Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09202001 PZ MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 ~:~ Chairman Mather called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. The Chairman called for ~o minutes of silence for the suwivors and those who died in PRESENT: New York. ,ROLL CALL; EXCUSED ABSENCE: AlSO PRESENT: Mr. Mahoney Ms. Carbano Mr. Svatik, Jr.(a) VC. Vesia, Mr, Rauth Tracy Hass, Growth Management Director Jan King, Growth Management Manager Ann Brack, Recording Secretary Mr. Barrett Mr. Smith Chmn. Mather Ms. Monier(a) ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chmn. Mather announced that VC Jean Vesia and Gene Rauth are excused, and Ms. Monier(a) and Mr. Svatik(a) will be voting in their places, He also welcomed Ms, Lisanne Monier to the P & Z Commission as a new alternate member, APPROVAL OF MINUTES.;. (8/2/01 and 8/16/01) MOTION by Barrett/Carbano I recommend that we approve the minutes of August 2, 2001. A voice vote was taken. 7 - 0, motion carried. MOTION by Smith/Barrett I make a motion we accept the minutes of 8/16. A voice vote was taken. 7 - 0, motion carried. OLD. ~..U. $1NESS: None PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 NEW BU~INE S~¢.' A. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Model Home Permit- 1741 Barber Street- MGB Construction, Inc. Mr. Bill Ballough, MGB Construction, Inc. was present, and was sworn in along with Jan King and Tracy Hass at 7:06 P.M. Jan King gave staff presentation which recommended approval, Mr. Ballough responded to questions from the Commission members. There were ten (10) notices of hearing sent with no objections or non-objections received, Chmn, Mather opened and closed the public hearing at 7:07 P.M., as there was no public input. MOTION by Carbano/Barrett I make a motion to approve the conditional use permit for a model home at 1741 Barber Street. Roll call: Mr. Mahoney - yes Mr. Barrett - yes Ms. Carbano - yes Mr. Smith - yes Ms. Monier(a) - yes Mr. Svatik(a) ~ yes Chmn. Mather - yes The vote was 7 - 0. Motion carried. B. Accessory Structure Reviews - Section 54-2-7.5: 1. 323 Valencia Street - C, Gaal - 12' X 20' Canopy Tarp 2. 325 Valencia Street - C. Gaal, Jr. - 12' X 20' Canopy Tarp Because of the subject property, both of these items will be discussed jointly. Mr. C. Gaal was present and gave a presentation. Jan King gave staff presentation, noting that staff has a dilemma with these canopy tarps, noting that historically, the Building Department has required a building permit and set,back requirements must be met for these structures, She commented that these are the first ones to come before this Commission, because of the size, 240 square feet. She referred to the staff report and pointed out issues that were questionable. She asked for direction from the Commission, Ms. Monier(a) noted that these structures are already up and in place, there is one at 323, and two at 325, She also noted that with two on one property, it would exceed the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 maximum coverage allowed. Mr. Gall commented that they will be moving one of the canopy tarps to the center of the property. He then commented that if he were to build a carport, which is allowable, it would take up more square footage than this canopy tarp. He gave further information on the tie-downs, etc. Lisanne suggested that Mr. Gall remove the tarps if and when a storm comes through, since her extensive experience with these types of structures gives her a good deal of knowledge of the problems that can occur, and she noted that they are very temporary. There was discussion on the lack of code regulations for this specific type of structure and Tracy noted that staff would like guidance from this Commission since this structure does not satisfy the Accessory Structure regulations in Article VII. He asked if these canopies should be permitted, or should regulations be implemented to provide guidelines. Smaller ones have already been erected around the City, but the large size on the subject canopies caused them to be brought before this Commission. There was the suggestion that the canopy is a temporary structure, There was a brief debate about whether the canopy is a structure or a tent, and Tracy responded that it is a structure. Chmn, Mather explained the dilemma that the Commission has to maintain quality aesthetics around the City to protect property values, as opposed to the number of canopy tarps and similar aluminum structures that are already in place. He indicated that a new section of the code needs to be written with clear guidelines. He also commented that he could not perceive these canopies as permanent structures, Mr. Smith suggested a new category may be needed. Mr, Barrett asked Mr, Gaal what his insurance company says about the liability factor of this type of structure within the confines of his property. Mr. Gaal responded that because his home is paid for, he does not carry any insurance, but he commented that he might be held personally responsible if it would come apart and cause damage, which is why he has secured it so well. After more discussion, Chmn. Mather summarized by noting that they are not allowed as an accessory structure, so they would have to be categorized as a temporary structure. Tracy explained how a "use" is required before a temporary structure is permitted, and only for forty-five (45) days. Without the "use", it would not be allowed. Chmn. Mather suggested that the bottom line is - will these structures be permitted in the community or not. Everyone agreed that this is the main question. More discussion took place indicating that these structures were never designed to be permanent, but temporary. Mr. Mahoney suggested allowing those that are already erected, but prohibiting any more from being installed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 Tracy suggested that a stipulation might be made requiring the canopies to be placed only in the rear yard, out of view from the public view, since they are economical and readily available, He suggested approving these two tonight, but getting guidelines drawn up for the future. Mr. Gaal noted that he and his family plan to do some landscaping around theirs to help it to blend and look nice. Chmn. Mather indicated that these two will probably be approved tonight, but staff should develop written procedures before any more should be considered. MOTION by Smith/Svatik(a) I make a motion to approve the 12' x 20' foot canopy at 323 Valencia Street. Roll call: Mr, Svatik(a) - yes Mr. Barrett - no Mr. Smith - yes Mr, Mahoney - yes Ms, Monier(a) - no Ms. Carbano - no Chmn, Mather - yes The vote was 4 - 3. Motion carried, MOTION by Smith/Svatik(a) I make a motion that we make an approval for the 12' X 20' canopy at 325 Valencia Street. Roll call: Mr. Mahoney - yes Mr, Barrett - no Mr. Svatik(a) - yes Mr. Smith - yes Ms. Monier(a) - no Ms. Carbano - no Chmn, Mather - yes The vote was 4 - 3. Motion carried, C. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Site Plan Review - Atlantic Coast Communication Tower - SW corner of Park Place Mr. Mark Ciarfella, 1201 U,S, #1, Suite 230, North Palm Beach, Florida was present, and was sworn in by the Chairman at 7:51 PM. There were no ex parte communications reported by Commission members. Mr. Ciarfella gave a presentation about the :permanent structure of the 175 ft, tall communications tower, which is identical to the tower behind the Sebastian Police Station. He noted that it is designed for multiple wireless service providers to provide proliferation. 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 Tracy Hass gave staff presentation noting all the comparisons to the present tower near the Police Station, and noted information about landscaping on the site. He noted the proximity to Park Place and sufficient buffering for surrounding properties. He then indicated staff approval with the condition listed in the staff report. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:55 PM. There were no proponents, Joan Turner, 3315 E. Derry Drive, Sebastian spoke as an owner of Park Place and had some concerns and wanted more information. She indicated that she was not aware that anyone was notified about this project since she was not notified, Tracy Hass noted that the Turners are new owners of Park Place, and he had no information about the their lack of information. The list of surrounding property owners who were notified was produced and the Villages of Lake Dolores was sent a notice. Mr. Ciarfella noted that they have a properly recorded lease with The Villages of Lake Dolores, Inc. Mrs. Turner noted that they own the community of Park Place and hope to develop the remainder of the community, Tracy clarified that the Tower site is part of the PUD but not part of the subdivision itself. The Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:02 PM. Mr. Barrett inquired about this being a purely speculative tower. Mr. Ciarfella explained that they are in negotiations with two (2) tenants at this time with a high confidence level that both of them will be tenants, Mr, Barrett then inquired about the danger to pilots at the airport. Mr, Ciarfella responded that Sebastian code is restrictive in respect to placement, and this tower will handle multiple tenants, He also noted that it is registered with the FCC and is in accordance with all Federal and local regulations. Mr. Svatik(a) inquired about technical information about the type of technolOgy and Mr. Ciarfella responded, Mr, Svatik(a) then asked what section of the code applies to this tower. Tracy responded that they are grouped under public utilities with no detailed guidelines. The subject of aesthetics in a mobile home community was touched upon, Chmn. Mather commented that there is no violation of our code, and Tracy repeated that there are no specifications in our code at present for telecommunications towers, Chmn, Mather suggested that this subject should be addressed in the future and Tracy agreed wholeheartedly. Tracy commented on previous research that was done by City Attorney Rich Stringer. Mr. Svatik(a) commented that a canopy tarp is frowned upon but a 175 ft, tower meets code, Mr, Mahoney inquired about the 8 ft. chain link fence with barbed wire on the top. He noted that in a residential area only 6 ft. fences are allowed. Tracy noted that he was anxious to discuss this issue because this type fence is needed to prevent trespassers PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 around this type of tower. He noted that code requirements for barbed wire would have to be followed, In summary, TracY indicated that staff recommends approval with the condition that is listed in the staff report, and a second cOndition that the applicant be permitted to install the 8 ft. chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire at the top, Chmn. Mather called for a motion. MOTION by Chmn. Mather/Monier(a) The Chair will make a motion that they approve the tower at the 64th Avenue Park Place Mobile Home Park with the two (2) conditions that staff recommended. Roll call: Mr. Mahoney - yes Mr. Barrett - no Ms. Carbano - no Mr. Smith - no Mr. Svatik(a) - no Chmn, Mather - yes Ms, Monier(a) - no The vote was 2 - 5. Motion fails. Tracy reminded the Commission to list a reason for denial in the event of a challenge. The Chairman did not see any reason why it would not meet code and commented that it would be the responsibility of the remaining members to come up with a reason why it wouldn't meet code, Tracy reminded them that it must be a justifiable reason, Mr. Barrett cited aesthetics. Ms. Carbano cited aesthetics. Mr. Svatik(a) cited that it doesn't meet the intent of the utility as described in this document (LDC) because telecommunication towers are not mentioned, therefore we can't say that it goes in there. Tracy reminded him that the LDC states "communications", and also that three other antennas have been approved in the City under the same code, and all of a sudden it is being changed. Jan King pointed out that in the language and definition section of the LDC, Chapter XX, page 36, "Utilities public and private, Use of land which is customary and necessary to the maintenance and operation of essential public services, such as electricity and gas transmission systems; water distribution, collection and disposal; communication; and similar services and facilities." She noted that this section is what staff has based their findings on. Mr. Svatik(a) commented that this tower is not servicing this area, and suggested that it is for beachside and way up ....... Mr. Ciarfella responded that this tower, at 175 ft., is not intended to cover beachside, and alluded to Mr. Svatik's qualifications. He indicated that this tower is intended to service the geographic area where it is located, and used as an example a flashlight pointing downward. He feels very strongly that he has satisfied the code, noting that the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 professional staff has recommended approval according to code, and noted the three other facilities in Sebastian, and asked how this one is any different. He commented that he has satisfied the PUD regulations, the setbacks, the public or private utility. Mr. Barrett question the phrase "essential public use". Mr. Ciarfeila noted numbers of users nationwide, and reasons for use including emergencies of all kinds, He opined that they are absolutely essential. Ms. Monier asked if the other three towers are on residential lots. Tracy responded that most were constructed in residential districts which were then rezoned to Public Service. She noted that she does not want to see many, many towers all over town, but seems to want them controlled. Tracy indicated that a telecommunication ordinance needs to be formulated for specific guidelines in the event any other facility is submitted. This ordinance would cover location, size, architectural features, and other necessary elements. At present, the other facilities are reviewed with what is in the present code. Mr. Svatik(a) supplied technical information on present and future facilities of which he is involved in designing, Mr. Ciarfella commented that he cannot put a tower in a residential zoning district in Sebastian because of the codes, Mr, Svatik(a) commented that he does not consider this facility as essential. Mr. Mahoney asked what the County's position is on these facilities. Tracy responded that he thought they were working on a telecommunication ordinance, but does not know where they stand on it at this time. He has not received any official notice on it. Mr. Ciarfella apologized if he was out of order, and commented that if the Commission doesn't like the ordinance that they have, not only fix it, but he would even help in this, but his company submitted their plans under the present code, and in fairness, he would not like his company held hostage. He believes he satisfies the code, Chmn, Mather noted that at present, this site plan could be appealed to City Council. He also noted that the rationale of each negative voting member would be forwarded to Council for the appeal. Tracy noted that he always has to put aside his personal feelings in these matters, and rate only by the code, A tower that he sees every evening from his home was rated under the guidelines as they stand today. That is why he forwarded a recommendation of approval and added the conditions. He noted that Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. has provided the necessary exemption forms from FAA - FAR. He also spoke of restrictions that need to be drawn up for future applications. He recommended approving this one tonight, then working diligently on new regulations, Mr, Smith asked when the new standards could be expected to be completed. Tracy responded that immediately - within the next few days he can get together with the City Attorney and get working on this project. Mr. Smith then indicated that he would like PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 to changed his vote to a "yes" vote. Chmn. Mather noted that the entire matter must be brought back by the entire Board. MOTION by Smith/Monier I make a motion to reconsider the previous motion to approve the site plan for the installation and construction of the communication tower at 64th Avenue (Park Place Mobile Home Park) including the two (2) conditions in the staff report. Roll call: Mr. Mahoney - yes Mr. Barrett - yes Mr. Svatik(a) - yes Mr. Smith - yes Ms. Monier(a) - yes Ms. Carbano - yes Chmn. Mather - yes The vote was 7 -0, Motion carried. MOTION by SmithlMonier(a) I make a motion to approve the site plan for the installation and construction of a communications tower at 64th Avenue, Atlantic Coast Communications Tower location in Park Place PUD, including the two (2) conditions in the staff report. Discussion: Mr. Mahoney commented that he lives near Florida Power and Light main tower and he doesn't even notice them anymore. Roll call: Mr, Mahoney ~ yes Mr, Barrett - yes Ms. Carbano - yes Mr. Smith - yes Ms, Monier(a) - yes Mr. Svatik(a) - no Chmn. Mather - yes The vote was 6 - 1. Motion carried, Recommendation to City Council - Land Development Code Text Amendment - Section 54-2-5.2.4 - Dimensional Regulations for Townhouses Tracy gave staff presentation on developing regulations to govern townhouses since his department has been approached by several interested parties. He noted that the only townhouse community in Sebastian is River Oaks, and there are no records on how the site plan was reviewed, By reviewing some regulations from nearby communities, the proposed guidelines for construction and sale are presented to the Commission tonight for their input. He noted that under present codes, a new multi-family facility of townhouses built in Sebastian could not be sold as individual units. He commented that this proposal would allow the creation of a condominium or common ownership organization association and it would be responsible for all of the development and maintenance of the common open areas. He indicated that the first portion is very PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 similar to the current RM-8 zoning district for multi-family zoning, and the proposals on the last few pages are new, some from RM-8 and some from townhouse regulations from Satellite Beach, FL. Mr. Barrett commented on the minimum square footage of 600 sq. ft. Tracy responded that only the minimum square footage for single-family homes had been increased. Mr. Svatik(a) brought up the quality factor. Tracy responded with information about "affordable housing" and the need for this element in Sebastian to comply with Federal guidelines. He noted that architectural features and aesthetics can be influenced by this Commission, but a variation of sizes needs to be made available. Mr. Mahoney asked if there was a pressing need for townhouses in Sebastian at this time or is this decision to satisfy developers. Tracy responded that by implementing specific regulations, it will avoid a site plan having to be qualified under codes that do not fit the use. Mr. Mahoney suggested telling developers that they just can't build them here. Tracy responded that he couldn't do that, and the site plan would be grouped under the present multi-family zoning category. Mr. Mahoney responded that his (Tracy's) job is to tell the developer "no, you can't build it here. Period." Tracy responded that he couldn't do that. Mr. Mahoney asked why he couldn't? Tracy responded that it would then be grouped under the multi-family zoning category, and he would have to permit that. He said that he cannot just arbitrarily deny Something because there aren't specific guidelines because it is not a prohibition within oUr code, it's an actual lack of regulation within the code. Mr. Mahoney responded that his feeling is that if a developer can't make enough money building eight units per acre, he should go someplace else. Tracy responded that that has nothing to do with it - this is eight units per acre as well. Mr. Mahoney responded that this text is allowing more impervious surface, less open space than you would have in a trailer park, and this is going to be thirty-five (35) feet high. Tracy responded that this is no different from the existing RM-8 zoning regulations. Mr. Mahoney replied that yes, it is. He indicated this proposal is allowing a five (5) feet interior displacement between buildings on the interior. Tracy responded that he may disagree, but this is something that, before long, we're going to see someone submitting an application, and we're going to have to have regulations in place to guide us when reviewing these. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 Mr. Mahoney: Well, if the Board will indulge me, I'd like to give a little history of River Oaks and how that came to be. They submitted a plan back in '81 or '82 where.we didn't have a Growth Management to act, we didn't have Land Development Code. What we had essentially were four or five sheets with parking and landscaping on it. The rest was "submit a sketch and maybe we'll approve it". We turned them down. They came back again, sat there in the front row with their wives, holding little babies and they were pleading with us, 'please approve this, we're going to lose our funding, we won't be able to build it, and we're going to be ruined financially'. We were more naNe back then, we said okay, go ahead, and then they took the land across from Indian River Drive and used that to compute their open space. If you looked at the GMC(LDC), you'll see there's a provision in there, non-residential land may not be used in computing residential density, and that's the reason it was put in the code, specifically for River Oaks. About the same time we were talking about putting in an asphalt batching plant on U.S. #1. And there was such a public uproar that they had to pull that. And I suppose if they had the Sebastian plant in there we'd be saying, 'well, we've got one, we've gotta have more, we just gotta allow them'. I mean, just the fact that some developer wants to put in townhouses doesn't mean that this city has to roll over and let them do it. Tracy responded that that is not the case. Ann Brack, the secretary asked to speak on this item, and none of the Board members had any objection. She spoke for older residents and single residents of Sebastian who don't want a single family home anymore because of expense in both money and physical labor. She indicated that there is very little alternative available in Sebastian between a single family home, and Grace's Landing that has a long waiting list and strict income criteria to meet. She repeated that there is not much in the middle for residents who already live here. She noted the height limitation that will control tall apartment buildings, and the fact that there is very little difference between a condo and a townhouse. A townhouse provides another choice for people that choose to live in them rather than in a single family dwelling. Several Board members commented agreement, and Mr. Mahoney indicated that he could, accept Ann's extraordinary advocacy, but he still opposed it and didn't see: any reason for it (townhouses). Mr. Mahoney commented that if you look at the provisions in here, you're talking about 'shall not exceed eight units per primary building', and asked what is that secondary building. You're going to have more than eight units per acre, you're going to have a secondary building. Tracy responded that no, each building will be a primary building, each building that is separate from another building becomes a primary building. Mr. Mahoney commented that he doesn't think it is very trustworthy language, to be honest. He doesn't trust this 'eight unit per primary building & structure'. l0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 Tracy responded that Commission members might want to make recommendations for changes, that's what this process is all about, Mr, Mahoney commented that maximum building coverage is 40%; maximum impervious surface goes from 50% to 60%, from RM-8; minimum open space goes from 55% to 40%, from RM-8; now we're whittling it down all the time, We're saying 'let's have more open space', but we're going back to 12 units per acre, which we took out of the code, Tracy responded that staff js trying to provide regulations with flexibility within the code, trying to be pro-active here. Tonight he said he will take full blame for not having a telecommunication ordinance and falling into this situation that we did tonight, At the same time, staff is trying to be pro-active and provide regulations for something that they foresee happening in the future, before it happens, so that they can have the guidelines and can review these properly. He commented that if you don't agree with them, please give him recommendations so that he can make changes. Mr. Mahoney responded that maybe he shouldn't have them. His feelings are, why should it happen? Why do we have to turn it into a Ft, Lauderdale because some developers want to build? Tracy responded that this will be just like earlier - if someone were to come in today with a townhouse development, he would have to review that under the RM-8 zoning regulations. Mr. Mahoney asked if he would allow a five foot spacing between the walls? I mean on the interior of the property, side and interior between buildings, 5 feet? That's an interior separation, $ feet? Tracy responded that this a diversity, this is something different, we have specific guidelines for each zoning district, This is a different zoning, so we're allowing different zoning regulations. Mr, Mahoney responded that when you're talking about RM-8, you're talking about CommerCial General, your talking about Limited Commercial which, essentially, we do not have now, but there's Commercial General all the way up U,S. #1 and we can see these rabbit warrens being built all along U,S. #1. It just doesn't comport with our community and he always felt that we were a community apart, that we didn't have to follow what other communities do and wind up with the air pollution and the traffic congestion and everything else, he thought we could say 'hey, let's be different'. Tracy responded that we are different, but we are in need of this type of housing. As a renter for the period of time that he has been here, he saw that there is a lack of units such as this, that many people especially his age, would love to have, and there are more and more young families moving to this community who would benefit from this type of housing and it's going to happen. What he is trying to do is to provide some regulations so there is a guide when reviewing these. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 Many voices speaking at once. Chmn. Mather noted that what Bill is saying is these regulations aren't as strict as the other regulations. Mr. Mahoney commented "absolutely". Tracy replied that it's a different type of use. Chmn. Mather commented that he understands. The question really is the justification for why we are relaxing requirements for open space. Tracy responded that typically, as any townhouse or condominium association development, these are the types of regulations that you have in place. You don't have your typical multi-family guidelines, but you have buildings that are closer together, you have common open space that's usually at the rear or the front, not between buildings. That's kind of what we are looking at here. We are still going to have the open space, it's just going to be separated from the building in the rear or the front as opposed to being between them. We are not going to try to allow an industrial type development where you're going to see 50 to 70% building coverage on a lot. Chmn. Mather commented that the question is - townhouses, he agrees, we need to have regulations to regulate them, but he thinks the question really is - we have 55% minimum open space in RM-8, and we've got 40% with townhouses, if they have their space in the front and back, why shouldn't they also have 50% as opposed to 40%. Tracy responded that townhouses and condominiums are a more intensive use of property, typically, and that,s why these guidelines are written with less open space and greater building coverage. If the Commission doesn't like that, tell him how they want it changed. He noted that the reason he presents zoning text to this commission is for their recommendation4 If they don't agree with staff's recommendations, they give their recommendations and he makes the appropriate changes and takes it to City Council. Chmn. Mather commented that the only question he really has is why should we keep the open space, because he thinks the open space is what makes the community and he thinks we should go back to the open space. He has no problem with the rest of it. Tracy responded that if that's the way the commission feels, he'll change that figure. Mr. Smith commented that he agrees completely with Bill on this. He lived in a townhouse condominium unit and had plenty of property front, rear and sides, with five units joined together, and had plenty of space - 30 feet between each group of buildings. They were very, very nice, and he doesn't see why we couldn't adhere to something like that and still accomplish what staff wants, and noted there is a definite need for here. But he doesn't approve of the five foot. He commented that it is ludicrous, and agreed completely with Bill Mahoney. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 Tracy responded that he can certainly agree with that, and basically what he brought here tonight is just from his survey of other communities' codes. He indicated it Wasn't just something that he threw out of his head. He noted that we don't have to do what somebody else does, this is just a guideline that he used to follow to present to the CommiSsion this evening. If members agree that they want to go to 10 feet between buildings, then that's what we'll do. Mr. Mahoney gave calculations from RM-8 that would give 15 feet between buildings in this instance. Chmn. Mather summarized by saying that the Commission would like to see 15 feet between buildings and 55 feet(%) for open space. Ms. Monier gave an opinion based on her experience, and recommended individual language for townhouses, condos, and row-houses, and agrees with the aesthetics. She also recommended more open space in order to keep the units per acre affordable. She also spoke of these types of units in the Riverfront District. Mr. Barrett posed a question on possible conflict with the Riverfront Overlay District regulations if the height of these subject units were restricted to 25 ft. east of U.S. #1 and 35 ft. west of U.S. #1. Tracy responded that height regulations are established by the LDC, not the overlay district regulations, so, no, it would not be in conflict. There was discussion that the height could be set in the townhouse/condo regulations that would be different from other structure heights in the City, but Tracy noted that he would have to check on the legality of this. Mr. Barrett suggested that this Code Amendment should probably be held till the legalities are checked for discrimination and conflict. The issues of height, building distances, impervious areas seem to be the issues of controversy. There was also a discussion on the requirement of a garage and/or carport. Mr. Mahoney again voiced his opposition to this type of housing and did not agree that it is needed. Tracy furnished information that showed that Sebastian does not have its share of affordable housing. Ms. Monier was not in favor of a garage or carport on the front or back, from an aesthetic standpoint. Tracy responded that according to code, all single family and multi-family structures shall have a garage or carport. 13 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 MOTION by Mahoney I make a motion that we ~(?) it back to our administrators for some kind of emendations and reapplication to Planning and Zoning and see if they can make some corrections to it, some emendations, and then bring it back ,before US. Tracy noted that the Commission should tell him exactly what changes they want made. Chmn. Mather indicated page 2. - 55% (open space); page 3. - Yard side (between buildings) 15 feet; item 7. require carport or garage; Tracy will check on 25 ft. height east of U,S. #1 and 35 ft. height west of U.S. #1, Mr, Mahoney asked for his motion to be read back and the secretary responded that she could not hear most of the motion and would rely on the tape recording for the wording. MOTION by Mahoney/Smith I would make a motion that we return it to staff for further emendations with the modifications on the interior separation of buildings and other changes as noted. Discussion: Tracy suggested that instead of sending it back to staff, he would prefer to have it sent to Council with the suggested modifications. Chmn, Mather indicated that the Commission could do that, but staff has also been asked to check the modification on the 35 ft, to 25 ft. Tracy responded that this change will be made accordingly and approved with the City Attorney. Mr. Barrett also commented that it can be contained in the above motion at a U.S. #1 split between 25 ft. and 35 ft. height, and if the City Attorney says it cannot be done in that manner, it can be changed back to the Indian River Drive split and sent to Council. Mr, Mahoney again noted that the maximum building coverage, maximum impervious surface, and minimum open space should be the same as RM-8, This was already noted. Tracy summed it up by saying that the Commission wants the majority of RM-8 as far as the development guidelines, with special regulations implemented for the condO associations. Mr. Mahoney also commented that the interior separation should be the same as in RM- 8, and if the developers can't make money with RM-8, let them go down to Ft, Lauderdale. Chmn. Mather commented that Tracy is right, that guidelines are needed for townhouses and need to be in place before the first request comes in. At this point, Mr. Smith withdrew his second on the motion, and Mr. Mahoney withdrew his motion. 14 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 MOTION by Barrett (as stated by Chmn, Mather)/Smith I recommend to City Council that we go with staffs recommendation with the following changes: minimum of open space to 55%, the interior separation to be 15 ft, that it be reviewed for the maximum height of 25 ft. east of U,S. #1 and 35 ft. west of U.S. #1, to be reviewed by the Attorney, Mr. Mahoney asked that the motion be read back and it was done. Roll call: Mr. Mahoney - yes Mr, Barrett - yes Mr, Svatik(a) - yes Mr. Smith - yes Ms, Monier(a) - yes Ms. Carbano - yes Chmn. Mather - yes The vote was 7 - 0. Motion Carried, CHAIRI~,,AN MATTERS: None MEMBE, R$ MATTERS: Mr. Mahoney inquired about the Red Garlic Bistro and the parking on the east side of Indian River Drive. He likened this situation to the parking situation that existed for the air boat business, with no handicap parking, no wheel stops, and not an approved surface. Tracy responded that he was notified of this site, DEP was also notified and requires stabilization. He noted that parking was approved for the previous business, Taste of Philly, but was never improved, and was used for employee parking, Mr, Mahoney disputed the previous parking approval, and Tracy responded that some issues would be Code Enforcement, but his Department is dealing with it currently. Mr, Mahoney asked if a stop work order could be issued, Ms. Carbano inquired about the activity at the Charter School with the concrete trucks. Tracy described the permitted work being done. plRECTOR MATTERS: None ATTORNEY MATTERS: Not present. Chmn. Mather adjourned the meeting at 9:17 P.M, (9/26/01 AB)