Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-2021 PZ MinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MINUTES ti NOVEMBER 4, 2021 c� Call to Order — Chairman Roth called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 05 It. Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all. III. Roll Call Present: Also Present: Mr. Roth Mr. Simmons 0) � O C m .0 N 8 C fA p cd E ~ E Mr. Christino (a) Q. Ems" A Mr Qizilbash Ms. Kautenburg Mr. Hughan C O Cal Mr. Carter Mr. Alvarez r+ Ms. Jordan (a) � C Ms. Lisa Frazier, AIPC Community Development Direop Ms. Dord Bosworth, Community Development Mans N Mr. Manny Anon, Jr., City Attorney — Late Arrival 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 Mr. Roth announced that there is full Commission present. All of the commissioners will have input. However, the alternates will not vote on any of the items that call for a vote. As far as agenda modifications, due to a conflicting schedule with the City Attorney, who is coming back from the Supervisor of Elections office in Vero Beach, having certified the recent election ballots, there will be modification of the agenda so that this meeting can move forward. Some of the other items on the agenda will be addressed before the Local Planning Agency (LPA) public hearings. The Chairman stated if the commissioners agree, immediately following the approval of the Minutes, Items VIII through XIII will be addressed. Mr. Roth then called for a motion moving the agenda items VIII through XIII be addressed before Item VI. A motion was made by Mr. Roth and seconded by Mr. Hughan. Roll Call Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Roth — Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes Mr. Simmons — Yes Mr. Carter — Yes Mr. Hughan — Yes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 2 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion passes. V. ADDroval of Minutes — October 7, 2021 and October 14, 2021 Mr. Roth asked if all Commissioners have had a chance to review the Minutes from the October 7, 2021 meeting. All indicated they had There being no additions or corrections, Mr. Roth then called for a motion to approve the Minutes of October 7, 2021 as presented. A motion was made by Mr. Simmons, seconded by Mr. Carter, and approved unanimously via voice vote. Mr. Roth asked If all Commissioners have had a chance to review the Minutes from the October 14, 2021 meeting. All indicated they had. There being no additions or corrections, Mr. Roth then plied for a motion to approve the Minutes of October 14, 2021 as presented. A motion was made by Ms. Kautenburg, seconded by Mr. Carter, and approved unanimously v s voice vote. AT THIS POINT, THE CHAIRMAN MOVED TO ITEMS VIII THROUGH XIII OF THE AGENDA. VIII. Unfinished Business — None IX. Public Input Mr. Roth called on anyone from the public who wished to speak on anything that is not on this evening's agenda. There being no one in chambers or on Zoom who wished to speak, Mr. Roth moved to the next item on the agenda. X. New Business -- None XI. Commissioners Matters Mr. Christine stated he understood that staff attended a Metropolitan Planning Association meeting and asked if staff had any comments on it. Ms. Frazier stated she had presented a Power Point presentation. Vero Beach and Sebastian were asked to do a presentation on some of the things that those cities have been working on. She covered the items that she talked about at that meeting. Mr. Christino said he is very interested in those programs and asked If the meeting was open to the public. Ms. Frazier thought that there was some citizen representation present. Mr. Christino asked if there is a way to notify the commissioners prior to meetings such as this in the future. Mr. Christino also inquired about the status of the Squid Lips project. Ms. Bosworth stated the staff is comfortable with their plans for their buildings, and they submitted at PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 3 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 their own risk the building permits. The project was approved at the July 15" meeting, and since then they have gone through the process of getting the structural parts of their building permits reviewed. As of this week the permit for the over -the -water restaurant has been issued, and there will probably be some activity down there soon. Mr. Roth asked regarding the meeting that Mr. Christino talked about, if that is something staff might want to make available to the citizens of Sebastian. Ms. Frazier said that she would suggest waiting until we see what the County does with this information. Mr. Roth added that the attendance tonight brings back up to the surface the work that everyone put together on the Comprehensive Plan. He had submitted a draft of something to go to the media on it, and he does not know what became of that. It gave credit to all those in the City who worked on it. He asked if it would be appropriate to bring that back up, because this is bringing new light to that situation. Ms. Frazier agreed and replied that she had passed it up the chain. She would be happy to ask again if we would like to do an article about it. Mr. Roth reviewed that in the past the City gave an award that was given to a business that had had a very nice architectural design on their new building. That award was given several times, recognizing those businesses for being aware of the concept that Sebastian has been following, i.e. the fishing village theme. That project just fell silent for some reason, and there have been a couple of very nice projects completed. He made a motion suggesting that we bring that back and have the Commissioners as well as members of the staff submit buildings that are in the City that meet those criteria so that they could receive some sort of recognition such as a plaque. He also suggested having the City Council weigh in on that as well. Ms. Frazier suggested that this matter be put on next month's agenda as a recommendation to City Council to bring this program back. Mr. Roth then withdrew his motion and agreed that it should be put on next month's agenda as a recommendation to City Council. It was the general consensus of the commissioners that this matter be brought up on next month's agenda. Mr. Hughan asked Ms. Frazier if the Power Point presentation will be available somewhere so that the public can look at it. She said she would post it. Mr. Roth stated he would like to see it also. Mr. Qizilbash asked regarding the last meeting where there were two large sub- divisions from Dr. Brooks that were addressed. He opined that that matter should be in the hands of Code Enforcement because the appearance of the property as it now exists presents a bad visual. Ms. Bosworth stated that matter has already been brought before the Special Magistrate in 2019. There was a formal order, and they are accruing PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 $100.00 a day until the sub -division is finished. It is an open Code Enforcement case until it is abated, which is going to be the recording of the final plat. (MR. ROTH THEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAD APPEARED AT THE MEETING.) XII. Citv Attomev Matters — None XIII. Staff Matters Ms. Bosworth stated about a week after the quasi-judicial hearing on the special use for the Caliber Car Wash, the applicant withdrew their application. So it is not proceeding to City Council, and they will look for another location. Mr. Roth announced that that finishes Items VIII through XIII, and the meeting will resume with item VI. VI. Local Planning Acencv f -PA1 Public Hearing A. LPA Legislative Public Hearing -- Recommendation to City Council — City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan 2040 — New Element: Private Property Rights — Element 10 Mr. Anon read the item into the record, and Mr. Roth called on staff to make their presentation. Ms. Frazier stated that the State Legislature passed in June 2021 that all local governments are required to add a new element called the "Private Property Rights Element." Staff has added Element 10, and staff could not proceed with adoption of any changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan such as the future land use map that is before the Commissioners this evening, until this element is also adopted. This element will be sent along with whatever future land use maps the commissioners and City Council want to transmit to DEC. She reviewed what is contained in Florida Statute 163.3177(6)(1). She then called for questionstcomments from the commissioners. Mr. Qizilbash — asked why in the statute is says "optional' in the heading. Ms. Frazier explained that this means we can use these words or use something else. Most of the municipalities are using this language. Mr. Roth — asked if what the Commission will be forwarding on to City Council is Exhibit A that is attached to the Private Property Rights Element. Ms. Frazier said yes. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 5 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 Mr. Roth then called for anyone from the public who wished to speak on this matter. Seeing no one in chambers and hearing no one on Zoom who wished to speak, Mr. Roth closed public input on this item and called for any deliberations from the Commissioners. There being none, Mr. Roth called for a motion. A motion recommending to City Council that they adopt the Private Property Rights Element, Exhibit A., into the City's Comprehensive Plan was made by Ms. Kautenburg and seconded by Mr. Qizilbash. Roll Call: Mr. Roth — Yes Mr. Hughan — Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes Mr. Carter — Yes Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Simmons — Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion carries B. LPA Legislative Public Hearing — Recommendation to City Council — Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment -- Soundview at Sebastian, West of US Hwy 1 — Code RE Partners, Inc., Applicant — Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East — Subject Parcels are 29.57 Acres, more or less -- Request is for a change from County C/1—Commercial/Industrial and City (CG) Commercial General Land Use to City (MU) — Mixed Use Mr. Anon read the item into the record, and Mr. Roth called on staff to make their presentation. Ms. Frazier placed a map onto the screen and pointed out where these parcels are located. She reviewed what is proposed for these parcels is a mixture of attainable and multi -family apartments as well as some commercial parcels on US 1. She also explained what mixed use is comprised of. Staff feels that this plan meets the consistency criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. She then called for questions/comments on this matter. Mr. Qizilbash — asked if the parcel which is already in the City is the only one pertaining to mixed use. Ms. Frazier explained all the 29.5 acres are going to change to mixed use — the parcels in the City and the parcel in the County are going to change to mixed use. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 6 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 Mr. Christino — asked if there is any intention for that property other than residential. Ms. Frazier stated the applicant has shared with staff that their intent is to have some attainable apartments in an apartment complex and then have outparcels of commercial. Staff then recommended that they request a mixed -use designation. The applicant will come in later to change their zoning to whatever is appropriate. Mr. Roth — asked if each part of the parcel will require a site plan that is something similar to that in order to move forward. Ms. Frazier stated that is correct. Mr. Simmons — inquired if the plan is to provide 12 units per acre for the apartments. Ms. Frazier stated that is the applicant's desire, and in the mixed use they are allowed, with incentives, go up to 12 units per acre. Whether they end up being able to get 12 units per acre all depends on their site plan. There being no further questions/oomments from the commissioners, Mr. Roth called for public input. There being no one in chambers who wished to speak and no one on Zoom who wished to speak, Mr. Roth asked if there was any further deliberation by the commissioners on this matter. There being none, Mr. Roth called for a motion. A motion approving Item VI B, the LPA public hearing recommendation to City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment — Soundview at Sebastian, West of US Hwy 1 -- Code RE Partners, Inc., applicant — Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East — Subject parcels are 29.57 acres, more or less — Request is for a change from County C/1—Commercial/Industrial and City (CG) Commercial General Land Use to City (MU) — Mixed Use was made by Mr. Roth. Ms. Frazier requested that a statement to the effect that this plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan be added to the motions. Mr. Roth amended his motion to have the wording "consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the LPA" contained in his motion, and Mr. Simmons seconded the motion with the addition of the language regarding the motion being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roll Call Mr. Roth — Yes Mr. Carter — Yes Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Simmons -- Yes Mr. Alvarez -- Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Hughan — Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion carries PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 7 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 C. LPA Legislative Public Hearing -- Recommendation to City Council — Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment -- MRC Conservation Parcels, West of St. Sebastian River — Marine Resources Council (MRC), Applicant — Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 38 East — Subject Parcels are 7.88 Acres, More or Less -- Request is for a change from City (LDR) Low Density Residential Land Use to City (CON) -- Conservation Land Use Mr. Roth stated that a request has been made to have this item tabled, along with Item VII-A, and called on staff to provide the background on this item. Ms. Frazier explained that these two items are being requested to be tabled until the December 2ntl, 2021 meeting. Unfortunately, the newspaper did not publish this particular public hearing notification for the Marine Resources Council properties. Thus, this item cannot be addressed at this meeting, and it will have to be tabled until the December 2n°, 2021 meeting after the newspaper ad has been property placed. That is the only reason for the request. Mr. Roth called for a motion on this item. A motion that Item VI-C be tabled until the December 2nd meeting due to the lack of appropriate publication was made by Ms. Kautenburg and seconded by Mr. Hughan. Roll Call Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Simmons — Yes Mr. Hughan — Yes Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Carter -- Yes Mr. Alvarez -- Yes Mr. Roth — Yes Vote was 7-0 in Favor. Motion Carries. D. LPA — Legislative Public Hearing — Recommendation to City Council — Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment — Fischer 99" St. — Henry A. Fischer, Applicant — Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East — Subject Parcel is 1.47 Acres, More or Less — Request is for a change from County C/I Commercial/Industrial Land Use to City (GC) General Commercial Land Use Mr. Anon read the item into the record, and Mr. Roth called on staff to make their presentation. Ms. Frazier pointed out the area on the map that is the subject of this application. She stated that Dr. Fischer has requested annexation of this 1.47-acre parcel into the City. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 8 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 As part of his request, he is requesting changing the future land use from County Commercial/Industrial to City Industrial land use. His plan is to basically maintain the use as it is today, which supports the mining activity and the industrial activity in that area. There are no plans at this time, but staff feels that it is compatible and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is consumed as part of a larger residential area, this particular use could still be for outside storage or parking or civic uses, etc. She called for questions/comments from the commissioners. Mr. Roth — questioned if this property is bounded by any street or road. Ms. Frazier stated this property%s access is through the Vickers Grove Mine property, and it has been verified that any type of use on it would have to show access to the Industrial Park Boulevard road or be a part of a larger development, which it is today. Mr. Qizilbash -- asked if presently this property is land -locked. Ms. Frazier stated it is, and the Vickers Grove is part of the City. It is a shared use for the Vickers Grove Mine, and it will continue to be so. Mr. Christino — asked if there is an easement that has to be abandoned. Ms. Frazier said there is an easement around the property, and the applicant's attorney is here if you want to get more information regarding that. It is not a right-of-way easement. It is not a utility easement. It is just an easement around two sides of the property, and Attorney Warren Dill has submitted a letter explaining this, which is included in this evening's agenda packet. There being no further questions/comments from the Commissioners, Mr. Roth called for public input on this project. Mr. Warren Dill, Sebastian — Mr. Dill identified himself as the attorney for Dr. Fischer. Regarding the easement issue, in preparing this application he did a title search and discovered that there was a question about two 12-foot strips of land, one on the north which is contiguous with Dr. Fischer s property where the sand mine is. The other one is on the western side. It says that they are two 12-foot strips of land reserved for future roads. He has filed an application with the County for the County to vacate any interest that they might have in those two strips. They have already assured him that they do not have any interest in them. They will be in the near future moving to vacate those strips to the extent they have any interest in them. All the utilities have indicated they have no objection. Mr. Dill feels confident that the County commissioners will move to vacate any interest they have. That should be done within the next 30 days. He added that the City staff has reviewed this, and their opinion is that it is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan, and they recommend that you recommend to City Council that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 9 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 they approve this land use change. There being no one else from the chambers and no one on Zoom who wished to speak, Mr. Roth closed public input on this agenda item. There being no further deliberations by the commissioners, Mr. Roth called for a motion on this item. A motion that the commissioners recommend to City Council — Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment — Fischer 99" St. — Henry A. Fischer, Applicant — Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East -- Subject Parcel is 1.47 acres, more or less — Request is for a change from County C/I -- Commercial/Industrial Land Use to City (IN) Industrial Land Use, this land use change being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, was made by Ms. Kautenburg and seconded by Mr. Qizilbash. Roll Call Mr. Roth Yes Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Simmons — Yes Mr. Hughan — Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Alvarez -- Yes Mr. Carter -- Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion carries. E. LPA — Legislative Public Hearing — Recommendation to City Council — Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment — Fischer US 1, Henry A. Fischer, Applicant — Section 17, Township 31 South, Range 39 East - - Subject Parcel is 6.17 Acres, More or Less — Request is for a change from County C/I Commercial/Industrial Land Use to City (GC) General Commercial Land Use Mr. Anon read the item into the record, and Mr. Roth called on staff to make their presentation. Ms. Frazier pointed out on the map the parcel that is the subject of this application. The applicant has requested that the property be changed from the County Commercial/Industrial to the City (GC) General Commercial Land Use. Staff believes that this is in compliance with the long-range plans of the City. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and recommends approval. Mr. Roth called for public input from anyone in chambers or on Zoom who would like to speak on this item. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 10 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 Mr. Warren Dill — Mr. Dill identified himself and stated he represents Dr. Fischer on this application. There is a very thorough and professional staff report that has been submitted. The property is on US 1. It is currently in the County with a Commercial/Industrial classification. Dr. Fischer is proposing to bring it into the City with a General Commercial (GC) classification, which would restrict a number of the uses that can be put on the property presently under the County zoning. There are no immediate plans to develop the property. He asked for questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Christino — stated that Dr. Fischer already has a trade center north of Schumann Drive and asked if this would be something similar. Mr. Dill stated he does not know right now. There being no further public input, Mr. Roth closed public input on this item and asked if the Commissioners have any further deliberation/questions on this item. Hearing none, Mr. Roth called for a Motion. A motion on Item VI E, recommendation to City Council — Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment -- Fischer US 1, Henry A. Fischer, Applicant — Section 17, Township 31 South, Range 39 East — Subject Parcel is 6.17 acres, more or less — Request is for a change from County C/I — Commercial/Industrial Land Use to City (GC) General Commercial Land Use, which is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, was made by Mr. Qizilbash and seconded by Mr. Carter. Roll Call Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Hughan — Yes Mr. Roth — Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Simmons — Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes Mr. Carter — Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion passes. F. LPA Legislative Public Hearing -- Recommendation to City Council — Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment •- Cross Creek Addition -- Henry A. Fischer, Applicant -- Section 31, Township 39 South, Range 30 East — Subject Parcel is 19.58 Acres, More or Less — Request is for a change from County R — Rural to City (VLD) Very Low Density Land use. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 11 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 Mr. Anon read the item into the record, and Mr. Roth called on staff to make their presentation. Ms. Frazier stated this is the Cross Creek Estates addition in the southern part of the City. It is surrounded on three sides by City property. There is a request by Dr. Fischer for an annexation of this property. The request includes changing the classification from County — R (Rural) designation to the very low -density residential designation, which is compatible with the adjacent Cross Creek Lake Estates development. The applicant does not have a proposed site plan for the subject property at this time. However, he has represented that this property, as well as the 20 acres adjacent to the east, are proposed to become part of the existing platted development. This will become an extension of the Cross Creek Lake Estates development. The land use element states that the VLD-R shall be comprised of primarily single-family, detached homes on individual lots. Staff believes that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and supports a recommendation of approval to City Council. Mr. Roth called for public input from anyone in chambers or on Zoom who would like to speak on this item. Mr. Warren Dill identified himself and stated that he represents Dr. Fischer with this land use plan change. He requested that after other members of the public speak, he be allowed to come back up and speak to any of the items brought up by other members of the public. He reminded everyone that the purpose of this item tonight is to address the land use plan. There are no development plans coming before the commissioners tonight. In the future there will be a public hearing when the sub -division plat comes before the commissioners, and the public will have another opportunity to have input. This property is currently in the County and currently has a classification of Rural, which is one unit per acre. The County is presently planning to change this in the future to a designation of three units per acre. This property is surrounded on three sides by the City. This will be the final and last phase of the Cross Creek Estates development. There is already preliminary plat approval for the parcel next to this one which is approximately 25 acres. However, Dr. Fischer was able to acquire this property after he had preliminary plat approval on the other property. Dr. Fischer is wanting to put in a second main entrance. There are two emergency access points presently and one main entrance. There will be a second main entrance with gates on the west side of this property. Dr. Fischer is working with the City to get a site plan approved for additional boat parking, which will allow for many more spaces. The staff has reviewed this project carefully and concluded that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 12 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 Mr. Christino stated that he looked at this, and it looks like there is a way out for the second exit now that is much easier than the one that was discussed going onto Shakespeare. Mr. Dill stated that will be completely closed once this property is developed. Dr. Jeff Carrier, Sebastian, stated that he has some concerns about this development. He lives on Lanfair, adjacent to the proposed development. He appreciates staff for looking at the low -density impact that this development will have with a maximum of three dwelling units per acre, and the proposed development coming in at three or perhaps two units. He referred to page 160 of tonight's attachment. There is some reference to annexing an additional 20 acres to this 19.58 acres that is proposed in this item. That will come at another time, perhaps, if the developers wish to do that. Taken together, this additional 40 acres provides an impact that might not be immediately apparent in the review of this tonight. Ingress and egress from this area is a concern because the adjacent property owners because, unless Dr. Fischer acquires land a little bit to the south where they can actually get ingress and egress to CR 510, this might be a potential issue. If that is the case, it has the potential to direct traffic into a very small, developed area where the streets are very short and curved. He has a concern that, as this particular development is undertaken, eventually construction vehicles will be used. This is not a neighborhood that was designed for that type of flow through. Furthermore, within the document there is an indication that there might be an extension of Shakespeare all the way to intersect with CR 510. Shakespeare is a one-way street that is a single lane, and the infrastructure is such and the easements are such that it is unlikely that that road could be expanded. If the development goes to its full 40 acres and if these roads are constructed, he has other concerns that biologists would have. He stated he is actually on the Natural Resources Board, and that Board is looking at the low -impact development and development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that says we will take into consideration environmental concerns. There is a small amount of wetland in this area and some native vegetation in this area that is very sensitive. He suggested that his comments are more preemptive than anything else. He stated his group will be back here when this plat plan is finally developed and when these projects are brought forward to City Council. They at least wanted to raise these issues if in fact you are going to approve this. His group applauds the low density. They also have concerns about ingress and egress because, by approving this, traffic patterns and engineering studies will have to be done, and there are going to be considerable concerns in the future. He states that if the Commission's attention is drawn to those now and you are kept aware of these as development proceeds in this particular area, his group would like to have the Commissioners keep those in mind. His group will follow this as it progresses. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 13 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 Michael Roth, Sebastian, lives on Memorial, and Memorial is adjacent to Shakespeare, which is adjacent to the old fish fans which is the property that is being discussed. He stated that several years ago when this development started, they wanted to cut roads to his neighborhood. At that time, the City turned Dr. Fischer down. He was told by Dr. Fischer's son that this wasn't the last of it...he was going to get his roads through. He hopes that is not the case now. He lives in a very quiet neighborhood. Shakespeare is one way. That was not a problem because there were not that many people living back there. He stated his neighbors and he understand there is going to be development, and they know they are not going to stop that. The neighbors would like to see the development have a low -density classification and the ingress and egress stick to Powedine Road and stay off all the little side streets. He added that, if this is going to be a gated community, that is going to be an entrance to the community. Those people are going to be able to go through and then exit the community to Powedine Road, but the neighbors will not be able to go through there. Ms. Frazier explained that the right-of-way that would be given would be for public access. The right-of-way that is being proposed would be a public right-of-way, so the neighbors would have access. Mr. Roth stated that the residents of the community were promised many things when the original development was done. That did not happen to be the case. Chairman Roth said this project does need to come back here for a final site plan approval, and those things will be considered. The commissioners are well aware of Shakespeare and the problem on that. Amy Speak, Sebastian, resides at 441 Memodal. She and other neighbors want the low density, but they have significant additional concerns. She feels that if there is a gate installed to access the neighborhood, which is going to have a huge impact on the neighborhood. They need to figure out a way to purchase more property or get access to go another way. There are potentially 70 houses that may be built. That means much more traffic up and down two small roads potentially every day. Presently, they do not get that many in a month other than the people who live back there. She really wants the commissioners to think about the future Impact that it would have on those who have lived back there for many years. She stated there are several species of wildlife, and she is concerned regarding the impact that this development will have on them. She is not saying don't do the neighborhood; she is just saying do the neighborhood right where it is not causing a disruption to the neighbors' peace. Mr. Warren Dill, attorney for the applicant, stated that he understands the concerns that the residents have. His applicant has in the past done his best to accommodate the neighbors. It is a physical Impossibility for the applicant to access Powerine Road. He cannot go through Cross Creek and put another entrance in, as there are homes all along there. This is the only means of ingress and egress to this property. There will PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 14 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 be as low a density as possible. The comments of the residents are good comments, but they are not relevant to the land use application. Mr. Roth closed the public Input and called on the commissioners for any further comments/questions. Mr. Christino -- stated that when the Commission originally approved the plats the exit off of Shakespeare basically was for an emergency. The City codes require that these be 400 feet apart. Ms. Frazier said that is correct. Mr. Christino stated he did not think that the emergency entrance was sufficient for an emergency vehicle to make the tum. He stated that there should be an alternative to that entrance in case of a hurricane, fire, etc. Ms. Frazier pointed out this 19.58 acres is coming in as an annexation as part of the already existing 25 acres to the east, and that is all that is under consideration this evening. Mr. Roth — said that the other entrance/exit cannot be just for an emergency. It has got to be another regular entrance/exit. Somewhere it has to be provided for and, if it cannot be, it will have to be dealt with further. Mr. Roth called for a motion on this item. A motion recommending approval to City Council of the comprehensive plan future land use amendment, Cross Creek Addition by Henry A. Fischer, Applicant, Section 31, Township 39 South, range 30 east. Subject parcel is 19.58 acres, more or less. Request is for a change from County R — Rural to City (VLD) Very Low -Density land use, which is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, was made by Mr. Roth and seconded by Mr. Alvarez. Roll Call Mr. Hughan — Yes Mr. Simmons — Yes Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Alvarez -- Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Carter — Yes Mr. Roth -- Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion carries. Mr. Roth closed the LPA section of this evening's meeting and reopened the Planning and Zoning Commission section of the meeting. A. P&Z Quasi -Judicial Hearing — Recommendation to City Council — Land Development Code Rezoning Amendment for a specific site -- MRC Conservation Parcels, West of St. Sebastian River — Marine Resources Council (MRC), Applicant — Section 26, Township 31 South, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 15 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 Range 38 Fast — Subject Parcels are 7.88 Acres, More or Less — Request is for a change from City (RS-10) Residential Single Family to City (C) -- Conservation. Ms. Frazier stated that staff is requesting that this item be tabled for a time certain to the December 2"d, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting due to the inadvertent lack of public notice in the newspaper. It will be readvertised so that it can be on the agenda for December 2nd. Mr. Roth called for a motion to table this item. A motion tabling Item 7A, MRC Conservation Parcels, Marine Resources Council, Applicant, subject parcels being 7.88 acres, more or less, requesting change from City (RS-10) Residential Single Family to City (C), conservation, till the December 2nd, 2021 Planning and Zoning meeting was made by Mr. Roth and seconded by Ms. Kautenburg. Roll Call Mr. Roth — Yes Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Simmons -- Yes Mr. Hughan -• Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes Mr. Carter — Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion carries. B. PSZ Quasi -Judicial Hearing — Recommendation to City Council — Land Development Code Rezoning Amendment for a specific site — Fischer 991" St, -- Henry A. Fischer, Applicant — Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East — Subject Parcel is 1.47 Acres, More or Less - - Request is for a change from County (IL) Light Industrial to City (IN) Industrial Mr. Anon read the item into the record. Mr. Roth asked if any of the Commissioners have had any ex parts communications on this item. Mr. Alvarez stated he will excuse himself from this item, as he has had some ex parte communication as well as having some financial connection to this project. Ms. Bosworth stated there is a special form that he will need to sign, on which he will need to disclose his connection with this project. (AT THIS TIME MR. ALVAREZ LEFT THE DIAS AND EXITED THE CHAMBERS.) Ms. Bosworth stated that Mr. Christino as the alternate will be voting in place of Mr. Alvarez on this matter. All those who would give PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 16 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 testimony on this matter were sworn in. Mr. Roth called on the applicant to speak on this matter. Mr. Warren Dill, attorney for the applicant, stated the commissioners have been presented a very thorough staff report. The use as was mentioned before is going from County IL to City IN, which is an industrial classification that is consistent with all the property surrounding it, including Dr. Fischer s property contiguous on the north side. He asked for questions or comments. There were none. Mr. Roth called on staff to make their presentation. Ms. Frazier reviewed that this is a straightforward request. Should it be annexed into the City, the applicant is requesting a change from County Light Industrial to City Industrial. This is consistent with the current uses of the property. According to the Industrial district zoning requirements, the designation is to provide limited industrial development permitting uses such as utilities, commercial retail, storage facilities, restaurants, trades and skilled services, parking lots, clubs, and medical services. Standards are in place to reduce impacts on adjacent residential districts such as screening and buffering requirements should that come about. The sites surrounding this are currently operating as industrial. Staff is recommending this change and feels that it is consistent with the Land Development Code and supports a recommendation for approval to City Council from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Rath called for questions/oommenls from the Commission members. Mr. Christino — asked if there will be any screening requirements for this parcel. Ms. Frazier stated that at this point there would not be because it is going to continue its current use, which is industrial. Mr. Christino commented that in the future this could potentially be an access to a residential area. There will need to be screening at that point. Ms. Frazier pointed out that the performance standards for industrial adjacent to a residential development would come into play. There being nothing further from the commissioners, Mr. Roth called for public input from anyone in chambers or on Zoom. There being none, Mr. Roth closed the public input. He stated that the applicant now has an opportunity to respond to any issues raised by the public or by staff. Mr. Dill stated he had no comments. There being no further deliberation from the commissioners, Mr. Roth called for a motion. A motion approving the recommendation to City Council of the rezoning amendment for a specific site — Fischer ge Street, Henry A. Fischer applicant, Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 east — subject parcel being 1.47 acres, more or less — request is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 17 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 for a change from County (IL) to City (IN) Industrial, said designation being consistent with the Land Development Code of the City, was made by Mr. Christino and seconded by Mr. Carter. Roll Call Mr. Qizilbash -- Yes Mr. Hughan -- Yes Mr. Roth -- Yes Ms. Kautenburg -- Yes Mr. Simmons — Yes Mr. Christino (a) — Yes Mr. Carter — Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion passes. C. P&Z Quasi -Judicial Hearing — Recommendation to City Council -- Land Development Code Rezoning Amendment for a specific site Fischer US 1 -- Henry A. Fischer, Applicant -- Section 17, Township 31 South, Range 39 East — Subject Parcel is 6.17 Acres, More or Less — Request is for a change from County (CL) Commercial Limited to City (CG) Commercial General Mr. Anon read the item into the record. Mr. Roth asked if any Commissioners have had an ex parts communications on Item 7-C. All stated they had none. Mr. Roth called on the applicant to make their presentation. Mr. Warren Dill, attorney for the applicant, stated he concurs with the professional staff report there is available on this item. Mr. Roth called on staff to present their findings. Ms. Frazier stated the 6.17 acres are located along US Highway 1. The current zoning is in the County for Commercial Limited, and they are requesting a change to Commercial General within the City should this property be annexed into the City. CG is to accommodate general retail sales and services, highway -oriented sales and services, and other general commercial activity. This designation is generally located in highly accessible areas adjacent to major arterials, and this designation is consistent with the long-range plans of the City. Staff recommends approval for this request and finds it consistent with the Land Development Code of the City. Mr. Roth called for questions/comments from the commissioners to the applicant and the staff. There being none, Mr. Roth called for anyone from the public who wished to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 18 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 speak on this matter. Mr. Warren Dill, attorney for the applicant stated that he has nothing to add and said he would be happy to answer any further questions. There being no one else present in chambers or on Zoom who wished to speak, Mr. Roth closed the public input section on this item. (AT THIS POINT, MR. ALVAREZ REJOINED THE MEETING AND TOOK HIS PLACE AS A REGULAR VOTING MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION.) There being nothing further from the staff and there being no further deliberation of the commissioners, Mr. Roth called for a motion. A motion approving the recommendation to City Council — Land Development Code Rezoning Amendment for a specific site — Fischer US 1 — Henry A. Fischer, Applicant — Section 17, Township 31 South, Range 39 East - subject parcel being 6.17 acres, more or less — request is for a change from County (CL) Commercial Limited to City (CG) Commercial General -- said designation being consistent with the Land Development Code — was made by Mr. Alvarez and seconded by Mr. Qizilbash. Roll Call Mr. Hughan -- Yes Mr. Simmons — Yes Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Carter — Yes Mr. Roth — Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion passes. D. Quasi -Judicial Hearing — Recommendation to City Council — Land Development Code Rezoning Amendment for a specific site •- Cross Creek Addition — Henry A. Fischer, Applicant — Section 31, Township 39 South, Range 30 East — Subject Parcel is 19.58 Acres, More or Less — Request is for a change from County Agriculture-1 to City (RS-10) Residential Single Family Mr. Anon read the item into the record. Mr. Roth asked if any commissioners have had any ex parts communications on Item 7-C. There being none, Mr. Roth called on the applicant to make their presentation. Mr. Warren Dill, attorney for the applicant, stated he concurs with the professional staff report that is available on this item and that the project is consistent with the RS zoning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 19 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 around the property, including within Cross Creek and including next door in the Highlands. The applicant will do his best to reduce the impacts of this project. He thanked everyone this evening for their time and patience. Mr. Roth called for staff to present their findings and analysis on this item. Ms. Frazier stated that the rezoning request before the commissioners this evening is from County A-1 to City RS-10, Residential Single Family which is compatible with the existing adjacent Cross Creek Lake Estates development. All of the zoning surrounding this property except to the south is RS-10. A potential right-of-way alignment to CR-510 is being proposed. This road right-of-way will be a public road right-of-way. It is essential to provide access to CR-510 and provide alternative safety routes to residents within the Highland neighborhood during evacuations and other emergency actions. Staff stated it is consistent with the City's Land Development Code and supports a recommendation of approval to City Council. Mr. Roth called for questions of the applicant or staff by the Commissioners. Ms. Kautenburg -- Regarding bringing this property into the City, it was being brought in as zoning classification VLD, Very Low Density, and now it is being called RS-10. She asked whether those two are the same classification. Ms. Frazier stated no, the VLD is only for the land use. The RS-10 is due to the rezoning. Mr. Roth -- Regarding the fact that there are wetlands on this property, there is a need to make sure that that this is addressed properly, with regard to a second entrance/exit. Hearing nothing further from the commissioners, Mr. Roth called on anyone from the public either in chambers or on Zoom who wished to speak. There being no one, Mr. Roth asked for additional input from the applicant. Mr. Dill had nothing further to add. There being nothing further from the commissioners or staff, Mr. Roth called for a motion. A motion approving the recommendation to City Council of Land Development Rezoning Amendment for a specific site — Cross Creek Addition — Henry A. Fischer, applicant, Section 31, Township 39 South, Range 30 East — subject parcel being 19.58 acres, more or less — request is for a change from County Agriculture 1 to City (RS-10) Residential Single Family -- said designation being consistent with the Land Development Code — was made by Ms. Kautenburg and seconded by Mr. Simmons. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 Roll Call Mr. Roth — Yes Mr. Simmons -- Yes Ms. Kautenburg Mr. Carter — Yes Vote was 7-0 in favor. Motion carries. XIV. Adioum Mr. Qizilbash — Yes Mr. Hughan — Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes There being no further, the meeting was adjourned by Mr. Roth at 8:35 p.m. By: Jg Date: PAGE 20 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LnnrRST NAME-Z7 NUWE HM�OFBMM.CQW4a, AUagMY. 711 i C01.WRpEE /1LJA R2 �- 1t-T ��- Zcw11NL IMNl1N0A0pa65 i, THE m�E muxo6 oNcaexmlEE aN 49� QLAA(L2J C.FT✓'f— vew lse vESau aroF � �/ r omaRr aonastl.acaLnGBncr crtr S�.i �-S fr H.J rl /•4 A) /IrJ�/II- aFPanrxsueorvmnc S i .r-sr,q-A� pare oNwiowwrE sic J `/ _ Lu L( j Mywcnorrs o FIECIIYE AFPOINiwE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This farm is for use by any parson wrvkg at the county. city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, counts, cwnmisalon, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and rwn-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143. Florida Statutes. Your responsibXlllee under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greafly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this resson, please pay dose attention to the instructions on this form before completing and filing the forth. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would Inure to his or her special private gain or loos. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUSTABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would Inum to the special gain or loss of a principal (ather then a government agency) by whom he or she Is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or lose of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agendas (CRAB) under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and oifioere of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that rapacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative' Includes only the officer's fairer, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother4n4aw son-indew, and daughter4n4aw. A'business associate' means any person or entity engaged in or canying w a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coovmer of property, w corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from wing in the situations described shove, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly slating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you am abstaining from wUng; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the mauling, who should inwrporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you am not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating In these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to Influence the decision, whether wally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, Who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2) CE FORk1 BB -EFF. 1=013 PAGE 1 Ad pled by refs a In Rule 347.010(1X2 FA.C. APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form Is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You must complete the form and file It within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be mad publicly at the next meeting after the form Is filed. DISCLOSURE Ok LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST n1 t , y, t_ 1 A L J - A rLC Ahereby disclose that on N J J `r og L ( ; (a)A measure name orwlll come before my agency which (check one or more) inured to my special private gain or loss; Inured to the special gain or kiss of my business associate, Inured to the special gain or loss of my relative. Inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of Is the parent subsidiary, or slbli g organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in tine meastre Is as follows: _ /,J✓0 IJG /'✓ G,,.ha-futon by , which If disclosure of specific Information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or miss governing attorneys, a public officer, who Is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disdosing the nature of the interest in such a way as to provide the public with notice of the conflict - Signature `Z NOTICE UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10.000. CE FORM W-EFF. 1012013 PAGE 2 Ad*W by refamrxw In Rub 367.010(1I(0, FA.C.