MINUTES
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY/ZONING AND PLANNING BOARD
January 24, 2017
A meeting of the Indialantic Zoning and Planning Board was held on Tuesday, January 24, 2017, in Indialantic Town Hall Council Chambers, 216 Fifth Avenue, Indialantic, as publicly noticed.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Bertel called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
PRESENT: Rick Bertel, Chairman
Mike McCabe, Vice-Chairman
John Estes, Member
Tom Kleving, Member
Edwin Mackiewicz, 1st Alternate
Wendy Grice, 2nd Alternate
ABSENT: Dan Sullivan, Member
STAFF PRESENT: Christopher Chinault, Town Manager; Cliff Stokes, Building Official; Joan Clark, Town Clerk
2. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR:
* Mr. Kleving nominated Chairman Bertel as Chair. Mr. Estes seconded the nomination.
The vote on the nomination of Chairman Bertel as Chair was:
AYES: Bertel, McCabe, Estes, Kleving, and Mackiewicz
Chairman Bertel unanimously elected Chair.
* Chairman Bertel nominated Vice Chairman McCabe as Vice-Chair. Mr. Kleving seconded the nomination.
The vote on the nomination of Vice Chairman McCabe as Vice-Chair was:
AYES: Bertel, McCabe, Estes, Kleving, and Mackiewicz
Vice Chairman McCabe unanimously elected Vice-Chair.
3. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES:
A. Minutes 16-07 – September 29, 2016
* MOTION By Mr. Estes; Seconded by Mr. Kleving, to approve the minutes of the September 29, 2016, meeting.
AYES: Bertel, McCabe, Estes, Kleving, and Mackiewicz
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (5 TO 0)
4. APPLICATIONS:
A. Site Plan Modification Application – Djon Pepaj – Strip Center/Restaurant, 235-249 Fifth Avenue, Lots 1-5, 20-24, Block 21, Plat of Indialantic by the Sea, ORB 3, Page 35 – New Concept Gourmet Market
Mr. Chinault advised that this was a modification of the existing site plan; the buildings are the same with a slight addition in the northwest corner. The two parking lots have been cleaned up and the amount of grassed area has increased a little bit.
Discussion was held with regard to changes to the parking lot.
Chairman Bertel asked Mr. Pepaj if he was still going to have a bar. Mr. Djon Pepaj, 1000 N. Riverside Drive, advised he would have a wine bar, oyster bar, deli bar, outside taco stand, etc. He stated that a rooftop area was planned where people could eat, and an elevator would be installed for access.
Further discussion was held with regard to the west and east entrances, and ADA requirements.
Ms. Grice questioned as to how soon construction would start. Mr. Pepaj stated that construction would start right away. Mr. Chinault indicated that plans would have to be submitted and permits issued prior to the start of construction.
* MOTION By Mr. Estes; Seconded by Mr. Kleving, to approve the site plan modifications.
AYES: Bertel, McCabe, Estes, Kleving, and Mackiewicz
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (5 TO 0)
Mr. Chinault advised that if anyone wanted to appeal the decision of the Board, they had ten days to do so. (Section 17-51 of the Code).
5. REPORTS AND DISCUSSIONS:
A. Review/discuss/approve Sidewalk Master Plan
Mr. Chinault explained that the Town applied for a $35,000 DEO grant for a sidewalk master plan, and a $15,000 grant had been received. He advised that a public forum was held on December 8, 2016, for people to let the Town know what they thought, and stated that the focal point had been on student safety.
Mr. Chinault reviewed the sidewalk plan as developed.[1]
PRIORITIES:
(1) School access: S. Palm Avenue which connects to a signalized school crossing area with a school crossing guard at Fifth Avenue (aka US-192/SR-500) and Grosse Pointe from SR-A1A to N. Palm Avenue;
(2) East-west travel routes that provide for easier beach access – such as the dune crossovers at Watson Drive, crossover 12 (which is accessed by Eighth Avenue as east-west route and for which there is no sidewalk in the 200, 300 and 400 blocks) as well as at Sea Park (i.e. Tampa Avenue);
(3) Sixth Avenue to lessen the need to use sidewalks along Fifth Avenue (aka US-192/SR-500 when moving in an east-west fashion and to encourage improved commercial access to properties along Sixth Avenue – there is no sidewalk in the 200, 300, and 400 blocks).
Chairman Bertel commented that it would seem like $15,000 would only pay for a path. Mr. Chinault pointed out that the Town should have a basic plan of where it wanted sidewalks to go.
Ms. Grice noted that there were fourteen people in attendance at the meeting. She agreed that safety was a fantastic reason for the schools, and questioned as to whether this plan had been handed out to the residents along the routes. Mr. Chinault advised it had not.
Ms. Grice questioned as to whether this plan would end up with the same scenario as the Wavecrest sidewalk extension. She asked if there was any idea as to how close to the existing vegetation the sidewalk would be. Mr. Chinault stated that if there was no swale, the sidewalk could be right next to the curb. He noted that much depended on the contours of the ground.
Ms. Grice questioned as to how swale locations were determined. Mr. Chinault advised that swale installation was voluntary.
Discussion followed with regard to wheelchair access, which side of the streets sidewalks would be installed, proposed crosswalk on Tampa Avenue, sidewalk maintenance (property owner responsible for mowing/Town responsible for sidewalk maintenance), and pervious vs. non-pervious construction.
Chairman Bertel expressed concern about the massive cost of sidewalk installation. He believed installation should be done cohesively, and was concerned that only fourteen people attended the meeting. Mr. Chinault advised that the Town could go street to street based on receptivity. He noted that school access was the priority.
Vice Chairman McCabe pointed out that if the Town didn’t have a plan, it couldn’t require installation when properties develop.
Discussion was held with regard to Grosse Pointe and whether the County would pay for part of sidewalk installation.
Chairman Bertel opened the meeting to public comment.
Mr. Vinnie Taranto, 313 Tenth Terrace, stated he was at the meeting and not all was agreed upon. He suggested time be taken to get real feedback, and consideration be given to the width of the road(s).
Mr. Jim Powers, 206 Ormond Drive, distributed a list of questions to Board members and requested answers be incorporated into the meeting minutes.[2] He believed the idea of planning was good – some residents will be pleased and some will not.
Mr. William McLaughlin, 331 Ormond Drive, advised that everyone on Ormond Drive signed a petition of objection to sidewalks.[3] He stated he didn’t see the purpose of sidewalks in residential areas.
Mr. Loren Strand, 120 Ormond Drive, stated that movement up and down the street was simple without curbs. He expressed concern about homeowner liability for injuries sustained on sidewalks, and stated he believed lighting to be more of an issue than a need for sidewalks. He did not believe the streets were unsafe, and believed the town would lose something special (i.e. children playing ball across the street) if sidewalks were installed.
Mr. Dijon Pepaj, 1000 N. Riverside Drive, stated he grew up in New York and every street had a sidewalk for safety reasons. He believed sidewalks were an advantage and made the area look better.
Mr. Bart Pair, 121 Orlando Avenue, stated that technically the sidewalk would be on his property and he would be the one to maintain it and be liable for it. He wasn’t convinced sidewalks would make him safer since they tended to make people drive faster. He suggested more lighting be installed.
Ms. Amy Bond, 400 South Ramona Avenue, stated her concern was with swales and drainage into the lagoon, not sidewalks. She stated she was totally against swales, and believed they were unsightly and caused a safety issue. She noted that Indialantic was a great little town and she wasn’t sure this was something the Town needed to pursue. She believed the Board should vote for street lighting.
Mr. Pepaj suggested striped bike lanes be provided as an alternative to sidewalks.
Mr. Chinault advised that Council would review this issue in April and grant reporting obligations had to be met. He requested the Board make a decision, pointing out that people will still have an opportunity to comment. He reiterated that this was a sidewalk plan.
Chairman Bertel asked if it would be a problem to table this until next week. Vice Chairman McCabe noted that the Town had to come up with a plan and any plan was dynamic and could change. He pointed out that this was not construction.
Chairman Bertel stated he needed more time to think based on what he was hearing tonight. Mr. Chinault pointed out that the Board could make any decision it wanted, and noted that the plan made sense for the protection of children.
* MOTION By Vice Chairman McCabe to approve the plan and include the comments made by the public.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mr. Estes stated he would like to see how these homes would be affected.
* MOTION By Mr. Estes; Seconded by Mr. Mackiewicz, to study the plan further, delay action, and table the item for further discussion.
AYES: Bertel, Estes, Grice, and Mackiewicz[4]
NO: McCabe
THE MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1.
B. Review/discuss proposed amendment to Code Section 17-88, Fences, walls, to allow a fence to be temporarily installed around a construction site during construction, and find the amendment to be consistent with the Town’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, Policy 1.1, Objective 1, Future Land Use Element of the Plan.
Mr. Chinault advised the Code Review Task Force had looked at and recommended that consideration be made to allow a fence to be temporarily installed around a construction site during construction. He pointed out that a temporary construction fence would keep dirt from blowing out during construction.
Chairman Bertel clarified that the change would allow, not require, a temporary fence. Mr. Chinault concurred, noting that these fences weren’t pretty, but functional.
Vice Chairman McCabe questioned as to whether a fee would be charged for a construction fence. Mr. Stokes stated there would be no fee as the fence would provide safety, prevent theft and keep the side penned up. He noted the fence could not be installed until a permit was issued.
* MOTION By Vice Chairman McCabe; Seconded by Mr. Estes, to approve the proposed amendment to Code Section 17-88, Fences, wall, to allow a fence to be temporarily installed around a construction site during construction, and to find the amendment to be consistent with the Town’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, Policy 1.1, Objective 1, Future Land Use Element of the Plan.
AYES: Bertel, McCabe, Estes, Grice and Mackiewicz
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (5 TO 0)
6. REPORT FROM BUILDING OFFICIAL:
A. Reports are included in packets for informational pages to the Board.
Mr. Chinault advised that Dude had finished up to Town Homes, and the three homes on the river and others were still under construction.
7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None submitted.
8. ADJOURNMENT.
* MOTION By Mr. Estes; Seconded by Mr. McCabe, to adjourn.
AYES: Bertel, McCabe, Estes, Grice and Mackiewicz
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (5 TO 0)
The meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m.
______
Rick Bertel, Chairman
ATTEST:
______
Joan Clark, MMC, Town Clerk
Zoning & Planning Board Minutes 17-01
Page 6 of 7
[1] See Exhibit A to minutes
[2] See Exhibit B to minutes.
[3] See Exhibit C to minutes.
[4] Mr. Kleving exited the meeting at 6:45 p.m.