Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-2024 PZ MinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2024 Call to Order -- Chairperson Kautenburg called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. H. Pledge of Alleaiance -- was recited by all. III. Roll Call Present: Ms. Matthews Mr. Reno (a) Ms. Kautenburg Ms. Battles Mr. Carter Ms. Kinchen 06 a, C Absent: O Mr. Roberts (a) -- Excused ,O Ms. Lorusso -- Excusedcu E Ms. Geesey -- Excused cL Also Present: Jennifer Cockcroft, City Attorney Alix Bernard, Community Development Manager c'*' a. Dorri Bosworth, Community Development Manager L qs a_ CL Michelle Faulkner, Community Development EJ: IN Joseph Perez, AV Technical Assistant Janet Graham, Technical Writer IV. Announcements and Aaenda Modifications Ms. Kautenburg announced that Ms. Geesey, Ms. Lorusso, and Mr. Roberts (a) are excused from tonight's meeting. Alternate member, Mr. Terry Reno, will be voting tonight. Ms. Cockcroft announced that the training program on the Sunshine Law will be on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. V. Approval of Minutes of Reoular Meetina of June 6, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 2 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 1. 2024 All having indicated that they had read the Minutes of the regular meeting of June 6, 2024, Ms. Kautenburg called for a motion. A motion approving the Minutes of June 6, 2024 as presented was made by Ms. Matthews, seconded by Ms. Kinchen, and approved unanimously via voice vote ADoroval of Minutes of Regular Meetinq of June 20, 2024 All having indicated that they had read the Minutes of the regular meeting of June 20, 2024, Ms. Kautenburg called for a motion. A motion approving the Minutes of June 20, 2024 as presented was made by Ms. Kinchen, seconded by Mr. Carter, and approved unanimously via voice vote. VI. Local Plannino Aoencv (LPA) Public Hearinos A. Public Hearing -- Recommendation to City Council -- Ordinance 0-24-17, Adding Outdoor Storage and Mini -Storage Facilities as Conditional Uses into the Triangle Overlay District, along with Establishing Conditional Use Criteria and a Definition -- Amending Land Development Code Sections 54-4- 21.C.4, Triangle Overlay District Use Restrictions; 54-2-6.4(28), Specific Criteria for Approving a Conditional Use; and 54-5-22.2, Definition of Terms Those who indicated they were going to give testimony this evening were sworn in by Ms. Cockcroft. Ms. Bernard explained what is before the Commission this evening, which is a request to change the City's Land Development Code within the Triangle Overlay District to allow for mini -storage and self -storage. She stated that the application request was presented to staff in April. Staff has reviewed it. The applicant is present to answer any questions on this amendment. She reviewed that in 2005 these uses were taken out of the Triangle Overlay District. Now the request has been made to put them back in, and that is what is before the Commissioners tonight. Ms. Kautenburg called on the applicant for his presentation. Jonathan Rhodeback from the law office of Dill, Evans & Rhodeback represents Todd, Daniel and William Brognano, the owners of three properties within the Triangle Overlay District. This project is intended to serve as the beginning stages to potentially start a project that would contemplate the storage of recreational vehicles and boats, for which there is a demand here in Sebastian. He stated that many of the developments are small and do not allow recreational vehicles and boats, and the applicants believe that this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 3 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 1, 2024 would fulfill a need for many of those residents who do not have such accommodations. He stated that over the past couple of months he has been working with the City staff, who have been very helpful in coming up with a presentation for the Commissioners tonight as well as for City Council, that would allow the Commissioners to give serious consideration to this particular project. His firm has come up with a definition for outdoor storage facilities that contemplate this type of use. There is present storage contemplated under the City's Code, but it seems to be heavy machinery or industrial in nature, which this one is less impactful because this is designed to serve residents. Also, it calls for increased buffering requirements for this particular use within the Triangle Overlay. It was proposed to be 25 feet around the entire perimeter except for signage and driveways. He emphasized that the applicants are not calling for approval of a project tonight; what they are asking for is an opportunity to pursue a project. The applicants want to give something to the City that the City would find desirable that has little impact, if any, on neighboring residents and allow the applicants to develop this property in a manner that is profitable and makes sense within the character of that particular area. He called for any questions or concerns. Ms. Kautenburg asked if there is anything else from staff. Ms. Bernard said that this project was presented to staff, and this is an applicant request and not a staff request, and it would be for conditional use only. Ms. Kautenburg called for public input and called for anyone who is opposed to this change to speak on this matter. Sandra Rose, 435 Briarcliff Circle, Sebastian -- She stated that she lives adjacent to the property in question. She is highly opposed to this project. She opined that the roads and community in this area are very different from the character of this type of use of this property. She described the neighborhood where she lives, and she pointed out the negatives of other properties such as the one being proposed. She is not opposed to having an enclosed storage area as well as it is well maintained. Sandra Skindel, 120 Briarcliff Circle, Sebastian — She and her husband are definitely opposed to this project. She does not think that something such as this project belongs on Route 512. 512 Is an attractive road, and it is the main entrance into Sebastian. She described the condition of other storage properties in other communities. She added that the development known as Ashbury is right behind this property, and it will definitely impact the residents of Ashbury. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 1, 2024 Linda Wall, 110 Ashbury, Sebastian -- She read from an article that described `The Sebastian Boulevard Triangle is envisioned as a mixed -use district that will extend the town center outward from its traditional riverfront district. The Triangle area will have an attractive, well -maintained, orderly and uncluttered appearance." She wonders why in 2005 they did away with being able to have businesses such as this in the Triangle. She is opposed to this project. Ms. Kautenburg called on anyone who wished to speak in favor of the proposed change. Joseph Schulke, Civil Engineer, Vero Beach, Florida. He has been a resident of Sebastian for 34 years. He described his background. He added that he also owns a self -storage facility on Barber Street at the railroad tracks behind Publix. He has also represented numerous developers and owners of storage facilities in Indian River County. He opined that this is a good idea to permit the outside or mini storage in the Overlay District. He described the facilities that are now situated in the Triangle Overlay District. He stated that it is his opinion that whole area is already 67% developed, and a lot of those uses may not be allowed and are basically nonconforming uses. He thinks it is a great idea to allow this project when you are allowing sufficient conditions that would protect the adjacent property owners. He called attention to some of the language in the Staff Report that he disagrees with, and there was dialog back and forth between Mr. Schulke and Ms. Bosworth. Mr. Schulke suggested that staff add a separate conditional use for outside storage. He described that he is speaking tonight as an engineer, as a resident, and as an owner of a mini -storage facility, and the way this is written is going to impact his business and his ability to expand and create nonconformities on his site. There being no further public input, Ms. Kautenburg called for anything from the applicants. Mr. Rhodeback responded to the comments about the Ashbury development. On the map, if you look at the Triangle, it is the most western part to the north of 512. That is the property in question. He stated that the part that actually abuts the Ashbury development, that is not a residential use on that property at the corner of that Triangle. With the significant buffering requirements, an opaque buffer of 25 feet along the perimeter of this property, it would not be visible to the residents at Ashbury. He stated that there are sufficient mitigation measures that could be employed and, if any additional ones are going to be imposed, they would be up for consideration as well because the applicants want something that the City is going to be happy with. In response to Mr. Schulke's comments, he thought the points Mr. Schulke brought up were well founded as they apply City-wide. The applicants' application is much narrower as it applies to the particular parcels.within the Triangle Overlay. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 5 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 1, 2024 .Ms. Kautenburg called for deliberations from the Commissioners. Mr. Carter commented that he recalls several years ago when the storage unit facility that is on 512 now near the interstate, the City and staff were opposed to having any kind of storage facilities in the Triangle Overlay. He asked if that has changed, or is it because the applicant is requesting that. Ms. Bosworth stated that is what is before the Commissioners tonight --your determination whether you want to add it back into the Triangle. This was not an application that was staff generated; this is an application from the applicants who are property owners within the Triangle. Based on their application, Alix and Michelle have had meetings with them to bring before you the conditions that staff would want if you approve it. Mr. Carter further stated that in the Charter, it is stated that the City should look like a fishing village, and when you come in 512 and see all these massive storage units, he does not think that looks like a fishing village. He does not see it as a good fit. Mr. Reno asked regarding the outdoor storage, would that definition also cover an outdoor storage facility. Is an outdoor storage facility going to be allowed to have commercial storage? He opined that there are lots of commercial boats, and he asked if those would start using an outdoor storage facility if there is language that the outdoor storage is not to be used for commercial storage. Ms. Bernard said one has to do with being residential in nature, and the other one has to do with it being a business. The outdoor storage facility definition mirrors what the Florida statute says. Mr. Reno asked if would not be limited to just household boats. that it could be for commercial boats. Ms. Bernard said it is considered a use. Ms. Cockcroft said it is made more general so as to not get into the details of determining what is commercial or noncommercial. That is why it is written more generally. Ms. Kinchen asked, other than the landscaping that is being required, is there anything else for screening that can be used. Ms. Bernard stated that it references back to a buffer section in the City's Landscape Code, which talks about enhanced landscaping and buffer areas. It is basically the idea being that when you would see this project completed, it will be an opaque wall with buffered landscaping that comes out from it. Ms. Kinchen asked if Ashbury has a homeowners association and, if so, is storage allowed within the development itself. A gentleman from the audience said no. Ms. Battles said her concern is visibility. Pertaining to the buffer, are there specific requirements that the Commissioners can make that it has to be a certain height at planting in addition to the buffering? Ms. Bernard said yes, those requirements can be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 6 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 1, 2024 made. Ms. Battles suggested establishing a height at planting and making sure that it is opaque when planted. Ms. Bosworth stated that the section of the Code that Ms. Bernard referred to already states that it has to be opaque and is between five and six feet tall. It can be a wall, landscaping, fence, and that is why it is stated that the landscaping would have to be enhanced to meet that section of the Code. Ms. Battles said that RVs are way more than five or six feet tall. She also asked Mr. Rhodeback if these are the same parcels that came before the Commission for the conditional use for the carwash. Mr. Rhodeback said no. Ms. Matthews said she did some research regarding the Triangle. She stated that there are the Firehouse Garage, a paint store, and an auto parts store, and that the vision that was established years ago has changed. The reason for this application is just to see if they can move forward. She agrees with the suggestions that have been made, and she does not think that the proposed project is something that everyone wants to see. She feels that having this project is not with keeping the charm of the City. Ms. Kautenburg understands the need for storage facilities, and she does not object to storage facilities. She has an objection to a storage facility on this particular site, because it is not in keeping with what the intention is. She said an opaque buffer needs to be 20 feet tall to block the site of a 5'h wheeler. She has an issue with making a change rather than a conditional use. When you make a change, it is forever, for anyone, for any purpose that is permitted. If the property is sold to someone without the good character of these applicants, the City is stuck with the zoning. She is not in favor of making a change to the zoning. There being no further deliberation, Ms. Kautenburg called for a motion. A motion that this Commission does not recommend to City Council, Ordinance 0-24-17, adding outside storage and mini -storage facilities as conditional uses into the Triangle Overlay District, along with establishing conditional use criteria and a definition was made by Mr. Carter and seconded by Mr. Reno. Ms. Kautenburg clarified that a yes vote means we do not recommend. Roll Call Mr. Reno -- Yes Ms. Kinchen — Yes Ms. Battles -- Yes Mr. Carter -- Yes Ms. Matthews -- Yes Ms. Kautenburg -- Yes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 7 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 1, 2024 Vote was 6-0 in favor. Motion carries. VII. Plannina and Zonina (P&Z) Commission Quasi -Judicial Hearinas -- None Vill. Unfinished Business — None IX. New Business — None X. Adjourn There being no further business, Ms. Kautenburg adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. jg