Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04141999 PZ CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP. MEETING APRIL' 14, 1999 (This meeting is being voice broadcast over Falcon Cable Channel 35.) Vice Chairman Pliska called the meeting to order at 9:05 am. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. ROLL CAI,L: PRESENT: EXCUSEDABSENCE: ALSO PRESENT: NEW BUSlN,E$~: Mr. Mathis Mr. Mahoney(a) Mr. Barrett Mr. Evely(a) Mr. Mather VCh. Pliska Ms. Vasia, Mr. Gerhold, and Chmn. Sc, hulke Tracy He.ss, Growth Management Director Jan' King, Growth Management Manager Ann Brack, Recording Secretary Review of Code - Accessory Structures - Section 20A-5.7, LDC VChmn. Pliska began the discussion with the subject of the '75%" rule on accessory buildings. He also commented that soma of the present codes are adequate but they are is not being followed. He would like to see the "75%" reduced. Mr. Mahoney recommended it to be changed to ~50%' of the pdmary structure, as detailed in the section on guest houses, and make it a conditional useAo neighbors will know about it. VChmn. Pliska referred to Section 20A-5.7B and noted that metal and vinyl siding should not be allowed unless it is installed over a plywood subst~ and matches the primary structure. Mr. Mather noted that all buildings must be approved by the Engineering to be structurally hurricane proof. Jan King responded that vinyl and metal sheds purchased at local builders supply stores and from local distributors are engineered and built to standards that meet our codes. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OR WORKSHOP MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1999 Jan King summarized the issues as: 1. Size 2. Number of structures 3. Appearance There was discussion on the "75%~ rule. There was also discussion on putting limitations on the size. It was suggested that the size of the accessory structure .should be tied in with the size of the lot. There was discussion-on the issues of number of trees required, and lack of any requirement for shrubbery. There was consensus that the "75%~ rule is excessive. Dudng discussion, Jan King suggested a "cumuletive" total. Mr. Barrett commented that cumulative total would control the number of accessory buildings better than puffing a fixed number on a lot. The subject of roof or ridgeline compatibility was mentioned. Mr. Mathis suggested basing the size to the amount of square feet of property, for example, five (5) sq. ft. for every one hundred (100) sq. ft. of property area. This suggestion was discussed, and consensus of the Board members agreed that this seemed to be the most equitable and fairest manner of calculation. The "75% of the principal structure" rule would be eliminated, but the 30% lot coverage would remain. For example, on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, a maximum of 500 sq, ft. of accassory structure would be permitted. It was also agreed that any accessory structure over 200 sq. ft. would come before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and must match the design of the primary sln.~cture as far as roofline and structure design. Material used in storage sheds under 200 sq. fL can vary, and no single material is required Color must be compatible with the pdmary structure. Itwas suggested to remove the wording in the present code that refers to "... no exterior siding shall be of metal or vinyl ". Consensus of the CommiSsion agreed to this suggestion. There was discussion about the height of the garage doom and elimination of the term "7 ft. or 8 ft. garage doom" in Section 20A-5.7B7. Ms. King noted that all structures over 200 sq. ft., or that have walls that are higher than the primary structure will Still COme before this Commission. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING OF APRIL 14, '1999 There was discussion about various sizes of garages that are part of the primary-building design, and these would be approved by staff in the Building Depmtme~t.in-: ~nce with the Code. All other accessory structures Ihatare non-living areas and are.over 200 sq. ff., would come before this Board for approval. There was discussion of "Quonset~ style structures. Ms. King noted that the rear pmparty line setbacks vary, and she read from the Code. VChmn. Pliska summarized issues that have been discussed as follows: 1. Allow 5 sq. ff. of accessory structure for every 100 sq. ff. of lit size 2. Roof line appearance 3. Eliminate the door height. 4. Excessive height on accessory structure will come before this Board 5. Garage that is part of the primary structure design will not come tothis Board 6. Color compatibility to be enforced on structures over 200 sq. ff. Ms. King mentioned the landscaping issue. It was-determined that landscaping probably was unenforceable, although it could be suggesl~cl by thiS. BOard during_ .preeer~.~.~tatlin. It was determined that windows would not be required. A bdef discussion took place on storage of hazardous materials in an accasm~y structure, and also the issue of a second door on a larger structure. Mr. Hess indicated that staff will work on the above suggestions in the form of a draft and bdng it back to this Board for approval before going to City Council. He spoke favorably about the changes discussed above. There was a brief discussion on the status of the Land Development Code revision.. VChmn. Pliska adjourned the meeting at 11:10 am.