Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10022014PZ MinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY Zn MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING .0 m OCTOBER 2, 2014 C (1) p ; Chairman Dodd called the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 7:0c The pledge of allegiance was said by all. 0000000 j CIO V ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Roth Mr. McManus (a) G CIS C: G Mr. Dodd Mr. Qizilbash • Ms. Kautenburg (a) Mr. Carter 2 [ 0CO) Mr. Paul Mr. Reyes N q C Q Q Ms. Dale Simchick, IRC School Board Liaison EXCUSED: Mr. Durr ALSO PRESENT: Frank Watanabe, PE, Community Development Director Bob Ginsburg, City Attorney Jan King, Senior Planner Dorri Bosworth, Planner/Recording Secretary 101010 1561110 rdAiTX90Y�9 Chmn. Dodd announced that Mr. Durr was excused from the meeting and that Ms. Kautenburg would vote in his place. He also stated that the Local Planning Agency would reconvene after the PZ Commission meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION by Reyes/Carter to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2014 meeting as written. Motion was approved unanimously by voice vote. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: B. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING — SITE PLAN MODIFICATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, & WAIVER — SEBASTIAN INLET MARINA AND TRADING CO. (CAPTAIN HIRAM'S) — TWO STORY 16 -UNIT MOTEL — 1615 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE — CWR (COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT — REQUESTED WAIVER FROM LDC SECTION 54-4-21.A.7: RIVERFRONT OVERLAY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS Chairman Dodd asked the Commissioners if they had any ex -parte communication to disclose. There was none. Chmn. Dodd disclosed that he had received a telephone call from Damien Gilliams, and that his brother, as a plumbing contractor, had done work for Captain Hiram's and for Mickey Capp/Capp Custom Builders, who is one of the applicants. '101 CL E n c a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 2014 The applicants/representatives and staff were sworn in by the City Attorney. Mr. Tom Collins, representing Captain Hiram's, stated they have been in business for over 29 years, and continued by reviewing the project's history up to date. He explained how they worked with the neighboring Oyster Point Resort in designing a 2 -story building vs. the 3 -story allowed, and kept a pedestrian cross -access easement between the two properties. He briefly discussed issues with the project, i.e. the sewer line, and noted that variances for other issues were granted by City Council in December 2013. He stated that even though the project was considered a part of an overall site, the hotel could stand alone because of the added parking. He also stated that all stormwater was being retained onsite. He reviewed their requested landscape waiver, informed that local contractors would be used, and that all jurisdictional approvals had been received. Ms. King verified that this was considered a major modification to the existing site but that the focus of the staff report was on the new piece of property. She discussed the new site plan elements, the six variances approved for setbacks, landscaping and design criteria, and the Oyster Point sewer line running through the property. She stated the applicant was working with FDOT to relocate the line into their ROW, but had not yet received approval. She reviewed the history of an access easement that ran through the parking spaces and that the issue had been resolved to the satisfaction of Oyster Point and Captain Hiram's. She then discussed the waiver from the Riverfront Overlay District requirements, specifically for foundation planting, and a variance received in 2000 that allowed the property to plant more than 35% palm trees. She stated that based on the variances and the submitted landscape plan, staff would recommend approval of the waiver request. She added that the application also met the conditional use criteria for Hotels & Motels, and staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Chmn. Dodd verified that the [reduction of landscape materials] listed in #15j of the staff report were in addition to the items requested in the variances. Ms. King stated yes, they were additional items. Mr. Qizilbash stated that Sheet C-4 only indicated new grade elevations but did not show any existing grades, or section details regarding the adjacent properties. Mr. Collins replied that the hedge between Oyster Point and the hotel parcel would remain, that vehicle traffic between the sites was eliminated, and that a fence/archway entrance would be added for pedestrians. Mr. Watanabe stated there may be a two -foot grade difference. Mr. Qizilbash inquired if the SJRWMD permit had been received. Mr. Collins stated they had a waiver. Mr. Watanabe clarified that the engineer of record would be submitting to DEP a 10-2 self -certification form. Mr. Qizilbash stated that a condition of St. John's was that the invert of the trench should be two feet above the water table, which it was not, and felt the system would need special permission from them. There was a discussion whether a letter from St. John's had been received, if there was a letter from the project engineer stating he had applied for it, and whether the Commission should make receipt of the SJRWMD permit an additional condition of approval. Chmn. Dodd asked questions regarding the drainage structures on the parcel north of the site. Mr. Watanabe explained the property was a FDOT drainage ditch, with several pipes, one from the city, and the ditch was a good Baffle Box candidate. Chmn. Dodd stated he did not see proposed gutters on the building and asked if they would be directed into the site's stormwater system. Mr. Collins stated they would. Mr. Reyes discussed not having a survey of the property with existing conditions and grades. He had questions for the applicant and staff regarding the pedestrian access and alignment of the drive, current use and history of the parcel, adequate parking, and encroachment of the city's parking into the lot. 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 2014 A survey from staffs file was displayed on the overhead projector, and a discussion ensued regarding the apparent encroachment. Mr. Watanabe stated the city would verify. Mr. Reyes asked for additional information on the sewer lines, which then Mr. Collins reviewed the history of the three condo units that previously existed on the property. Mr. Reyes asked if the lift station was going to be modified of sufficient to handle the additional units. Mr. Collins stated it was sufficient, and that they had their Utility permit. Mr. Roth asked questions regarding the proposed drainage system and maintenance, the close distance between the proposed and existing driveways, the variances, and inverts of manholes PS -1 & PS -2. Mr. Watanabe responded that the driveways appear closer because the turning radii and aprons were corrected when the city parking went in, and that there have been no accidents. Ms. Simchick stated that the School Board does not have any issues or questions. Mr. Paul asked if a new pedestrian walkway across Indian River Drive would be added. Mr. Collins stated no, and added that customers currently using the lot for parking walk down to the existing cross walk. Mr. Reyes had additional questions on the access easement with Oyster Point and enforcement of the maintenance schedule for the stormwater system. Mr. Watanbe stated the schedule was listed on Sheet 4 of the site plan, and stated the site should provide the city with quarterly reports. Mr. Collins stated he would add the maintenance to his employees Preventive Maintenance list. Chmn. Dodd asked if there was anyone in the public that was opposed or in favor of the application. No one spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Damien Gilliams, 1623 U.S. Highway #1, spoke against the project. His concerns were lack of an As -Built survey, not receiving multiple notices for his multiple properties, receiving a notice for this hearing but not for the variance hearing, lack of required information that his previous hotel site plan was required to submit, lack of Unity of Title, partiality for certain applicants, the project's engineer not being present, no public hearing sign on the property, incomplete parking information, lack of SJRWMD permit, drainage into the Lagoon, variances unfairly granted, run-off from the roof gutters, traffic circulation, and effects on the Oyster Point property. He requested the Commission to table their decision until all concerns were answered. Mr. Ben Hooker, Sebastian, had questions on the lack of tax records for the parcel on the Property Appraisers website. He also compared the size of the parcel (.28 acre) to his residential lot (.23 acre) and couldn't imagine getting a motel built on it. Ms. King addressed some of the questions and concerns. She stated staff did not usually send out duplicate letters if the name and mailing address was same for each, an As -Built survey for the entire site minus the motel lot was in the file, and the parking calculations for the entire site was shown on the site plan (Sheet 2). She explained that the applicant did work closely with Oyster Point, and a letter of support from them was included in the packet. Mr. Watanbe stated the plan had been reviewed and approved by the IRC Fire Department for emergency vehicle access, the County Traffic Department had no comments, and staff will verify with SJRWMD if a modification permit is needed and clarify design criteria. Mr. Collins stated the Unity the Title had been recorded and staff would receive it in a couple of days. Ms. King explained why the tax information was not readily available because the previous records were for three individual condos. Mr. Reyes asked if the city requested Title Commitment Reports/Land Title Surveys on major projects which showed ownership and encumbrances. Staff stated no. Ms. Kautenburg stated PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 2014 that at first, she felt there was too much building for the property, but after reviewing the site plan and visiting the site, she finds that land accommodates the plan very well. Mr. Ginsburg advised the Commission to make individual motions [on each application] and then one motion overall approving the applications as a whole. Chmn. Dodd discussed the waiver application. He noted the information was listed on page 7 of the Staff Report under item J, and that the waiver request was from the Riverfront Overlay requirements and not the regular landscaping code. MOTION by Kautenburg/Reyes "to move that the waiver for the Overlay landscape plan requirements be granted." ROLL CALL: Mr. Qizilbash yes Mr. Paul yes Ms. Kautenburg yes Mr. Reyes yes Mr. Roth yes Mr. Carter yes Mr. Dodd yes The vote was 7-0. Motion carried. Chmn. Dodd stated the next application under consideration was for a Conditional Use Permit for a motel. MOTION by Reyes/Qizilbash "to approve the conditional use permit." ROLL CALL: Mr. Reyes yes Mr. Dodd yes Mr. Roth yes Mr. Paul yes Mr. Carter yes Ms. Kautenburg yes Mr. Qizilbash yes The vote was 7-0. Motion carried. Chmn. Dodd reminded the Commission that in their discussion earlier, they agreed there was a need to add a third condition [to the site plan approval] which was to have staff review the SJRWMD permit and/or the self -certification thresholds. He stated the LDC established three specific criteria that the Commission had in reviewing and approving a site plan, and he felt that the Captain Hiram's project met all the criteria. He would like the City to look at the drainage ditch as a strong candidate for a baffle box. MOTION by Roth/Paul "that the site plan be approved as submitted with the conditions." Chmn. Dodd verified that included the condition regarding staff reviewing the SJRWMD permit. Mr. Roth stated it did. ROLL CALL: Mr. Roth yes Mr. Qizilbash yes Mr. Carter yes Mr. Reyes yes Mr. Dodd yes Mr. Paul yes Ms. Kautenburg yes The vote was 7-0. Motion carried. MOTION by Paul/Roth "to approve item 7B [on the agenda]." ROLL CALL: Ms. Kautenber yes Mr. Reyes yes Ell PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 2014 Mr. Dodd Mr. Carter Mr. Roth The vote was 7-0. Motion carried. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: None MEMBERS MATTERS: None DIRECTOR MATTERS: None ATTORNEY MATTERS: None yes Mr. Qizilbash yes yes Mr. Paul yes yes Chairman Dodd adjourned the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 8:20 p.m. [Ms. Simchick, the IRC School Board liaison, exited the meeting.] Chairman Dodd called the Local Planning Agency meeting to order at 8:20 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Roth Mr. McManus (a) Mr. Dodd Mr. Qizilbash Ms. Kautenburg (a) Mr. Carter Mr. Paul Mr. Reyes EXCUSED: Mr. Durr ALSO PRESENT: Frank Watanabe, PE, Community Development Director Bob Ginsburg, City Attorney Jan King, Senior Planner Dorri Bosworth, Planner/Recording Secretary OLD BUSINESS: A. REVIEW REVISIONS/ADDITIONS, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ORDINANCE 0-14-04 WHICH PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE III, SECTION 54- 2-3.2 REGARDING PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF TEMPORARY USES/SPECIAL EVENTS Chmn. Dodd thanked staff for incorporating their comments from the last discussion and creating the current proposal. Ms. Bosworth verified that the comments incorporated were from the August 7'" PZ Commission meeting and noted those changes were highlighted in yellow, in addition to the agreed upon changes already in red. She then reviewed the changes in yellow on each page. Page one covered the recommendation to increase the cash bond required if the applicant was not the owner of the event location. The highlighted change on page two was staffs proposal created PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 2014 from the Commission's direction to take their comments and come up with a definitive number of events that a site could hold each year. She explained that staff felt if the temporary use/event activity was a permitted or conditional use within the zoning district, it shouldn't be limited, but proposed if the use was not permitted within the district, permits for those uses/events could be held to four times a calendar year. The proposal was indicated as new paragraph (d) in Section 54-2-3.3 Time Limits. She continued that on page three, the revisions were mostly clean-up items, and language added regarding the fee and appeal directions. The fee adjustment previously discussed was to lower the amount to $35 per event. She requested that if the Commission concurred with the revisions, to make the appropriate recommendation to City Council regarding the Ordinance. There would also be a Resolution for the fee and cash bond. Ms. Kautenburg stated she had thought a lot about this topic since the last discussion. She read from an ad for North County Events that was in the newspaper for an upcoming monthly church Flea Market and the type of sales it listed. She felt that although it was under the guise of a fundraiser, it was not the church that was raising funds through the efforts of its members, but opening space on their private property for people who are in the flea market business who don't have to operate under the same guidelines as other businesses in town. She was nervous with the amount of properties in town who have the space to do this, and the possible image to tourists and visitors of Sebastian being "flea market-ville", in addition to the eight Thrift stores in our area. She continued that after re -thinking how many "temporary" meant to her, she was inclined to suggest one per year, possibly two. She stated the amount of monthly flea markets held were not healthy for the city, not fair for the neighboring properties, and not fair to the residents who can't rent out their yards to vendors. Ms. Bosworth explained that one of the proposed changes would affect Flea Markets since most of the church and civic organization properties were zoned Public Service. Flea markets were not a permitted or conditional use in PS and therefore, if the proposal was adopted, would limit them to four a calendar year. She stated staff was aware of the extra business that was brought into town on Flea Market days, and did not want to eliminate them entirely. She also explained staffs reasoning for proposing to eliminate Section 54-2-3.2(a)(1) because it was not always clear if a use or event was a defined permitted or conditional use, i.e. the haunted house, or a fishing tournament. She clarified that four a year was only a proposal, that number could be changed, and the number was mostly for outside events [that weren't a permitted or conditional use]. [Note: Section 54-2-3.2(a)(1) states "The activity must be a permitted or conditional use within the zoning district."] Mr. Roth asked if the use or event that wasn't a permitted or conditional use be regulated, and stated that the "non -conforming" event may be OK on one property with no neighbors but not OK on another abutting residences, and wished to revisit Section 54-2-3.2(a)(1). Ms. Bosworth stated that the entire code section did create regulations for the uses/events, with the intent and understanding they were "temporary" in nature, and that the code was also used for transient vendors like Xmas tree sales, and the parking lot car sales, noting that retail was a permitted use in the commercial districts. There was a discussion on some of the types of uses/events and how hard it was to define them as permitted or conditional. Chmn. Dodd stated he felt Section 54-2-3.2(a)(1) was very restricting, and was comfortable eliminating it. Mr. Reyes asked how many garage sales residents were allowed a year. Ms. Bosworth stated four. He also inquired how many events were held at Riverview Park where vendors set up. Ms. Bosworth explained that the section of code being discussed were for events held on private property and that the events held at the park usually went through City Council or the Parks & Recreation Supervisor. Mr. Roth asked if any of the guidelines from the park's requirements could be used for the private property. Mr. Reyes hated to regulate private property on their fundraising efforts. There was PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 2014 then a discussion on events held inside a building and those outside, and staff explained their policy, since it was not actually stated in the code, to not require a permit unless public safety needed to be a consideration. Discussion ensued if language should be added to cover events held inside and inside transient merchants. Chmn. Dodd stated the Commission needed to decide to table their recommendation, send a recommendation of approval, or one of disapproval. Mr. Paul felt it should be tabled since many questions were not answered, there were no solutions, and the Commission was in a quandary. Chmn. Dodd summarized what was trying to be solved was that events or temporary uses were being held at sites that the properties were not designed for, and not in a small frequency of events. He stated it could become very cumbersome to write very specific language that covered all scenarios. Mr. Ginsburg stated that the code changes were being brought before the Commission because currently the code was being stretched and it created inconsistencies with the zoning code. He reviewed what procedures the Commission had previously taken. Mr. Roth suggested limiting the events to be held on commercial properties only, not residential. He also suggested limiting certain types of events to smaller properties. Ms. Kautenburg re- stated she would like to see the number of events limited to two a year. Ms. Bosworth clarified that the stretching of the code came from staff trying to accommodate the fundraising efforts of many of the organizations and businesses during the economic down turn. She noted that an alternate option was not to change the code at all. Chmn. Dodd asked if strict adherence of the code would solve the issues previously discussed. Ms. Bosworth stated they would still wish to modify the fee, and defining some of the uses/events in a permitted or conditional use category would still be gray. The Commission discussed this option. Chmn. Dodd asked what would happen if an application was denied — what was the avenue for appeal. Ms. Bosworth stated the addition of an appeal section was currently being proposed since there was none in the existing code. Chmn. Dodd suggested only changing the fees and adding an appeal section, and leaving the remaining requirements in place. Ms. Bosworth estimated that if the current code was adhered to, a lot of the applications would be denied because the use/event was not a permitted or conditional use in the applicant's zoning district. She noted events could move to properties in the allowable zoning districts, and asked if that was the Commission intent. Chmn. Dodd stated he was hearing the Commission's dilemma as not wanting the City to become known as "Flea Market-ville", but not wanting to step on private property rights. There was further discussion on the fee amount and removing it from the code, and tabling the recommendation to the next meeting. Ms. Kautenburg asked if there were any applications pending. Staff stated there were two applications for monthly flea markets. There was not a consensus on how to amend the code that the Commission wanted to recommend to City Council. Chmn. Dodd stated that the city staff should enforce the code to the letter of the law starting tonight, which shouldn't require a motion. Mr. Paul agreed, and suggested bringing back any issues that remain to the Commission in six months. It was agreed to not set a specific time period, but to have staff bring it back when they deemed necessary. MOTION by Dodd/Paul "to pend this item until further action is requested by staff." 7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 2014 Chmn. Dodd clarified that the Commission was not anti -business and did not want to restrict business people from doing business, but wanted to protect the integrity of the City and its citizens. ROLL CALL: Ms. Kautenburg yes Mr. Reyes yes Mr. Dodd yes Mr. Qizilbash yes Mr. Carter yes Ms. Paul yes Mr. Roth yes The vote was 7-0. Motion carried. Chairman Dodd adjourned the Local Planning Agency meeting at 9:06 p.m. E (db) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION City of Sebastian, Florida Application for Site Plan Approval — major modification: Sebastian Inlet Marina and Trading Co. (Captain Hiram's) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THIS CAUSE came on for public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Sebastian on October 2, 2014, and based upon the testimony and all of the evidence presented, the Planning & Zoning Commission enters the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Tom Collins, representative for Sebastian Inlet Marina and Trading Co. (Captain Hiram's), owner of the real property located at 1615 Indian River Drive, Parcel No. 30-38-30-00002-0010-00017.0 has requested approval for a 16-unit motel building together with associated parking, water and sewer service, drainage and landscaping. Mr. Collins also requested a conditional use permit for a motel in the Commercial Waterfront Residential zoning district, as well as a waiver from the Sebastian Land Development Code Section 54-4-21.A.7, Riverfront Overlay District Landscape Requirements. 2. Public notice of the hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission was published on September 17, 2014, in the Press Journal, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Sebastian. Notice of this hearing was also mailed to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as shown in the records of the Property Appraiser of Indian River County, in accordance with the requirements of the Land Development Code. 3. The following agencies and staff reviewed the proposed site plan: Indian River County Utilities Department, Indian River County Fire Department, Indian River County Environmental Health, Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division, St. Johns River Water Management District, Sebastian City Engineer, Sebastian Building Director, Sebastian Public Works Director, Sebastian Police Department, and Sebastian Community Development staff. 4. Mr. Tom Collins, applicant, presented the project to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Additional information was provided by Frank Watanabe, City Engineer, and Jan King, Senior Planner. 5. No one from the public spoke in favor of the project. 6. Damien Gilliams and Ben Hocker spoke in opposition to the project. 7. City staff recommended approval of the site plan application, conditional use permit and landscape waiver,with conditions. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon a careful consideration of the evidence presented, and the applicable provisions of the Land Development Code of the City of Sebastian, the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the requirements for granting approval of the site plan have been satisfied. ORDER Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, a motion was made by Commissioner Louise Kautenburg, and seconded by Commissioner David Reyes, to approve the landscape waiver as requested. The motion was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 against. Therefore, the requested waiver was approved. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, a motion was made by Commissioner David Reyes, and seconded by Commissioner Tahir (Bash) Qizilbash, to approve the conditional use permit Captain Hiram's 16-unit motel at 1615 Indian River Drive. The motion was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 against. Therefore, the requested conditional use permit was approved. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, a motion was made by Commissioner Joel Roth, and seconded by Vice Chairman Larry Paul, to approve the site plan for the Captain Hiram's 16-unit motel at 1615 Indian River Drive, with the following conditions: 1. Provide a recorded Unity of Title connecting the new motel site to the parent site. 2. Provide FDOT permit to relocate the Oyster Pointe sewer line into the FDOT right-of-way. 3. Staff to review the St. Johns River Water Management District permit and the self-certification thresholds. 2 The motion was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 against. Therefore, the requested site plan was approved with the above stated conditions. In conclusion, a motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Paul, and seconded by Commissioner Joel Roth to approve Item 7B [on the agenda], in its entirety with the conditions noted above. The motion was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 against. Therefore, Item 7B [on the agenda] was approved in its entirety with the conditions noted above. DONE AND ORDERED in Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, this 2nd day of October 2, 2014. CITY OF SEBASTIAN Ed Dodd, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Date ATTEST: Clerk to the rhuI ping and ".1oning Commission 3