Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01172002a PZ CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING JANUARY 17, 2002 APPROVED ,~,,.~ DATE A~VED SUBJECT TO Acting Chairwoman Vesia called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM, The Pledge of Allegiance was previously recited at the regular meeting. ROLL CALL,,; All members were present, as previously accounted for at the regular meeting, ALSO PRESENT: NEW BUSINESS: Tracy Hass, Growth Management Director Jan King, Growth Management Manager Dorri Bosworth, Zoning Technician/Board Secretary Rich Stringer, City Attorney Ann Brack, Recording Secretary Revisions to the Land Development Code: Review and discussion of Article VII General Regulations, Section 54-2-7.5 Accessory Structures it was noted that item C.3. is a duplication and will be eliminated. Minor changes to Items B.l.a., and 2., as presented, were agreed upon. There was much discussion on item C.7. Tracy Hass explained the documentation that he had on the number and size of accessory structures approved by P & Z since 1995 and the reason for the proposed staff approval of these structures up to 600 square feet. The suggestion was made by Mr, Barrett to keep item C,7.b. and mandate the kind of material that shall be used. He then suggested including "acceptable exterior facade material shall be cbs, concrete block, stucco, frame stucco, aluminum siding, vinyl siding, T-111 siding, hardy board siding. And in no case shall corrugated metal of any type be allowed," He then suggested changing item 7.d. to read "In no case shall Quonset type style or appearing structures be allowed", in all Residential classifications. It was pointed out that the above suggestion would only apply to structures over $00 square feet if left in 7.d., and it was suggested to rename it to item C.8. Mr. Svatik noted that pvc is now being extruded to look like the "corrugated" effect of aluminum. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2001 It was commented that the terms "harmonious in character" and "compatible in design" leave the interpretation wide open. Lisanne Monier suggested that a new section be developed devoted to the aesthetic requirements for anything over 100 square feet. She also suggested that roofs be the same material as the principle structure (over 100 square feet). There was discussion on this issue. Mr. Mahoney commented that the magnitude of the structure concerns him, and suggested that anything over 400 square feet should look more like the primary structure, Mr, Svatik commented - design (commensurate with the residential structure), exterior appearance including siding, helaht, facade, color, and pitch, and harmonious would mean meeting at least four of those points. He suggested that these elements be applied to larger structures, for instance over 500 or 600 square feet. Gene Rauth suggested creating categories - 0 to 100 sq. ft.; 101 to 750 sq. ft.; and over 750 should be exactly like the primary home. Emil Svatik suggested categories such as 300 to 400 sq. ft., meet design and height; 400 to 500 sq. ft., exterior appearance, siding, faoade and pitch; and 500 to 1,000 sq. ft. must do all including color. Gene Rauth suggested adding a requirement of landscaping for the super-size. There was some discussion on this issue. There was more discussion on classification, according to size with more requirements for increasing sizes, It was pointed out by Atty. Stringer that if accessory structures over a certain size must exactly match the primary structure, there would be no need for them to come before Planning and Zoning. This issue was discussed. The suggestion was made that Tracy take all of the above comments and formulate them into a graduated scale of requirements for accessory structures. Tracy pointed out that if everything over 500 sq. ft. must exactly match, then pre-fab units are pretty much ruled out, Emil Svatik commented that a percentage of the primary structure size might be used for increasing the requirements. Lisanne suggested that instead of basing the square footage of the accessory structure on the size of the lot, that it be based on the size of the primary structure. It was noted that this method didn't seem to work previously. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2002 Lisanne suggested using both the size of the lot (or lots) and the size of the house for guidelines. . There was discussion about applying these guidelines to residential districts only, and not to commercial. Tracy clarified that this means a residential zoning district only, and not applicable to a Uresidential use" in another zoning district. Mr. Barrett suggested that one more workshop session may be needed after staff coordinates all of the suggestions and discussion from tonight. Tracy explained the research his department has already done on compiling all of the accessory structures that have been approved by Planning and Zoning from 1995 to the present, His report is as follows: 200 to 299 sq. ft. 52 300 to 399 sq, ft, 12 400 to 499 sq. ft. 13 500 to 599 sq, ft, 9 600 to 699 sq. ft. 8 700 to 799 sq. ft. 6 800 to 899 sq, ft. 0 900 to 999 sq. ft. 2 1200 to 1299 sq. ft. 1 1600 to 1699 sq. ft. 1 TOTAL 104 Tracy noted that many people are now buying two and three lots together, doing a unity of title, and resulting in larger accessory structures being allowed under the present rules, There was discussion on the type of limitations that are available to this Commission, and Mr. Rauth suggested that materials could be limited but not the method of construction, Atty. Stringer commented that with the large size of some structures, properties start to look like compounds or estates. There was a return to discussion about limiting the maximum size of accessory structure allowed in the City and what to base it on. Again, there was discussion on basing the size on the square footage of property up to a maximum percentage (75%) of the primary structure. Then, use the graduated appearance criteria. Lisanne brought up the discussion of "tents". Tracy passed copies of the "Accessory Canopy Survey" to all present. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2002 Jan King summarized the thirteen surveys as follows: Accessory canopies should be regulated - 11 Require building permit - 8 Meet same setbacks as accessory structure - 13 Maximum size (variety of suggestionS) - 9 Maximum height - 9 = Permitted in rear yard = 1 - 100sf. 1 - 120 sf. 5 - 200 sf. 1 - 250 sf. 1 - 288 sf. Canopy should be properly installed "Posts set in concrete or auger type anchors at all four corners" - 1 8ft. 4 - 10ft. 4 - 12ft. 4 ' None 1 - and side yard 1 - or Side to rear of front fagade of primary structure 13 1 Square footage of canopy count toward max. access. Bldg. Area - 9 No more than one canopy per lot. 10 Torn, damaged or destroyed canopy removed 13 "Or replaced in a timely manner" 1 Atty. Stringer commented that in a discussion of these items with the Building Official, it was noted that if these canopies are permanently affixed, they become a structure and they cannot meet the requirements of a structure, so they could not get a building permit. He detailed the manner in which they would have to be secured which would allow them to be removed in case of a storm, which would amount to a temporary status. There was discussion about the fact that residents buy these canopies to protect cars or boats from a storm (rain, etc,) and they probably would not take them down during a rain storm or other storm which is when they become dangerous projectiles, Lisanne commented that she has extensive experience with these "tents" and opined that they should not be considered permanent structures. Sherri Reichert commented that there are other options on the market to accomplish the same thing, The issue of code enforcement was discussed. It was noted that the flexible canopies are being used as permanent structures when they are basically temporary covers, and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2002 they are being marketed as a carport or boat cover. The comment was also made that trying to enforce regulations on these items would be very difficult because there are so many of them in rear yards. Several scenarios were discussed which pointed out the problems between a temporary structure and a permanent structure - and the different methods used to secure or anchor them to the ground. Tracy pointed out how difficult it is to regulate these temporary structures since they do not meet building codes for a "structure", and no matter how many regulations are written, trying to enforce them is a difficult problem. Lisanne commented that if enforcement can't be accomplished, they may as well be banned. Gene Rauth suggested that the "tent" or canopy items cannot be permanent structures. He then asked what "temporary" indicated - how many days, weeks, months, until it wears out? Several responses were heard - 48 hours, 30 days, 60 days, move it to another spot in the yard and get a new permit? Other comments were - enforcement only comes when a neighbor complains, which is reactive, not pro-active; eliminate the ones sitting next to a home as a carport for car/boat; consider it a nuisance; too difficult to enforce and could become selective enforcement; publicize it and hope that most people will comply. It was suggested that this topic be moved from the Land Development Code to the Code of Ordinances, which would become a Code Enforcement issue. Gene Rauth reiterated the point that "tents" cannot be permanent. Mr. Svatik agreed, but asked how to enforce "temporary", suggesting that it be done 'by exception'. It was commented that there didn't seem to be a problem with neighbor complaints, rather the problem arose with P & Z members objecting to the very large ones brought before this Board. Mr. Smith suggested that the accessory structures be limited as discussed earlier in the meeting. Atty. Stringer explained that the Police Officers and Code Enforcement Officers are not trained in building code technicalities and do not enforce building codes. He then noted that the Building Official also does inspections, and after documentation over the past year, that department is understaffed and this problem is being addressed. He suggested that because of the growth boom in the City, the building inspectors are mainly occupied in construction inspections. Tracy concluded by noting that all of thiS discussion will be analyzed and compiled into a draft document for further comment from this Board at a later date.