Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11152001 PZ / / _ CHAIRMAN ', CI~OF SEBASTIAN APF2-~OVED ~-~,~,'r ....... PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2001 Acting Chairwoman Vesia called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was said, ~ PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: VC Vesia Mr, Mahoney Ms. Carbano Ms, Monier(a) Ms. Reichert(a) Mr. Barrett Mr, Smith Mr. Rauth Mr. Svatik, Jr. Jan King, Growth Management Manager Ann Brack, Recording Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS: APP,RQ,VA,L OF MINUTE~; MOTION by BarrettJCarbano None 11/1/01 I recommend approval of the minutes of November 1st. A voice vote was taken. 7 - 0, motion carried. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW ,B,,,iJ~,,I,NESS,: A. Accessory Structure Review - Section 54-2-7.5 - 1265 George Street - William Bertram. 25' X 36' Metal Garage Mr. William Bertram, 1265 George Street, Sebastian, was present and gave a brief presentation including photographs of his car collection and of his property. He noted that the trees growing around the edge of his property are mostly Brazilian Pepper trees. He also indicated that he has applied for a Unity of Title but has not yet received it. Jan King gave staff presentation noting the absence of a planned driveway and culvert for the swale, and recommended that Mr. Bertram consult with the Engineering Department. There were issues about the removal of any trees on this property and it was noted that he needed to apply for a permit. Height and color were discussed. Ms. Reichert noted concern of possible waterway contamination while doing maintenance on these antique vehicles in that location. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2001 Mr, Barrett asked if an official signed and sealed survey is on file in the Building Department. Jan King indicated that this will be verified. Mr. Barrett also opined that a driveway will probably be required by Engineering. He indicated also that the Unity of Title must be approved and on hand before the accessory structure could be approved. Jean Carbano questioned the lack of electrical power on the plans. Mr, Svatik pointed out the additional square feet of storage space that could be permitted on this property, in addition to the one being applied for. There was much discussion about the code that covers accessory structures and the intent that these structures closely resemble the primary residence on the property. Mr, Mahoney commented that this subject structure looks like a quasi-quonset structure and is almost the size of a small house, Ms. Monier indicated that this accessory storage structure runs closer to a commercial facility because of its size and does not belong in a residential community, She also noted that the pepper trees will probably be removed at some time. Jan King noted that the size of the structure would meet the code if used as a garage. Mr. Rauth asked if T-111 would be acceptable under the code, and a comparison was made to Mr, Bertram's primary structure (home) fa(;ade, which is stucco over frame, The pitch of the roofs were also compared, Acting Chmn, Vesia noted that the restrictions are written in the Code, and it is up to this Commission to abide by it or not. The issues of aesthetics and looks were discussed. MOTION by Svatik/Rauth I make a motion to disapprove it based on it does not exhibit the harmonious overall design with the structure that's part of that property, basically the house, I could find nothing but discord. Discussion: Mr. Svatik clarified that Mr. Bertram should be allowed to have a structure for the storage of his cars, but the design he has picked is not harmonious with the overall design of his existing house on that property, Roll call: VC Vesia - yes Mr. Mahoney - yes Mr. Barrett - yes Mr, Svatik - yes Mr. Smith - yes Ms. Carbano - yes Mr, Rauth - yes The vote was 7 - 0. Motion carried, Mr, Bertram asked the following question: If he proposes to place an accessory structure exactly like the one approved on Seahouse Street, would this Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2001 approve it? The general response was that Board members are different now, and a decision is not available tonight. Ms. Monier suggested that there are other Companies who offer prefab structures that are shingle roofed, and have a better appearance in the material used, for approximately the same price, if the applicant would take the time to investigate these sources. Mr. Svatik noted that the garage doors are not an issue, but the corrugated metal surface of the building is the issue. He suggested that Mr. Bertram look at his house, then look at that metal building and explain how they are compatible. Mr. Bertram commented that he hated to see that the Commission picked him to all of a sudden institute a different policy in the City because the Commission has allowed them all over, carports or whatever. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: None MEMBERS MA'FI'ERS: Mr. Barrett commented that it is unfortunate that Attorney Stringer is not present tonight. He then spoke about the telecommunications tower issue that will be coming back before this Commission in the near future and gave a report of the meeting that was held by the County in Vero on this issue. He commented that Sebastian needs to get serious about this issue rather quickly, and will suggest to Atty. Stringer that a workshop be held, as well as dealing with the accessory structures. He further noted the importance of knowing the basis of the lawsuit by Nextel, what the denial was based on by Indian River County, then, what was the court's basis for overturning it and allowing Nextel to go ahead with the tower. He suggested that this information is necessary to deal with writing an ordinance for the City of Sebastian. He suggested that Sebastian needs to be in concert with what Indian River County and the City of Vero Beach does. He also suggested that this could be an income maker for the City if the towers were installed on City owned property and rented to the users. Mr. Rauth asked what the steps are to bring an issue to workshop. He noted the difficult decision that was made tonight, and noted this Board's responsibility to make it clear to the residents what is and what isn't acceptable. Jan King responded that this Commission can call a workshop when it wants to, and staff needs to know what the Commission expects of them and what materials are needed for back-up. She noted the survey that was done on the canopy structures. Mr. Barrett commented that with the coming holidays, it will be tough to put something together, but he suggested that a date be selected in mid-January for a workshop on accessory structures. There was discussion that the County moratorium will expire in January 2002, but it was noted that it is being extended. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2001 MOTION by Barrett/Carbano I would propose to recommend to City Council a moratorium on accessory structures in excess of 200 square feet, until at least the end of March, 2002, due to needed clarification by the Commission through workshop processes, which are scheduled to begin January 10, 2002, Roll call: VC Vesia - yes Mr. Barrett - yes Mr. Mahoney - yes Mr. Smith - yes Ms. Carbano - yes Mr. Svatik - yes Mr. Rauth - yes The vote was 7 - I). Motion approved, Mr, Smith asked if it was possible to delay applications without going through all this until the workshop is accomplished and we can go to City Council. Mr, Rauth commented that he felt that this is the quickest and most direct method to resolve this matter the right way. The Secretary reminded the members that staff is to be unbiased in every way. Jan King noted that the Building Department has only a short amount of time before they must process any building application. MOTION by Barrett/Smith I'd like to recommend to City Council that we institute a moratorium on communication towers for a minimum of six (6) months to allow the City Staff, Planning and Zoning, and Attorney to develop a defensible ordinance to deal with the regulations to control further development of communication towers within the City, AMMENDMENT by Svatik/Barrett I'd like to add - when that is commensurate or compatible with the County plan, which is not yet completed. Roll call on Amendment: VC Vesia - yes Mr, Barrett - yes Mr. Mahoney - yes Mr, Smith - yes Ms. Carbano - yes Mr. Rauth - yes Mr. Svatik, Jr. - yes The vote was 7 - 0. Motion carried. 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2001 Roll call on the Motion: Mr. Barrett - yes Mr. Smith - yes Ms. Carbano - yes Mr. Rauth - yes The vote was 7 - O. Motion carried. VC Vesia - yes Mr. Mahoney - yes Mr, Svatik, Jr, -yes Mr. Svatik, Jr. referred to a copy of a letter from attorneys Dill & Evans in reference to the Villages of Lake Dolores (PUD) application for a conceptual development plan amendment and asked how a moratorium might affect this process and the application for a communication tower already on file for reconsideration, This issue was discussed. The meaning of the term "abate" was discussed, Mr, Rauth suggested that when the issues under the above motions are to be discussed by City Council, it would be important that P & Z Commission members be present to support their views and express the seriousness of these issues. Acting Chairwoman Vesia adjourned the meeting at 8:15 P.M. (11/19/01 AB)