That is why that wording is on the plan where it designates, "...additional plantings as necessary," because staff is very much concerned about the neighbors to the north and Ms. Dill's concerns. Seeing no one else in chambers and hearing no one on Zoom who would like to speak in favor of the project, Mr. Reyes called for anyone who would like to speak against the project. Seeing no one in chambers and hearing no one on Zoom who would like to speak against the project, Mr. Reyes called for a motion. A motion approving the site plan for the City of Sebastian Public Works Compound -- 505 Airport Drive West -- Proposed construction of new +/- 36,428 S.F. vehicle maintenance facility with associated offices and fuel canopy along with parking, utilities, stormwater and landscaping -- Industrial (IN) Zoning District, subject to the conditions as stated in the Staff Report, was made by Ms. Kautenburg and seconded by Mr. Simmons. Roll Call Mr. Roth -- Yes Mr. Reyes -- Yes Mr. Simmons -- Yes Mr. Christino (a) -- Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion passes. Ms. Kautenburg (a) -- Yes Mr. Qizilbash -- Yes Mr. Carter -- Yes Mr. Reyes closed the Local Planning Agency meeting for the quasi-judicial public hearing and reopened the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. VII. Unfinished Business -- None VIII. Public Input -- None IX. Commissioners Matters PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 14 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 Mr. Roth suggested that when the Commissioners get reports to review all the pages be numbered. He said it would make everyone's job a little easier when pages that are referred to are numbered. Also, he suggested that when there are a number of points, list them numerically. Again, it makes it easier for everyone to refer to a particular point if the points are listed numerically. Mr. Reyes agreed. Ms. Kautenburg suggested that the size of auxiliary structures that are not required to be permitted needs to be looked at, as has been noted, 499 square feet is a pretty large structure. She gave an example of a property with three auxiliary structures and a lean- to. Ms. Kautenburg addressed her next comment to the general public. She is disappointed that they are talking about a $9 million project about which some people on the street will rejoice, and there will be many who will be very upset that we are spending that much money, and we should be doing it this way or that way, etc. Her question is: Where are you folks? She said there is plenty of room in the building, and the only person who spoke on the project is not even from Sebastian. She encouraged the public that, if you have input, bring it to the Commissioners. Mr. Christino noted that Roseland Road does not yet have the force main installed from the County. He asked if there is a timeline for this project and for the sewer line going in on Roseland Road. Mr. Baker stated that the contractor who is building from the south to the north is also the contractor bringing it from Roseland to the south. Mr. Christino said he looked on the drawing for the notation of the sewer line from the project to Roseland Road, and he could not make it out. He saw the water line designated on there. Mr. Baker said he is not sure. Mr. Christino said it is going to go from Airport Drive west up to Commercial. Mr. Baker said it is in that vicinity where the force main is now terminated, and it will make its way down the right-of-way, cross under Corporate Park Drive, and then continue on for another 200 feet, and at that point it will terminate. It will not be joined with the other force main. Mr. Christino as a point of clarification asked if the contractor bringing the line from south to north is going to come into the airport property to make those connections, or is that the City's responsibility. Mr. Baker said the plan is to provide sewer services for the tenants at the airport so that they can get off septic and join in with the sewer system. That has not been fully engineered or put out to bid yet. That will probably be someone different. Mr. Christino noted three charging stations for electric vehicles. He inquired how the number three was arrived at. He feels that the City will probably need more than that in 5 or 10 years., and that is a concern. Mr. Baker stated there is room for expansion, but staff wanted to get started. Mr. Christino stated he wanted to make sure that the parking lot will not need to be torn up again in 5 or 10 years. If these utilities are roughed in ahead PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 15 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2021 of time, it is much cheaper to do. Mr. Baker stated that is a good point, and staff is watching the industry to find out how soon the electric pickup trucks will be ready. Mr. Qizilbash is concerned about being told that the retention area will never have water, the water will stay in the pipes, and there will be no overflow in the parking area. Mr. Reyes stated there are definitely stormwater experts up here on the dais that look at it very carefully every time. XII. Citv Attornev Matters -- None XIII. Staff Matters Ms. Frazier apologized for any confusion this evening regarding the engineers on Zoom. She assumed they were on Zoom, but she did not give enough time for them to be recognized. She was glad they were able to speak to the concerns of the Commissioners. XIV. Adiournment There being nothing further, Chairman Reyes adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. By: jg Date: CKYOF SEBASTLAkN HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Site Plan Review Staff Report 1. Project Name: North County Library Expansion 2. Requested Action: Approval of a site modification plan consisting of construction of a 2,823 SF building addition, reconstruction of the stormwater ponds, and installing additional parking, landscaping, and site amenities. 3. Project Location a. Address: 1001 Sebastian Boulevard b. Legal: Metes and bounds, as described and shown on a boundary and topographic survey submitted with the project application C. Indian River County Parcel Number: 31-38-14-00004-0000-00007.0 4. Project Owner: Indian River County (Loc 4300 #5281) 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (772) 226-1283 5. Project Engineer: Todd Howder/Aaron Stanton, P.E. MBV Engineering, Inc. 1835 20t Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (772) 569-0035 6. Project Surveyor: 7. Project Description Mr. David M. Silon, P.S M. Indian River County 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (772) 226-1287 a. Narrative of proposed action: Indian River County has filed a site plan application for a modification to the North County Library located at 1001 Sebastian Boulevard, adjacent to and a part of the Sebastian Lakes PUD. The original library structure was built and completed in 1990. A subsequent modification plan was approved in 2001 for two separate building additions constructed in the SE and NW areas of the original building along with the expansion of the stormwater & utilities systems and parking areas. The County now wishes to expand the library with additional community space in the SW corner of the building. The project consists of constructing a 2,823 SF reading room with storage, 10 additional compact parking spaces, restoration of the stormwater ponds, relocation of existing utility lines, and replacement of missing landscaping. The site consists of 4.12 acres, of which 93,206 SF will be impervious (51.93%) and 86,261 SF will be open space (48.07%). b. Current Zoning, Future Land Use and Overlay District: 1. Zoning: PS (Public Service) 2. Future Land Use: INS (Institutional) 3. Performance Overlay District: CR512 C. Adjacent Properties Zoning Current Use Future Land Use North: RS-10 residences LDR East: PUD-R Walgreens CG South: PUD-R Sebastian Lakes LDR Subdivision West: PUD-R unfinished CG commercial lot d. Site Characteristics (1) Total Acreage: (2) Current Land Use(s): (3) Soil: (4) Vegetation: (5) Flood Hazard: (6) Water Service: (7) Sanitary Sewer Service: (8) Parks: (9) Police/Fire: 4.12 acres Library Eau Gallie fine sand Commercial landscaping per code Zone X and Zone AE: BFE 20.6' & 21.1' Indian River County Utilities Indian River County Utilities Barber Street Sports Complex (BSSC) —1 mile IRC Canoe Launch — 1.5 miles Indian River County Fire — BSSC — 1 mile Sebastian Police — 4 miles 2 8. Comprehensive Plan Consistency a. Future Land Use: consistent b. Traffic Circulation: consistent C. Housing: n/a d. Public Facilities: consistent e. Coastal Management: n/a f. Conservation: consistent g. Recreation and Open Space: consistent 9. Contents of Site Plan: a. lot configuration: provided b. finished ground floor elevation: Proposed - 22.59' C. contours and designating number of dwelling units: N/A d. square footage of site: provided - 179,467 SF (4.12 acres) e. building coverage: Existing 24,996 SF = 13.88% (Maximum 40%) Proposed 27,819 SF = 15.50% f. square footage of impervious areas and open area: Impervious: 93,206 SF = 51.93% (60% maximum) Open Space: 86,261 SF = 48.07% (45% minimum) g. setbacks: provided - in compliance with zoning regulations. Minimum Existing Proposed Setback Structure Structure Front - Sebastian Boulevard 30' 131.5" Side - East 10, 144' Side -West 10, 96' 93.5' Rear (Adjacent to Residential District) 30' 51.2' 52.7' h. scaled drawings of the sides, front and rear of the building or structure: provided for building addition 3 L generalized floor plan indicating uses and square footage of each proposed use within each building or structure: provided for building addition j. building exterior construction materials and color: provided, to match existing k. building height: Existing Library Building 29' (maximum 35') Proposed Addition 20' I. location and character of all outside facilities for waste disposal, storage areas, or display: existing M. location and dimensions of all curb cuts and driveways: provided n. number of spaces with their location and dimensions: provided Parking Required: 1 parking space per every 300 SF of building Existing: 24,996 SF + 300 = 83 spaces Proposed Addition: 2,823 SF + 300 = 10 spaces Required: 93 spaces Parking Provided + Additional: 133 spaces: 115 Standard + 10 compact + 8 H/C o. details of off-street parking and loading areas (including requirements of Article XV): provided for area of building addition P. all off-street vehicular surfaces available for maneuvering: existing q. surface materials: existing r. number of employees: not provided S. type of vehicles owned by the establishment: not provided t. required agreements if there is a combined off-street parking facility: n/a U. location of all pedestrian walks, malls, yards and open spaces: existing V. location, size, character, and height or orientation of all signs: existing W. location and character of landscaped areas and recreation areas: provided. Tree materials and missing hedge areas that were required and are shown on the 2001 approved site plan, are proposed to be replanted with this site plan along with new trees that are required to replace existing trees that are going to be removed for the addition. X. location, design and character of all public, semi-public, or private utilities: provided 4 Y. location, height and general character of perimeter or ornamental walls, fences, landscaping: provided — An existing 6-foot wooden fence is located along the rear property line as a buffer for the adjacent residential subdivision. Z. surface water drainage facilities plan certified by an engineer or architect registered in the State of Florida: provided. See Additional Considerations also. aa. location of existing easements and right-of-way: provided. See Additional Considerations also bb. land survey with complete legal description prepared and certified by a registered surveyor: provided CC. verified statement showing each and every individual person having a legal and/or equitable ownership interest in the subject property: provided 10. Site location and character of use: provided 11. Appearance site and structures: a. harmonious overall design: Yes b. location and screening of mechanical equipment, utility hardware and waste storage areas: existing C. commercial and industrial activities conducted in enclosed buildings: n/a d. exterior lighting: existing 13. Access, internal circulation, off-street parking and other traffic impacts: a. internal circulation system design and access/egress considerations: existing - Access, internal drive aisles, and traffic flow are not being revised. b. separation of vehicular and pedestrian areas: existing 14. Traffic impacts: A Traffic Statement is included on Sheet C6. Based on the existing size of the library and the increased size with the addition, the average daily trips (ADT) will be increased by 203 new trips. This net new amount did not warrant a new Traffic Impact Analysis to be completed (400 ADT or greater). 15. Open space and landscape (including the requirements of Article XIV): NOTE: A new landscape plan was not required. Trees and missing materials from the 2001 site plan were required to be replaced. Trees removed for the new addition were required to be replaced in accordance with the LDC. a. name, address and phone number of the owner and designer: 2001 landscape plan b. north arrow, scale and date, minimum scale of one inch equals fifty (50) feet: provided 5 C. property lines, easements, and right-of-way with internal and property line dimensions: provided d. location of existing or proposed utility service: provided e. location and size of any existing or proposed structures: provided f. location and size of any existing or proposed site features, such as earthen mounds, swales, walls and water areas: provided g. location and size of any existing or proposed vehicular use area: provided h. location and size of any existing or proposed sidewalks, curbs, and wheel stops: provided i. location of sprinkler heads, hose bibs, or quick cupplers and other information on irrigation: 2001 landscape plan j. calculations of required type, dimensions and square footage of landscape materials and of required landscape areas, including: total site area, parking area, other vehicular use area, percentage of non -vehicular open space, perimeter and interior landscape strips, and required number of trees: 2001 landscape plan k. location of required landscape areas and dimensions: 2001 landscape plan location, name, height and size of all existing plant material to be retained: 2001 landscape plan M. location, size, height and description of all landscape material including name, quantity, quality, spacing, and specified size and specification of all plant materials: 2001 landscape plan n. height, width, type, material and location of all barriers of nonliving material: existing o. location, dimensions and area of landscaping for freestanding signs: existing P. show all landscaping, buildings, or other improvements on adjacent property within five (5) feet of the common property line: provided for building addition area 16. Required screening of abutting residential and nonresidential uses_ existing — Fence on rear property line abutting Sebastian Lakes Subdivision 17. Flood prone land and wetland preservation: There are no areas of wetlands found on the property. Portions of the property are located in Flood Zone AE of which the building addition will also be located in. The addition will be required to be in compliance with all FEMA and Florida Building Codes ! 18: Surface water management: provided 19: Soil erosion, sedimentation control and estuary protection: SWPPP provided 20. Performance Overlay District Requirements: In compliance 21. Additional considerations: Sebastian Lakes Subdivision is Sebastian's first and oldest residential PUD. Many of its original tracts have been re -platted over the years to accommodate development, including the library, commercial, and residential areas. Almost all of the stormwater systems are interconnected and outfall into the various lakes throughout the subdivision. The Library's two retention ponds are connected via a 252' pipe, and then interconnect south into a residential stormwater lake, as shown on the Paving, Grading & Drainage Plan, Sheet C7. Indian River County and its civil engineer have had several discussions with the St. Johns River Water Management District regarding the original approved stormwater permit for the library site, a review of the existing conditions of the two retention areas, and compiling restoration measures for the ponds, as presented on the proposed site plan. As indicated on the survey and Sheets C3 & C9, numerous utility easements run throughout the parcel. These easements were established and dedicated on the previous Sebastian Lakes subdivision plats. With the proposed relocation of the utility lines, and location of the new building addition — and the 2001 SE addition — abandonment of certain easements are necessary along with the creation of new ones. The plat dedications will be researched to determine the appropriate entity - city and/or county — to abandon the applicable easements. Indian River County will establish the new easement and record the dedicating document. The abandonment and new dedications should be completed before issuance of the Certificate of Completion can occur. 22. Staff Conclusion: The proposed site modification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Code, and the CR512 Overlay District. 23. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan modification for the North County Library with the following condition: • Abandonment of applicable utility easements, and establishment of necessary utility easements, shall be completed before issuance of the Certificate of Completion can occur. PREPARED BY -7 41 ZI DATJ - VA