Brevard County, Florida 32903
December 27 2001, 5:30 PM Indialantic Town Hall
MINUTES NO. 02-03
MINUTES OF A ZONING AND PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD IN THE INDIALANTIC TOWN HALL ON OCTOBER 23, 2001.
Present: Thomas Kleving, Chairman
Nancee J. Hay, 2nd Alternate
Ed Washburn, Town Planner
Stanley Krulikowski, Building Official
1. CALL TO ORDER AT 5:30 PM
Chairman Kleving called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.
2. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW MEMBER
A. Collin Campbell declined his appointment because he was moving from the area.
.
3. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes No. 02-02 – Regular Meeting – October 23, 2001
Mr. MacNeill moved to approve Minutes No. 02-02. Ms. Hay seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
4. APPLICATIONS
5. REPORTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Proposed Code Adjustments
1. Walls, Fences and landscaped buffer strips
Town Manager Christopher Chinault explained that the memorandum provided to the board attempted to address certain conflicts in the code and gauge the Board’s support for any changes. He clarified that the changes included updating permissible fencing materials, permitting the buffer wall between commercial and residential properties to be placed on the property line and eliminating the required landscape buffer strip.
It was the consensus of the Board to support updating the fencing materials as recommended and to also include brown chain link. Mr. Kleving also requested that decorative aluminum slats in the chain link fencing be prohibited as they may pose a danger in a windstorm.
The Board discussed the benefits of the buffer strip and the problems with maintaining it.
Town Planner Ed Washburn suggested that the buffer wall be placed on the property line and the landscape strip be required on the interior side of the wall.
Mr. MacNeill suggested that the minutes of the Board of Adjustment meeting concerning the buffer strip be forwarded to the Council.
The Board also discussed how the buffer strip is affected by required easements.
It was the consensus of the Board to support the buffer wall being placed on the property line.
Mr. Chinault reported on the recent decision of the Board of Adjustment concerning the interpretation of front yard. He maintained that inserting an amended drawing with the definition might be helpful in eliminating any conflict.
Mr. Washburn clarified that historically the front yard has followed the support lines of the structure and explained that there is a difference between required yard and front yard.
The Board discussed the front setback as opposed to the front yard.
The Board requested this item be placed on the next agenda for further consideration.
2. Permitted uses
The Town Manager had provided a memorandum proposing to list municipal park as a separate permitted use rather than include it under essential municipal uses. He also recommended that governmental municipal parking lots be included in RP and commercial zones.
Mr. MacNeill pointed out that the RP zone is intended to act as a buffer to a residential zone and commercial parking should not be permitted. He did not favor the change in RP.
Mr. Chinault explained that municipal parking would not necessarily support commercial uses. He also pointed out that RP uses can have as much traffic as commercial uses.
Scott Bell, 1005 S Shannon, stated that the RP zone is meant to slow down traffic and that the RP zone should include only RP parking.
Mr. Washburn pointed out that the business district can not exist without adequate parking.
Ron Campbell, 211 Deland, received clarification on a “municipal” parking lot which Mr. Chinault explained would be a metered lot to support the tourist district.
Mr. Bell disagreed that RP parking is pseudo-commercial and added that the Town should not be afforded rights that are not available to individuals.
Mr. Chinault advised that the Board’s comments will be taken into consideration and this item will come back to the Board after Council discussion.
B. Dumpster enclosures
H.L. Clark, 3700 N Riverside Dr. and owner of the 225 Mall, presented a petition requesting that dumpster enclosures be eliminated from the Code. He maintained that the purpose of the enclosure is to keep the area nice, clean and healthful and that they do not work.
Mr. Clark pointed out instances where debris is trapped behind or under the dumpster and stated that the enclosure makes it difficult to clean the area. He also asserted that the enclosures can be damaged by the sanitation trucks and can become unsightly.
He suggested requiring the collector to make nice, presentable, painted dumpsters available to everybody and to make it incumbent on the owner to keep the area nice and neat.
Harry Vickers, 1017 Fieldstone Dr. and owner of property on Fifth Ave., stated he had received notice from Code Enforcement to bring his dumpster into compliance and that this was not possible. He concurred with Mr. Clark that the enclosures are regularly destroyed by Harris Sanitation.
Mr. Vickers also maintained that there is a problem with people other than the tenants using his dumpster and a problem with non-hygenic debris being disposed there.
He requested that his Code violation letter not be enforced and that the Code language be revisited to serve its intent and make it more user friendly.
Mr. Chinault pointed out that the contractor is responsible for any damage they do to the enclosures and advised that the Town will follow up on any written complaints to Harris. He also advised that the enclosure dimensions in the Code are the minimum and a larger enclosure would afford greater accessibility.
In response to a question from Mr. MacNeill, Mr. Washburn advised that most of the municipalities with which he works do require a dumpster enclosure.
Mr. Kleving supported requiring the enclosures and offered several suggestions such as smaller dumpsters, more frequent pick-ups and contacting Harris to arrange a clean up time.
The Town Manager clarified that it is the Town’s intent to enforce the Code and to ensure that Harris complies with their contract.
Mr. MacNeill supported forwarding the item to the Council with a focus on the hygiene problem.
Mr. Greer favored no further action.
Ms. Hay felt Council should look at it from a sanitary viewpoint.
Mr. Kleving favored no further action.
There was no action taken.
Mr. Clark and Mr. Vickers were advised that they could address the issue with the Town Council.
6. REPORT FROM BUILDING OFFICIAL
The building report for November was in the packets.
Mr. Krulikowski advised that the Kempf’s sign had only been repainted and was permissible.
He also reported that the manhole access issue at City Tropics had been resolved.
In response to a question concerning the Palace, Mr. Krulikowski clarified that if the signs are not attached to the glass, there is no maximum limitation.
7. REPORT FROM TOWN PLANNER
Mr. Washburn had no report.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00PM.
________________________
Thomas Kleving, Chairman
________________________
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary