The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08032005BOA Minutes 0lY OF ~ ~ HOME OF PElICAN ISLAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2005 6:00 PM MINUTES 1. Mayor McCollum called the Board of Adjustment meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. ROLL CALL Citv Council Present: Mayor Nathan McCollum Vice-Mayor Brian Burkeen Councilmember Andrea Coy Councilmember Lisanne Monier Councilmember Sal Neglia Staff Present: City Attorney, Rich Stringer City Clerk, Sally Maio Deputy City Clerk, Jeanette Williams Growth Management Manager, Jan King Zoning Technician, Dorri Bosworth 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None At the request of Mayor McCollum for the benefit of new members, the City Attorney advised the City Council on variance procedures as follows: ':4 variance which is a quasi-judicial proceeding means that you take the evidence that comes before you tonight and you apply it to criteria that is set out in the Land Development Code. Basically you have to consider the circumstances and the provisions of the Code that they are asking to be varied from and then you are to look at the factors that are listed in the code which are: 1) existence of special conditions or circumstances. There has to be something unique that is leading to the necessity to change the code. The conditions cannot be created by the applicant, so you can bootstrap yourself into the need for a variance. You canY receive a special privilege that is not conferred on property that is similarly situated within your zoning district. There has to be hardship conditions existing. So the straight up application of the code has to create a hardship on the property and the use of property rights that you already have. The language in our code says; 'The literal interpretation of the ordinance would deprive of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of our Land Development Code so that it creates an undue hardship on the applicant. ' Board of Adjustment Meeting August 3,2005 Page Two You are supposed to grant only the minimum amount of variance that is needed in order to make the reasonable use of the land possible. The variance cannot injure the public welfare, or the general intent of our zoning code, which means it has to be in harmony with the intent of the comprehensive plan and the code. You can put on conditions and safeguards if you think they are needed to allow the variance for the use of land. You can put a time limit under which they must take action and go ahead and develop so you can say we'll go ahead and grant this for one year and it they don't take advantage of it it goes away. You cannot grant a use variance which is not applicable tonight. So those are the criteria you are to judge. In quasi-judicial, the applicant will first have the burden of coming in and making their case for the variance, then staff will give its report and recommendation, either side will take questions from the Council, after that it will be open to the public to those who wish to provide testimony in favor of it and then those who wish to provide testimony against it. Then there will be a rebuttal by the applicant, a summation by staff, council can ask questions after that and then you would go into deliberations. " (Exhibits to this record as provided to the Board of Adjustment before and during this hearing are as follows) o Public Notice submitted to Press Journal Legal Notices for July 19, 2005 o Development Order Application dated 7/6/05 o Memo from Bruce Moia dated 6/29/05 o Growth Management Department Variance Application Staff Report wlAttachments dated 7/29/05 o Letter to P & Z from Arthur Priep dated 7/12/05 o Plan prepared by Mosby, Moia, Bowles and Assoc., Inc. dated stamped 7/28/05 by Growth Management Department o Bruce Moia Letter dated 8/3/05 o Revised Plan prepared by Mosby, Moia, Bowles and Assoc., Inc. dated stamped 8/3/2005 by Growth Management Department o Memo Engineering Department regarding variance request #2 dated 8/3/05 o Sidewalk Pedestrian and Street Traffic Survey - Subject: Indian River Drive - Prepared and Presented by Tom Golladay, 111 Curtis Circle, Sebastian o Letter from Willard Siebert, Jr. dated 6/23/05 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1/26/05 On MOTION by Mr. Neglia and SECOND by Ms. Monier, the January 26, 2005 Board of Adjustment minutes were approved on a voice vote of 5-0. 6. OLD BUSINESS: None 2 Board of Adjustment Meeting August 3, 2005 Page Three 7. NEW BUSINESS A. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: IN REGARDS TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1109 AND 1034 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO ALLOW A PROPOSED HOTEL RESORT TO HAVE 25 PARKING SPACES TO BE PARTIALLY LOCATED WITHiN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OFWAY, ACROSS THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK, EXITING DIRECTLY ONTO INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, AND WITHOUT THE REQUIRED DRIVE AISLE. LANDSCAPING VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED FOR THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTIES AND THE REQUIRED 10-FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP NEEDED BETWEEN ABUTTING PROPERTY LINES AND PARKING AREAS, THE PROPOSED TWO-STORY BUILDING ON THE WEST SIDE OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 10 FEET TO 5 FEET. Mayor McCollum read the variance hearing title set out above. City Council members disclosed ex-parte communications as follows: Mayor McCollum said he was notified by the applicant that he was bringing these variances to the Board after his item first went before Planning and Zoning. Ms. Coy said she had spoken to Mr. Gilliams, received letters from Mr. Siebert, and conversations with Ms. Dill. Ms. Monier, Mr. Burkeen and Mr. Neglia said they spoke with Mr. Gilliams today. The City Clerk swore in the Growth Management Manager, applicant and all members of the audience who intended to offer factual testimony. Eugene O'Neill, Gould Cooksey Fennell Law Firm, Vero Beach, representing applicant Damian Gllliams and Paradise Marina, noted Mr. Gilliams is also represented by Bruce Moia, P.E., Mosby, Moia Bowles and Associates, Inc. presented the variance requests. Mr. O'Neill requested that Ms. Monier recuse herself based on the fact that her building would have its view obstructed by his client's site plan. Ms. Monier said her view goes to the north of this property, she would not be affected by this, and did not recuse herself. Mr. O'Neill noted that variance request no. 2 and no. 7 have been resolved prior to this meeting. 3 Board of Adjustment Meeting August 3, 2005 Page Four Variance Requests are set out below: 1) Section 54-3-1 0.6(a)(3) to allow backing into a public street from a parking area, whereas the code would prohibit backing into a pUblic street. 2) Section 54-3-1 O.4(b) to allow collocation of vehicles and pedestrians, whereas the code requires a separation of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians by curbs, pavement markings, planting areas, fences or similar features. 3) Section 54-3-10.5(d)(1) to eliminate the entry and exit drive, whereas the code requires an entry and exit drive to be at least 22 feet in width for two-way traffic or at least 12 feet in width for one-way traffic. 4) Section 54-3-10.5(d)(3) to allow vehicular circulation plan to utilize the street, whereas the code requires vehicular circulation to be contained within the property. 5) Section 54-3-14.11(b) to allow the perimeter landscape strip to vary in width from four (4) to six (6) feet, whereas the code requires a minimum of ten (10) feet. 6) Section 54-3-14.111d)(1) to allow the landscape strip between abutting property lines and parking areas to vary in width from four (4) to six (6) feet, whereas the code requires a minimum width often (10) feet. 7) Section 54-2-5.4(d)(5) to allow a five (5) foot side yard setback on the western property, whereas the code requires a ten (10) foot side yard setback when abutting a residential district or use. The City Manager reported staff received the revisions today, had reviewed it and passed it along to Engineering, and staff was of the opinion that request no. 7 has been resolved but no. 2 has not been resolved and would recommend that Board strike no. 7 and continue to consider no. 2. The City Attorney advised that Council is not considering a site plan, but is actually considering variances based upon the nature and logistics of the property. He said if the applicant wishes to pursue the variance it will be addressed on the merits and if they wish not to request it that condition will still be out there. Based on that, Mr. O'Neill said they would continue with their request on variance no. 2. He said the first four variance requests deal with parking, citing that there is not enough room and it is his client's plan to construct an upscale project which would have a positive impact on the City and add to the City's tax base. 4 Board of Adjustment Meeting August 3, 2005 Page Five Mr. O'Neill said he thought removing parking from the sidewalk would resolve issue no. 2. He said the resolution had removed encroachment of the sidewalk. He cited east side parking issues and the hardship with complying with code provisions in that area. He said if safety was the concern all of Indian River Drive would have to be shut down. He cited conditions 5 and 6 regarding landscape strips, stating that the ten foot landscape strip abutting the property to the north, Washington Plaza, should not be required. He asked the standard offive feet that has been applied to adjacent properties be applied in this case for perimeter landscape strips. He asked the Board to consider existence of a special condition because the marina has been there for a long time, the parking exists and was not created by the applicant, and his client wants to create a nicer facility for the City. He said he could name a half dozen places that allow backout parking thus they are not asking for a special privilege. The Growth Management Manager made a brief presentation of each requested variance: 1) She said the existing condition argument does not hold up because this is a new site plan and existing parking does not currently look like what is set out in the plan, and it is staff's position that the backing out situation needs to be addressed on the new site plan noting as soon as you want to make changes you lose your grandfather rights. She said this is a safety issue and staff does not support 23 sites backing out onto Indian River Drive. 2) She said the Code requires a drive to handle traffic off the property. She submitted Engineering Department comments to Council and the applicant relative to variance no. 2 for the record. The City Attorney said in there is supposed to be a separation of the parking and sidewalk by curb, etc. and there is none at all in this plan. The Growth Management Manager also said Engineering commented on four compact spaces on the north side citing that they would also have to back out onto Indian River Drive at the intersection with Washington Avenue and staff feels that condition will also need a variance. 3) She said that the drive needs to be 22 feet or have a big enough area to turn around. 4) She said again there is no vehicular circulation at all and they will have to utilize the street. 5) She said 5) and 6) are related. noting the landscape strips are not clearly identified so she had scaled them and found some to be at four feet and some at six feet. She said that though the Code requires ten feet, P & Z can make a judgment call on this if it butts up against an existing landscape strip, so there are certain areas of the plan where this might work, however, the southeast area abuts residential zoning with no existing landscape strip. She said Washington Plaza does not have any landscape buffer so they need to have ten feet. 5 Board of Adjustment Meeting August 3, 2005 Page Six 7) She said the modified plan removed an overhanging balcony and put this issue in compliance with the ten foot setback requirement. The City Attorney said Council should not judge the variance on the specifics of this plan but on the situation of this property, nor should Council judge it on its adjacent properties because it does not know what will be there in the future. In response to Mayor McCollum, the City Attorney said Council can look at the plan and comments related to the plan but should not think that this plan is necessarily what will come in and said things can be modified at Planning and Zoning. He then reviewed Engineering's comments and noted it is very site specific and Council should give the comments no more credence than it does the need to grant the variance to allow the specific site plan. Ms. Monier said she would like to see something more feasible for the riverfront, the concept for the resort is wonderful, but the applicant should use that land in accordance with the code, and does not see any hardship except for a too intense use for this property. She suggested putting parking on the west side and resort on the east side, and scaling the buildings down. She noted there are 25 parking spaces and not 23 on the east side. The City Attorney explained the difference between nos. 5 and 6, i.e., 6 applies to the front along the roadway and 5 applies to the entire perimeter of the property. Mayor McCollum said a lot of places are backing out onto Indian River Drive and asked how Jackson Street is allowed to back out. The City Attorney said this was allowed pursuant to an agreement with Council after an appeal was filed and was part of an agreement for the Jackson Street improvement. He noted that the areas that allow back out parking are public parking within right-of-way, citing Jackson Street, Sebastian Boulevard along the park, and Main Street. Mr. Neglia noted Off-shore Marine and the Growth Management Manager said that site has been there so long there was probably not even a site plan. The Growth Management Manager said there is an old existing site plan for Paradise Marina that does provide for parking but it is not the same as what appears on this site plan. The City Attorney said sometimes a hardship can be based on the fact that to meet the code a structure has to be torn down, but in this instance the structure is being torn down by the applicant. The City Attorney said Council should look at this as though it is an entirely new site and base its decisions on the variances on the existing regulations under the Land Development Code and perimeter of the properties as a clean slate. 6 Board of Adjustment Meeting August3,2005 Page Seven Mr. Burkeen said he would like to see improvements to the area, but we have to stay within the constraints of the codes that are in place. The Growth Management Manager said the restriction against backing out onto the street has been in place since at least since 1985, if not before. Ms. Coy cited the Red Garlic Bistro, and the Growth Management Manager said the renovation to the building did not create a need for additional parking. Ms. Coy asked about pavement marking in front of Captain Butchers. The City Attorney said there doesn't have to be a physical barrier as long as it is marked or striped somehow to set it apart. Ms. Coy asked about a letter she received from the Sieberts citing the plan showing over 50% coverage of the buildings on the site' and the Growth Management Manager said the applicant did not request that as a variance. Mr. Neglia asked what happened to Mr. Gilliams' resolution of issue no. 2 and why it was still an issue. He commended the concept but said maybe there are ways to change the plan to come into compliance with all the City's standards and maybe something can be worked out. Mayor McCollum asked if there is an option to make the building higher and put the parking under the building. The Growth Management Manager said the height restriction on the east side of Indian River Drive is 25 feet and west side is 35 feet and cited that this site is probably seven foot elevation and measurement would start at seven feet. She said parking spaces could be reduced to nine feet based on space limitations, but that parking needs cannot be stated tonight and will be determined during p & Z review. She said there is an outside deck and cabana that has not been accounted for at this time, there has been no parking provided for boat slips, and said they have stated that they will not have rental boats. In favor - None Opposition Willard Siebert, 1013 Indian River Drive, said he does not oppose the development, and if done properly this could be an attractive addition to the Riverfront, but does object to the request for variances. He said regulations are in place for a very good reason, and does not believe the Board of Adjustment has the authority to address these variances, based on his interpretation of variance criteria. He said parking lots should never be allowed on Indian River Drive, that Jackson Street was a bad move, and asked how grandfather rights can be retained with so many improvements. In closing he asked that his letter to 7 Board of Adjustment Meeting August 3. 2005 Page Eight Planning and Zoning be made a part of the record and asked Mr. Gilliams to redesign his plan to meet the City's regulations and commended staff. Ruth Sullivan, 1215 Indian River Drive, noted there are no sidewaiks along the west side of Indian River Drive which was planned purposely so that people would not have to cross traffic while walking during development of riverfront regulations. She said this development would be detrimental to people's safety, all of the variance requests are bad and she could not see anyone approving this as it stands. She said the whole point of the Riverfront ordinances was to beautify the area and keep open spaces, and most of the places on Indian River Drive were developed under old codes. She called the request outrageous, said it creates no hardship, and is a prime example of overdevelopment. Waiter Barnes, Sebastian, agreed with Mr. Siebert and Mrs. Sullivan, citing that he served on the committee that set out the Riverfront regulations to make it better for the City. Trish Adams, 47 River Oak Drive, member of the Environmental Committee, speaking as an individual, was sworn by the City Clerk, and said the project should be redesigned to meet the existing codes, that it would set a very bad precedent and should stand on its own merits and enforce these codes. She said the project could pose a safety hazard with people backing out onto the road. Mary Ann Krueger, 121 Miller Drive, Sebastian, also member of the Environmental Committee, but speaking as an individual, cited deveiopment like this would be a hardship to the Indian River Lagoon and detrimental to all the things that people come here for. She said she would like to see development curbed on this side of the road. She asked as a citizen who cares about Sebastian and the environment that Council abide by the ordinances we have in place now. Tom Golliday, Sebastian, asked if there had been a traffic survey done on Indian River Drive. He read into the record a survey he conducted himself. He said one of the beautiful parts of Indian River Drive is the sidewalk, reporting almost being hit by a vehicle at this establishment. Mayor McCollum said the sole purpose of the Board of Adjustment is to address the specific variance requests that have come in and not the site plan. Mr. O'Neill responded to public concerns noting that the building is located where it is to protect the river, noted that his client offered the property to the Community Redevelopment Agency, and when turned down began this improvement process. He reiterated that the Board has two issues to decide, parking and landscaping, and the question is whether the Board gives them consideration, requesting they be treated no differently than anyone else along Indian River Drive has been treated. He said it is not economically feasible to 8 Board of Adjustment Meeting Aug us! 3, 2005 Page Nine create a parking garage as suggested, that the parking issue has been resolved satisfactorily, cited allowance for backing out onto Indian River Drive and Jackson Street, and noted that his client voluntarily gave, with no strings attached, an easement on Louisiana Avenue for City purposes. The Growth Management Manager said staff recommends nos. 1-4 should be denied based on public safety issues, noting the relocation of parking does move parking off the sidewalk but parking still remains five feet into the pUblic right-of- way. She said nos. 5 and 6 should be denied because she does not see how a five foot strip will sustain the amount of trees proposed and suggested that no. 7 be denied because the applicant has already withdrawn the request. The City Attorney recommended individual votes on each issue and by roll call. In response to Mr. Burkeen, the City Attorney said this request is for a new site plan, the variance requests are not for use of existing structures, thus no hardship exists based upon existing conditions. He said to his knowledge no variance for backing out onto indian river Drive has been granted. The Growth Management Manager said Vie's in the Washington Plaza came in to reconfigure their parking, removed trees, and got a variance for the front parking area on the west side, but never on Indian River Drive. She said they were trying to improve the situation with a better configuration. The City Attorney said the applicant would have to get an agreement from City Council to use the right-of-way If issue no. 2 is considered, since in the revision, parking is still five feet into City right-of-way. In response to Mr. Neglia relative to an adjacent residential property owned by Joe Graham, the Growth Management Manager said peopie can back out from residential properties and they do not have to provide an internal access drive to turn around and you will see this up and down the riverfront for residential because there is a different residential standard. Mr. Neglia asked Mr. Gilliams if he would be willing to pull this item from Planning and Zoning and come back with a redesign that complies with City regulations. Mr. Gilliams said without having specifics it would be hard for him to redesign, his square footage is a limited area, he had received no adverse input at the last Planning and Zoning meeting, and would be open-minded if there were specifics cited. In response to Mayor McCollum, the Growth Management Manager said request no. 5 is the one that deals with the area adjacent to Washington Plaza. 9 Board of Adjustment Meeting August 3, 2005 Page Ten Bruce Moia said the width of the strip should not affect the planting of trees. In response to Mr, Burkeen the City Attorney advised that the only way that a landowner can come in with a site plan saying they need a variance to accomplish it, is if your argument is that this site plan is the only reasonable use of the property, otherwise the variance is self-created. Variance Request NO.1. Motions to deny by Ms. Monier and approve by Mr. Burkeen the variance for item no. 1 died for lack of a second. Ms. Coy said she was having difficulties because of the instruction, and does not want Mr. Gilliam's project to totally go away but cannot support the variances as requested. Mayor McCollum said denial of any variances does not prohibit the plan from coming back with revisions. On MOTION by Ms. Monier, and SECOND by Ms. Coy, variance no. 1 on the Paradise Marina variance request was denied on a roll call vote of 4-1 (Burkeen -nay) Variance Request NO.2 On MOTION by Ms. Monier, and SECOND by Ms. Coy, variance request no. 2 on the variance request for Paradise Marina was denied on a roll call vote of 5-0 Variance Request No.3 On MOTION by Ms. Monier, and SECOND by Ms. Coy, variance request no. 3 on the variance request for Paradise Marina was denied on a roll call vote of 4-1 (Burkeen - nay) Variance Request NO.4 On MOTION by Ms. Monier, and SECOND by Mayor McCollum, variance request no. 4 on the variance request from Paradise Marina was denied on a roll call vote of 3-2 (Burkeen, Coy - nay) Variance Request NO.5 There were attempts at motions on request no, 5, first for a straight approval and then for perimeter on Washington Plaza side only, and following further discussion and clarifications by staff as to its meaning the motions were withdrawn by Mr. Neglia and the second withdrawn by Mr. Burkeen, because Mr. 10 Board of Adjustment Meeting August 3, 2005 Page Eleven Burkeen wanted maximum allowables all the way around the perimeter, ten feet where applicable and six feet where applicable. MOTION by Mr. Burkeen, SECOND by Mr. Neglia, to approve variance request no. 5 that pertains to the west parcel of the west side of Indian River Drive north side that abuts Washington Plaza to a five foot buffer variance and also include on the east side of south portion that abuts the residential area to five feet FAILED on a roll call vote of 2-3 (McCollum, Monier, Coy - nay) Mayor McCollum said it is incumbent upon this Council to protect residential properties. On MOTION by Mayor McCollum, and SECOND by Ms. Coy, to allow the five foot landscape for the side abutting Washington Plaza only, on variance request no. 5, was approved on a roll call vote of 4-1 (Monier - nay) Variance Reauest NO.6 Council was advised that no. 6 dealt with the required landscape buffer along the east side of Indian River Drive. MOTION by Mr. Burkeen, SECOND by Mayor McCollum, to approve variance no. 6 for Paradise Marina FAILED on a roll call vote of 2-3 (Coy, Monier, Neglia- nay) On MOTION by Ms. Monier, and SECOND by Ms. Coy, variance request no. 6 for Paradise Marina was denied on a roll call vote of 3-2 (McCollum, Burkeen - nay) Variance Reauest NO.7 The City Attorney said that due to the applicant withdrawing his request for this variance, no motion of City Council was necessary. 8. CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS: None. 9. MEMBERS' MATTERS: None. 10. STAFF MATTERS: None. 11. The Mayor adjourned the Board of Adjustment meeting at 7:45 p.m. , 2 CWo~rd of Adjustment :ee~g Sally A. Maio 11 ~ Sidewalk Pedestrian and Street Traffic Survey Subject: Indian River Drive Survey Number 1 Survey Location: 1001 Indian River Drive Survey Date: MOIldav. A_u CU. 2005 Survey Time: 5:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. Weather Conditions: Threatening Eledrieal Storm and Intermittent Rain Survey Number 2 Survey Location: 1001 Indian River Drive Survey Date: 1&esdav. A1Il!!USt 02, 2005 Survey Time: 6:00 P.M. - 8:00 P.M. Weather Conditions: Partly Ooudy with Distant Storms Pedestrian and vehicular traffic surveys were conducted on the indicated dates and times for Indian River Drive, Sebastian. The surveys involved a census of all traffic on the sidewalk and roadway at the comer of Martin Avenue and Indian River Drive. The survey periods are deemed LOW traffic windpws as the sampling was taken after work hours, on two weekdays, with threatening thunder and lightening for the entire period of the first sampling, and in the summer off-season. Both pedestrian and vehicular traffic on weekends, winter months and during festivals will necessarily elevate these figures significantly. The two-hour surveys results are as follows: Survey # 1 Monday, August 01, 2005 Walkers Cyclists Infant Strollers Joggers Skateboarders Motor Yehicles 17 1 o 2 o 360 Total Pedestrians 20 Total Vehicular Traffic per hour 180 I . Pedestrian and Traffic Survey - Page 2 Survey # 2 Tuesday, August 02, 2005 Walkers Cyclists Infant Strollers Joggers Skateboarders Motor Vebicles 51 9 3 4 2 379 Total sidewalk pedestrian traffic 69 Average Motor Vehicles per bour 189.5 I do herby certifY that the above figures and the conditions set forth are true and accurate without error. Given this 3n1 Day of August in the Year 2005 Tom 1. Golladay, Surveyor III Curtis Circle Sebastian, Florida 32958 772-696-4446 2 ~ . ___ _A,~ //- ~G';"'''''''' -". -1~i.)U~1"""" ,dJ>v.. G r..t''/' 'Z ',=" .,,;J (/}' Received r..... ~: JUN 2005 I t\, P&z \. ('.- \ (~" GrowtllMgnt. . , ,,~ ., \ "',._'-, _",:3 " G",:>.v ",<,:;:1 '- ~8!.l.l'(""<~r;.~;j-.".., . ~ :,><:",,_,-,;- -" ---- ~..-/' Willard W. Siebert, Jr. Katherine P. Siebert 1013 Indian River Drive Sebastian, FL 32958 June 23, 2005 To: Planning & Zoning Board City of Sebastian Subject: Paradise Marina Resort Site Plan As Sebastian residents and property owners in close proximity to the proposed Paradise Marina Resort, we want to go on record strongly opposing the site plan as now configured.,Unfortunately, we will be out of town when the hearing is being held so we are making our position known by this correspondence. Members of my wife's family are descendants of Archie Smith, who came to Sebastian in 1924 and we have four generations still living here. Our home received the "Pride of Sebastian A ward" in 2003 and we are vitally concerned with the future of our city. The point is that we consider the riverfront as the very soul of our community. We, along with many others, attended the meetings that resulted in the Riverfront District It was a very long and thoughtful process. We strongly oppose any compromise of the requirements that govern its land use. The following points are afew of our concerns. There could well be more as the plans are developed. My comments are based on the regulations as I understand them. Building Coverage: Regulations require the total square footage of the buildings (top & bottom) cannot exceed 50% of the land area and I believe that it does. The engineer's calculations should be checked for accuracy. Number of Units: At the time I reviewed the site plan there seemed to be a discrepancy regarding the number of units. Office and manager's quarters apparently were not included and there appear to be 40 rental units.. Parking: This is a m~or concern as it appears that the required parking is not all onsite. It seems there is 'Zero parking for the restaurant and future marina. The parking on the east side of Indian River drive encroaches on public right-of-way. This has the potential for liability for the city, not to mention the use of space dedicated for our riverfront sidewalk which bears heavy pedestrian traffic. To my knowledge, grandfather rights do not apply. There is no way this should be allowed! Soecimen Oaks: The site plan requires the removal of all the beautiful old oaks on the west side of Indian River Drive. There is no consideration of preservation. When we built our house, we were required to preserve as many of our oaks as possible. Tbe result for us was a smaller house with a detached garage. The city staffs, supported by City Council members, were very adamant concerning these preservation issues. We were glad to cooperate because it was the right thing to do. Crosswalks: The resort will require crosswalks for the units on the west side of Indian River Drive. While there is little that can be done about this, it is not safe. This is especially true where alcohol is being served. It is a disaster waiting to happen. The underlying problem is too much development on too little property. If this is allowed, it will go a long way toward changing the character of Sebastian. We are not necessarily opposed to a much smaller version of the Paradise Marina Resort but not at the expense to our riverfront. Please keep us informed regarding progress of this development. Copies: Members of Sebastian City Council . HOME OF P'EUCAN ISLAND 1225 MAIN STREET. SEBASTIAN, flORIDA 3295B TELEPHONE (772) 589-5518 . FAX (772) 589-2566 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 3, 2005, AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 54-3-10.6(a)(3), SECTION 54-3-1O.4(b), SECTION 54-3-10.5(d)(1), SECTION 54-3-10.5(d)(3), SECTION 54-3- 14.11(b), SECTION 54-3-14.II(d)(I), AND SECTION 54-2-5.4(d)(5) OF THE SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. PARADISE MARINA ENTERPRISES, INe. IN REGARDS TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1109 AND 1034 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, SEBASTIAN, IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF A MOTEL RESORT TO ALLOW 25 PARKING SPACES TO BE PARTIALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ACROSS THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK, WITH VEHICLES EXITING DIRECTLY ONTO INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, AND WITH OUT THE REQUIRED 22-FOOT TWO-WAY AISLE OR 12-FOOT ONE-WAY AISLE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR A IO-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP NEEDED FOR THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTIES AND A IO-FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP NEEDED BETWEEN ABUTTING PROPERTY LINES AND PARKING AREAS. THE PROPOSED TWO-STORY BUILDING ON THE WEST SIDE OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 10- FEET TO 5 FEET. NATHAN McCOLLUM, CHAIRMAN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF SEBASTIAN ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (286.0105 F.S.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT (772) 589.5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. Published Tuesday, Ju]y ]9, 2005 City of Sebastian Development Order Application Permit Application No. if not owner, written authorization (notarized from owner is re Mr. Damien Gilliams - Paradise Marina Enterprises, Inc. Address: 1623 US Hw .1, Suite A5 Phone Number: (772) 589-7368 E-Mail: Sebastian, Florida 32958 Fax Number: ( Owner if different from a Iicant) Name: same as owner Address: Phone Number: E-Mail: Fax Number: Type of permit or action requested: Variance PLEASE COMPLETE ONLY THOSE SECTIONS WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PERMIT OR ACTION THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING COPIES OF ALL MAPS, SURVEYS, DRAWINGS, ETC. SHALL BE ATTACHED AND 8 1/2" x 11" COPIES OF ANY ATTACHMENTS SHALL BE INCLUDED. ATTACH THE APPROPRIATE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FORM. A. Project's Name (if applicable): Paradise Marina Motel B. Site Information Address: Lot: 1034 & 1109 Indian River Drive Block: Unit: Subdivision: Indian River County Parcel #: 31-39-06-00007-0000-00009.0 31-39-06-00009-0000-00001.0, 2.0, 2.1 Zoning Classification: Future Land Use: CRlCWR Commercial Existing Use: Proposed Use: RestauranWacant Motel I Marina I Restaurant' C. Description of proposed activity and purpose of the requested permit or action (attach extra sheets if necessary): Expansion of existin restaurant and the addition of 39 motel rooms. Form CD-2001 Approved: 08-27-97 Revision: lication DATE RECEIVED: 7-4 -o!> RECEIVED ~ D. Project Personnel: Aaent: N/A Name: Address: Phone Number: ( ) I Fax Number: ( ) E-Mail: Attorney: N/A Name: Address: Phone Number: ( ) I Fax Number: ( ) E-Mail: Engineer: Mr. Bruce Moia, P.E. Name: MBV EnQineerinQ, Inc. Address: 2455 14th Ayenue Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone Number: . ( 772 ) 569-0035 IFax Number: (772) 778-3617 E-Mail: mbvenq@bellsouth.net Surveyor: Mr. Stewart Houston Name: Houston, Shulke, Bittle & Stoddard Address: 1717 Indian River Blvd., Suite 202C Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone Number: (772) 794-1213 I Fax Number: (772) E-Mail: ~. Signature l ko !OCj Date . 'l)3m \€-x> bi I \8-l'Y\ Sworn to and subscribed before me by Who is..p.ers.onaIlY_~09WJltQ me or produced as identification, this (r' day of J.\ i \ t I ~ ~' NOTARY'S SIGNATURE .{) . '1 " : PRINTED NAME OF NOTARY ,-~'Q ~~ COMMISSION NO.lEXPIRATION SEAL: ,200~ ,,'ii)i\~,~. JESSICA HAWKINS [.t~"d MY COMMISSION # DD 270715 ~~.i EXPIRES: October 22, 2000 '''4.nr.~~ Bonded l11ru Notary Pui)iic Underwrfters Form CD-2001 Pa e 2 of 3 A proved: 08-27-97 Revision: Development Ap lication File Name: DOA The following is required for all comprehensive plan amendments, zoning amendments (inlcuding rezoning), site plans, conditions use permits, special use permits, variances, exceptions, and appeals. IM/E, K ,THE OWNER(S) THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF ~IS APPLICATION, HEREBY AUTHORIZE EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE PIalW\i~ ~l.o<\\1"'\ C.C!. BOARD/COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN (THE BOARD/COMMISSION) TO PHYSICALL ENTER UPON THE PROPERTY AND VIEW THE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH MY/OUR PENDING APPLICATION. IM/E HEREBY WAIVE ANY OBJECTION OR DEFENSE IM/E MAY HAVE, DUE TO THE QUASI-JUDICIAL NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, RESULTING FORM ANY BOARD.COMMISSION MEMBER ENTERING OR VIEWING THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING ANY CLAIM OR ASSERTION THAT MY/OUR PROCEDUREAL OR SUBSTANTICE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION OT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE VIOLATED BY SUCH ENTERING OR VIEWING. THIS WAIVER AND C SENT IS BEING SIGNED BY ME/US VOLUNTARILY AND NOT AS A RESULT OF ANY COERCION APPLI. ,OR PROMISES MADE, BY ANY EMPLOYEE, AGENT, CONTRACTOR OR OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF SCASTIA Signature J lco /05 Date Sworn to and subscribed before me by Who is Qersonallv known to me or produced as identification, this ( 0 day of bnrY'ilf.n ('7) \\liAm NOTARY'S SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME OF NOTARY COMMISSION NO.lEXPIRATION SEAL: .J'\! ~ 11 I~=~ , 200 '5 ,...",,~,~. JESSICA HAWlaNS !~f~,~ MYEXCpOIRMEMSISSION I DD 270715 Ii,......':..,. 1!ii;".... 'ill : October 22, 2006 . '....P,r..r,.;, BoodedThruNolaryPublk::Underwrlters ~ Form CD-2001 Pa e 3 of 3 Ap roved: 08-27-97 Revision: MEMORANDUM June 29, 2005 To: Tracy Bass From: Bruce :'Vloia RE: Paradise Marina Motel- Variances The following variance to the city code is being requested: ~ 1. On-Street Parking (Sec. 54-3-10.5.d.1) '-.. Parking areas require a 22 foot drive aisle. We are requesting a variance of the entire 22 feet for the east parcel 1),1.52627;'8 "- ",'lJ. " <,9 \, ",'\I.p '"0 \ :"''v...~ ~ \ <v ..::..~b &. \ ii1 ~""~~~ ... ~ dfr fS>V j'J <P ~ OJ .. ~y'..u.. v ~.... ,; .9 '<, '" j :('~ . \.... / Ylt>.. Q \? ./ .... l.'.s'lU\.\.O\' . '. ~, MBV Engineering, Inc Phone (772) 569-0035 2455 14lh Ave. Vero Beach, FL 32960 Fax (772) 778-3617 HOMt: OF PELICAN 1Sl.AND Growth Management Department Variance Application - Staff Report 1. Project Name: Paradise Marina Resort 2. Requested Action: Variances requested as follows: (I) Section 54-3-10.6(a)(3) to allow backing into a public street from a parking area, whereas the code would prohibit backing into a public street. (2) Section 54-3-10.4(b) to allow collocation of vehicles and pedestrians, whereas the code requires a separation of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians by curbs, pavement markings, planting areas, fences or similar features. (3) Section 54-3-1O.5( d)( 1) to eliminate the entry and exit drive, whereas the code requires an entry and exit drive to be at least 22 feet in width for two-way traffic or at least 12 feet in width for one-way traffic. (4) Section 54-3-10.5(d)(3) to allow the vehicular circulation plan to utilize the street, whereas the code requires vehicular circulation to be contained within the property. (5) Section 54-3-14.1 I (b) to allow the perimeter landscape strip to vary in width from four (4) to six (6) feet, whereas the code requires a minimum width often (10) feet. (6) Section 54-3-14.11(d)(1) to allow the landscape strip between abutting property lines and parking areas to vary in width from four (4) to six (6) feet, whereas the code requires a minimum width often (10) feet. (7) Section 54-2-5.4(d)(5) to allow a five (5) foot side yard setback on the western property, whereas the code requires a ten (10) foot side yard setback when abutting a residential district or use. 3. Project Location a. Address: 1109 Indian River Drive and 1034 Indian River Drive b. Legal: Parcel No. 31-39-06-00007-0000-00009.0 Parcel No. 31-39-06-00009-0000-00001.0 Parcel No. 31-39-06-00009-0000-00002.0 Parcel No. 31-39-06-00009-0000-00002.1 (Legal description detailed on survey provided.) 4. Project Owner: Damien Gilliams Paradise Marina Enterprises, Inc. 1623 US Highway 1, Suite A5 Sebastian, FL 32958 5. Project Engineer: Bruce Moia, P.E. MBV Engineering, Inc. 2455 14th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32960 6. Project Surveyor: Stuart A. Houston Houston & Price, Inc. 9436 U.S. Highway 1 Sebastian, FL 32958 7. Project Description: a. Narrative of proposed action: MBV Engineering, Inc., on behalf of Damien Gilliams, Paradise Marina Enterprises, Inc. has made application for site plan approval for the redevelopment of the property at 1109 Indian River Drive and 1034 of Indian River Drive. The proposed plan includes a 1300 square foot restaurant, a l7-unit motel, a cabana, a marina (all on the eastern property), and another 22-unit motel (on the western property). Staff has reviewed the proposed plan and determined that many features of the site plan do not meet requirements of the Sebastian Land Development Code. The applicant has chosen to apply to the Board of Adjustment for variances to these requirements, rather than redesign the site plan. b. Current Zoning: CWR (eastern property) and CR (western property) c. Adjacent Properties: Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use North: CWR & CR Office & RMU retail/restaurant East: Conservation Indian River Lagoon C South: RM-8 Vacant & residence RMU West: PS&CR Church & Retail RMU 2 d. Site Characteristics (1) Total Acreage: 1.43 acres (.65 west and .78 east) (2) Current Land Use(s): marina, restaurant, bar and residences (3) Water Service: public water (4) Sanitary Sewer Service: public water 8. BOARD CRITERIA FOR DETERMING V ARlANCES (SECTION 54-1-2.5): In order to authorize any variance from the terms of the land development regulations, the Board of Adjustment must find the following: a. Existence of special conditions or circumstances. b. Conditions not created by applicant. c. Special privileges not conferred. d. Hardship conditions exist. e. Only the minimum variance granted. f. Not injurious to public welfare or intent of ordinance. g. Conditions and safeguards may be imposed. h. Time limit may be imposed. i. No use variance permitted in specified instances. Please reference Section 54-1-2.5 of the Land Development Code for further explanation and clarification of the conditions as set forth above. 9. Staff Comments and Recommendations: Variance requests I through 4 are regarding the parking design. The applicant did not submit the grounds for these variances, as required by the code and as requested by staff. Staff recommends denial of these requests because of public safety issues. 3 Variance requests 5 and 6 are in regards to the landscape design. The applicant did not submit the grounds for these requests. Staff asks that the applicant redesign to incorporate the required landscape strips, which we feel will be needed to sustain the required canopy trees, understory trees and shrubs. Staff recommends denial for both landscape design variance requests. The last variance request (7) asks to reduce the side yard setback from a residential use from 10 feet to 5 feet. The applicant has provided no grounds for this request. Staff recommends denial for two reasons. The purpose of this code is to provide additional protection (buffering) of existing residences from the more intense commercial development. In addition, reduction of the 10-foot setback will also impact the landscape buffer as noted above. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, August 4, 2005, to review the site plan and conditional use for this project. As with any plan review, other site deficiencies may be identified at that meeting which would require modification of the site plan, additional variances (from the Board of Adjustment) or waivers (from the Planning and Zoning Commission). 10. Board of Adjustment Action: Hold quasi-judicial hearing to consider each variance request. @:g, ~~er 7- 2-7'- os Date Growth Management Department 4 ~ 54-3-10.5 SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (5) Reclamation: It shall be the responsibility of the permit holder to make proper repairs of all negligent damage to road pavement, swales, or adjacent properties prior to issuance of final approvals. Repairs shall be made in accordance with standard details in the engineering department. No final inspection or bond release will be approved until all re-inspection fees have been paid. No permanent power hookups or certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the building department until the appropriate release is obtained from the engineering department. (h) Maintenance not an obligation of city. The issuance of a permit under this article does not constitute any obligation on the city to maintain driveways. Additionally, the city will not be responsible for maintenance of alternative surfacing or architectural materials/features of driveways. (i) Bonds. When a certificate of occupancy is desired prior to completion of work, a cash bond may be required by the engineering department to cover any uncompleted work in right-of-way or easement. The bond shall allow six months for completion at which time the engineering department will inspect and release bond if work was performed satisfactorily. If the builder fails to complete work within the prescribed period, the bond will be used to cover the cost to complete the work. Sec. 54-3-10.6. Design and specifications for parking areas. (a) General design standards. (1) Parking in yards. Unenclosed parking spaces may be located within a required yard. Carports and covered parking shall not be located within the required setbacks. (2) Landscaping. All parking areas other than for single-family homes and duplexes shall conform to the landscape requirements of this code as exists, or as may hereinafter be amended. \ (3) No backing into a public street. Each parking stall for all parking areas other than for single-family homes and duplexes shall be accessible from an aisle or driveway and designed so that no automobile shall back into a public street in order to exit a parking stall. The internal design of the parking lot shall be designed to facilitate vehicular circulation and avoid conflict between pedestrian and vehicular movements. (4) Separation from doorways or pedestrian entrances. No door or pedestrian entrance at ground level shall open directly upon any parking space, driveway or access aisle unless the doorway or pedestrian entrance is at least four feet from said parking space, driveway or access aisle. (5) Drainage. All off-street parking facilities shall be suitably sloped and drained so as not to cause any discharge of runoff to adjacent or public property. Stalls, aisles and driveways. The following criteria is applicable to all parking spaces except single- f;unily and duplex homes: LDClO:8 ~ 54-3-10,3 SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (4) Work by city forces on city property is exempt from permitting, (b) Inspections: (1) The city engineering staff will perform inspections after receiving a 48-hour notice, The applicant will be required to remedy all findings resulting from the inspection, (2) Release of bonds or final approvals shall not occur until the city engineering staff has performed the final inspection, (3) All other inspections are on an as-needed basis as determined by the engineering department, Sec. 54-3-10.4. Driveway access, internal circulation, off-street parking and other traffic impacts. The city engineer and/or designated staff shall advise on matters related to this section: (a) Internal circulation system design and access/egress considerations, Driveways, curb cuts, aisles, bicycle ways, pedestrian ways, and areas for parking and internal circulation of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians shall be located, designed and controlled so as to provide for safe and convenient circulation within the site and safe and convenient access from and onto adjoining streets, The city engineer shall review such design considerations based on standard traffic engineering principles and practices and such specifications as may be adopted by resolution of the city council. Requirements of article XV shall be applied for off-street parking, Among factors to be considered shall be the need for acceleration and deceleration lanes; the number, location and size of curb cuts, access drives, bicycle ways and pedestrian ways from adjacent streets, bicycle ways and pedestrian ways together with any special markings necessary to avoid conflict among vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; the location and design of driveways, access aisles, and bicycle ways to parking spaces; the arrangement, delineation and marking for parking areas; and the means of access to buildings for fire-fighting apparatus and other emergency vehicles. (b) Separation of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, Parking areas and driveways shall be clearly identified and separated from principal pedestrian routes and recreation areas by curbs, pavement markings, planting areas, fences or similar features designed to promote pedestrian safety. \ (c) Driveway and curb-cut approvals. The city shall require that the proposed location of driveways and curb-cuts be coordinated with utility companies responsible for provid- ing utility services in order to ensure that proposed construction activities are consistent with improvement plans as well as operation and maintenance activities and policies of utility service providers, No development plan or building permit shall be issued until proof of such coordination is presented to the city by the applicant/ developer. In addition, the applicant/developer submitting plans for driveway and curb-cut improvements shall comply with applicable surface water management regulations of article XII and driveway design standards established by this article, LDCI0:4 ~ 54-3-10,5 SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (2) Circular or dual drives, In lieu of a single drive, a circular or dual driveway may be permitted, provided that the maximum width shall not exceed 16 feet, In addition, there shall be a minimum separation of 30 feet between the driveways, (3) Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, single-family and duplex lots that are at least 20,000 square feet in area shall be permitted an additional driveway, not to exceed 16 feet in width with a minimum separation of 30 feet from any other existing driveway(s) on the same lot, (4) One auxiliary driveway may be permitted per lot and shall be a minimum of eight feet and maximum of 16 feet in width and maintain a minimum 30 feet separation from other drives and shall not be located in any side yard easement, (d) Commercw! sites, The following criteria shall apply to all multifamily and commercial sites: r (4) (1) All uses which are required to provide off-street parking spaces shall have entry and exit ways and drives at least 22 feet in width to accommodate two-way traffic, unless' a one-way traffic system is utilized, in which case entry and exit ways and drives shall be at least 12 feet in width, In the event that a one-way traffic system is utilized, appropriate traffic direction markers shall be installed, There shall be no more than two driveways for each 200 feet of street frontage on any lot and the maximum combined width of driveways shall not ~xceed 60 feet, Vehicular circulation must be completely contained within 1;I1e property and ,vehicle~ located within one portion of the site must have access to all other portions of the site without using the adjacent street system except for lots abutting a public alley. ' Site plans shall demonstrate that proper consideration has been given to the surrounding streets, traffic volumes, proposed street improvements, vehicular street capacities, pedestrian movements, and safety. (2) (e) Minimum standards for construction of driveways. Minimum standards for the con- struction, alteration or repair of driveways shall be as follows: (1) No driveways shall be placed within 30 feet of an intersection, such 30 feet being measured from the right-of-way lines of the intersection, unless plans for the construction, alteration, or repair of such driveways are approved by the city engineer, (2) Driveways on state roads: a. No driveways shall be constructed on a state road unless the applicant shall have first obtained a permit from the State Department of Transportation and submitted such permit to the city engineer. b. The minimum standards shall be the minimum standards established by the State Department of Transportation. (3) Driveways on non-state roads where curb and gutter are in existence: a, Applicant shall maintain existing drainage and gutter. LDClO:6 ~ 54-3-14.11 SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (7) Use of distinctive plants as focal points. (8) Berms, plantings, and low walls to screen parking areas from view of public right-of-way while allowing filter views of larger buildings beyond. (9) The use of trees and plantings to reduce the apparent mass of a building. Inanimate materials commonly used in landscaping such as, but not limited to organic mulches, rocks, pebbles, walls and fences, but excluding paved surfaces, may also be utilized in landscaped areas. Pervious, decorative paving materials and brick pavers may be used in the form of walkways or driveways through landscaped areas; however, off-street parking area paved with such materials shall not be considered landscaped areas. All landscape areas shall be covered by a minimum of 75% living plant material prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. If an existing landscape strip is provided on the adjacent lot, the required landscape strip may be reduced to five feet in width upon the recommendation of the planning and growth management director and approval of the planning and zoning commission. (b) Perimeter landscape strip. A landscape strip shall be provided on the entire perimeter of all multifamily, commercial, industrial and institutional property, except properties with zero-foot setbacks. The landscape strip shall be a minimum of ten feet in width; however; property having a width or depth of 50 feet or less, the required landscape strip may be reduced to five feet in width. Necessary accessways from public rights-of-way or adjacent parcels through such landscape strip shall be permitted. Landscape strips located in ease- ments may be adjusted upon the recommendation of the planning and growth management director and city engineer. Any combination of hedges, landscaped berm or ground cover shall be planted or installed along the entire length of each required landscape strip. In all multifamily residential or commercial districts, the barrier, hedge, or landscape berm shall be a minimum of four feet in height; except in commercial districts, where the barrier, hedge or landscaped berm along street rights-of-way shall be a minimum of three feet in height. In addition, there shall be a minimum of one shrub for each six lineal feet of the required landscape strip. Said shrubs may be planted in groupings. When the required perimeter landscape strip coincides with a required off-street parking or parking lot landscaping strip, the perimeter landscaping requirements shall prevail, except a continuous hedge shall be required. In no case shall a landscape strip be required to exceed ten feet in width. (c) Interior landscape requirements. (1) Off-street parking areas. Off-street parking areas shall be landscaped with a minimum of 15 square feet of landscape area for each parking space. Each landscape area shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in size. (2) Use of interior landscape strips. Interior parking landscaping shall, insofar as possible, be used to delineate and guide major traffic movement within the parking area and to LDC14:10 TREE PROTECTION AND LANDSCAPING S 54-3-14.11 prevent cross space driving wherever possible. Landscaping dividing strips, with or without walkways, shall be used to subdivide parking areas into parking bays with not more than 30 spaces, provided that no more than 15 spaces shall be in an uninter- rupted row. A portion of the required landscaping for interior parking spaces may be relocated so as to emphasize entrance corridors or special landscaped areas within the general parking area. (d) Parking lot landscaping requirements: Landscaping shall be provided around the perimeter of off-street parking areas, loading areas, or other vehicular use areas pursuant to the following standards: A landscape strip at least ten feet in width shall be located between the abutting property lines and parking, loading or other vehicular use area except where permitted driveway openings are to be provided. Where drainage or other utility easement exist along property lines, the landscape strip shall be located between the parking, loading or other vehicular use area and the utility or drainage easement. Landscape strips located in easements may be adjusted upon the recommendation of the planning and growth management director and city engineer. A hedge shall be planted within the landscape area and shall be a minimum of three feet in height and form a solid and unbroken visual screen immediately upon planting. Parked vehicles may overhang a landscape strip no more than 24 inches, provided curbing or other wheel stops are installed to insure no greater overhang of the landscape strip. Landscaping, walls, fences, and earthberms shall be so located as to prevent their damage and/or destruction by overhanging vehicles. (e) Specifications for living plant materials: 1) * (2) (3) (1) Trees: Immediately after planting, all trees shall be a minimum of eight feet in height, have a minimum diameter of one and one-half inches or a circumference of four and seven-tenths inches DBH, and shall have a minimum of five feet of clear trunk space if necessary to preserve a safe sight distance for traffic safety. Trees shall be of a species having an average mature crown of greater than 20 feet and having tru,nks that can be maintained with over six feet clear wood. Trees or palms having an average mature crown spread ofless than 20 feet may be substituted by grouping the same so as to create the equivalent of a 20-foot crown spread. Such a grouping shall count as one tree toward meeting the tree requirement for any provisions herein. Fifty percent of the trees shall be native and drought tolerant. If palms are used, they shall constitute no more than 35% of the total tree require- ments for any provisions herein and shall have a minimum of six feet of clear wood. No tree species shall account for more than 50% of the total number of trees. (2) Shrubs and hedges. Shrubs and hedges shall be used to complement the tree planting. Individually planted shrubs shall be a minimum of 24 inches in height immediately after planting. Shrubs planted for required hedges shall meet the minimum height LDC14:11 ~ 54-2-5.4 SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (1) Maximum FAR: 60% (2) Maximum height: 35 feet (25 feet for properties located east of Indian River Drive) (3) Lot coverage: Maximum building coverage: 30% Minimum open space: 20% (4) Lot dimensions: Minimum lot size: 10,000 square feet Minimum width: 75 feet Minimum depth: 125 feet (5) Minimum setbacks: Front yard with sidewalks, curb and gutters: None Front yard without sidewalks, curb and gutters: 6 feet ~ide yard: 5 feet, except 10 feet when abutting a residential district or, use. Rear yard: 10 feet, except 30 feet when abutting a residential district or nse. Maximum impervious surface: 80% (e) Riverfront design standards. Development shall comply with the design standards for the Riverfront Performance Overlay District, cited in article XXI. Sec. 54-2-5.5. Commercial Waterfront Residential District (CWR). (a) Intent. The purpose and intent of the CWR District is to provide a management framework for implementing comprehensive plan objectives and policies for the Riverfront Mixed Use designation illustrated on the future land use map. All development in the Commercial Waterfront Residential District shall comply with the comprehensive plan, performance criteria in chapter III, as well as other applicable land development regulations. The CWR District is intended to preserve the existing character of the Riverfront area. The existing assets, including historical structures shall be protected, preserved and enhanced. The zoning district is intended to provide for a mixture of uses and a variety of opportunities for recreational, residential and commercial uses while protecting the environment. (b) Permitted uses: Single-family dwellings Duplex dwellings Multiple-family dwellings up to 8 units per acre Timeshare facilities Churches Administrative services, public and pri- vate LDC5:18 Clubs and lodges, public and private Business and professional offices, exclud- ing drive-through facilities Medical services Commercial retail" 5,000 sq. ft. Foster care/group homes with s 6 resi- dents '\ ~ C) I l I I I I . . . . ~ . . . . ~ ~ . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~~ O~<.D (>,~ dl__ .---' ~ d .---' ~ ~ L t:0 ~ N i SeA 6$ e.c.:, s., T t. ~ l\JF 1 /4 See ARTHVR U AMY PRKP RE"CEfVEQ ~,,'T"r' C:F SEBAST : N . <':C I)F elTY {;f f:C:>: 3901 Canal Drive \licco, Florida 32976 USA Phon.;: (772) 663.0780 Fa..,,, (772) 664.8893 ~ni~;:;: ;.Y"'-l;I II'j ')1 0,:,.'6 f::: Af'1ll 58 July 12,2005 o \ O~ ^ M,vw ~ 1\~ @~ ~,\C~~J ~cQ) ~~ 0JfL@" qa ~,j Richard S. Smith, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission City of Sebastian, Florida 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 RE. Site Plan Applicarionjor 1034 & 1 1091ndian River Drive (Paradise Marina and Properry South and Adjacent to Washington Plaza) I.R.C. Tax Parcel1D #s: 31-39-06-00007-0000-00009.0 & 31-39-06-00009-0000-00001.0.2.0 & 1.1 Dear Mr. Smith: On July 7, 2005, my wife and I attended a City Council Meeting where we had been notified, via Public Notice by U.S. mail, of a quasi-judicial public hearing on the above-referenced proposed 39 room, two- story motel marina resort, along with required parking, landscaping, and stormwater drainage. The actual hearing for the Site Plan Application was tabled until the proper C.U.P. permit is approved for the restaurant proposed to be located on the waterfront. Also, it appears that a variance will be required for the parking arrangements on the waterfront side of Indian River Drive. As property owners approximately one (1) block south of this proposed development, this parking is one of our major concerns. During an informal presentation by Mr Damian Gilliam,"following the close of the Council Meeting, I expressed our concerns that the proposed parking along Indian River Drive encroached entirely into the 6' wide sidewalk along Indian River Drive. This sidewalk is a valuable and much-used asset of the Indian River Drive waterfront, and perhaps one of the City of Sebastian's most appreciated improvements. This encroachment would not only eliminate the sidewalk for approximately 300' in front of this proposed development, but would also pose a potentially unsafe condition for the many people who enjoy walking and fUlUling on this sidewalk. The way these parking spaces are designed poses a dangerous situation for people walking behind vehicles that are attempting to back directly out and onto Indian River Drive. Upon expressing my concerns regarding this parking, Mr. Gilliam's response was that this is "existing parking" now in place and that he is grand-fathered in. The variance that was briefly mentioned, according to Mr. Gilliam, was simply to continue the current parking arrangement, and extend that parking to include additional parking spaces. ce:~ v~T. ~ r.A.4) Page Two July 12,2005 Letter to Richard S. Smith, Chairman RE: Site PlnnApplication for 1034 & 1109 Indian River Drive Although we are somewhat familiar with the Paradise Marina, and with the information provided to us during this informal presentation, we drove to the property to verify this existing parking situation that is "grand-fathered" in. There are a handfull of existing parking places, but they are currently completely out of the area of the sidewalk. I offered a suggestion to Mr. Gilliam. that he revise his Site Plan to eliminate some of the motel units on the waterfront in order to provide adequate parking that would not encroach into the sidewalk. This could also allow vehicles to enter to and from Indian River Drive into his. motel, in lieu of backing onto the road. He indicated that there were other locations along Indian River Drive that had parking directly onto the road. including, the waterfront of the Riverview Park, Jackson Street, and in front of Captain Butchers. It was brought to Mr. Gilliam's attention that the Riverview Park parking has an alley in which cars can back into before they enter back onto Indian River Drive. Jackson Street is a virtually untraveled road at this time, and is not directly located on Indian River Drive. And lastly, Captain Butchers does not have a sidewalk and lighting located in front of it, and the pedestrian traffic in that area is not nearly that of the location in which Mr. Gilliam proposes to develop. Another concern is the apparent lack of adequate stormwater retention/detention for the amount of impervIOus area along the waterfront. The amount of open area prior to development, in comparison to the amount of open area after development, appears to make it very difficult to have the post-development run-off equal to or less than the pre-development run-off. The revised parking area as noted above could possibly be some kind of pervious parking stabilization. We are long-time residents of the Sebastian area, and do not necessarily oppose the entire project. We realize that progress is inevitable, but hope that the City of Sebastian will protect the waterfront district from becoming more than the "quaint fishing village," that was adopted as a theme some number of years ago. We also believe. as do many other residents of the area, that the sidewalk and lighting that was put in place along the waterfront should remain in tact for everyone's enjoyment, including residents and tourists alike. Allowing this sidewalk area to be removed and replaced with parking for this project could set a dangerous precedence for future development along Indian River Drive. . When looking at the proposed parking and stormwater retention/detention, it appears that Mr. Gilliam is attempting to pack 10 pounds of fish into a 5 pound bucket. Your review and consideration of these matters is greatly appreciated. . ~ Very since \,~n\b~ r,~IJli\ I :11f~ ~ IL~ p~. -" '^\i\\c[ft~r ~.~ ~#~ I ArthurF.Priep 11\~' ~~. I / ~ . ~.,;~ ~ ;~~1pM~~. \)1J' lalJ, ~J ~;: IllnJfv 0- ~J offPJ ~~~~, ~\ ~J ~ /~I\ utD . ~ 1) \lJl v ~' ~ , /( / Page 1 of 1 Ken Jones From: Ken Jones Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:57 PM To: Jan King; Dorri Bosworth Cc: David Fisher; David Fishers Interns Subject: Paradise Marina Variance Request Comments At your request, the Engineering Department has reviewed and made the following comments regarding the Paradise Marina Variance Request. Variance Request #2 (Section 54-3-10.4(b) to allow co-location of vehicles and pedestrians, whereas the code requires a separation of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians by curbs, pavement markings, planting areas, fences of similar feature. Applicant has not eliminated the need for a variance of Section 54-3-10.4 (b). The deletion of the proposed sidewalk on the applicants property and moving of the 23 parking spaces on the east side of Indian River Drive approximately 5 feet further east does not meet the requirements to separate the vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Conflicts still remain in the following areas: 1. Only one of the six sidewalk connections to the parking area actually connects to a sidewalk (5 of the walks dead-end into parking spaces). A pedestrian cannot walk through a parked vehicle. 2. There is no means for a pedestrian to get to the building walkways from the compact parking spaces without walking through the compact car parking area on the north side of buildings to Indian River Drive sidewalk. 3. There is no sidewalk connection between the west side parking and sidewalk system with the east side complex including the restaurant, tiki bar, pool, etc. Some of the parking required for the east side complex is actually on the west side of Indian River Drive. (Split distribution of the east and west parking) 4. There is no sidewalk connection for the west side building complex and the sidewalks on U.S. #1. 5. Approximately 25% of the parking area on the east side of Indian River Drive (5 feet of 20 foot parking spaces) is on City of Sebastian R.O.W. An opinion from the City Attorney indicates dedicated public right-of-way cannot be used for private use or benefit. The entire parking area should be on the applicants property to count toward parking requirements. 6. Item #7 building encroachments - side yard setbacks has been addressed. The concrete sidewalk and balcony on the south side of the western building complex has been eliminated. The above comments address only the review of the plan in relation to the variance request action, Items #2 and #7 referred to in the letter from Bruce Moia, P.E. dated August 3, 2005. 'K~ WI. flowa Stormwater Utility Engineer City of Sebastian phone 772~589.5490 fax 772-589-6209 e-mail kiones@citvofsebastian.ora 8/3/2005 t r- J . "~~. M8~ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERING MOIA BOWLES VILLAMIZAR & ASSOCIATES Ms. Jan King City of Sebastian 1225 Main St. Sebastian, FL 32958 VIA Hand Carry .. ..~. August 3, 2005 RE: Paradise Marina Resort Sebastian, Florida Engineer's Project Number: 02-373 Dear Ms. King: Please find attached revised plans addressing variance requested action, Items 2 and 7 The revisions include the following : 1. The parking has been relocated easterly to avoid the pedestrian sidewalk. 2. The building encroachments have been removed, providing the required 10' side yard setback. Please find attached fifteen (15) copies of C2 for approval. Should you have any questions regarding the above subject, please call. Cc : Damien Gilliams (w/plan) 2455 - 14TH AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 Phone (772) 569-0035 Fax (772) 778-3617 E-mail: mbveng@bellsQuth.net