Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2018 PZ MinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2018 05 I . Call to Order -- Chairperson Kautenburg called the meeting to order at 6: 2. Pledoe of Allegiance was recited by all. C W as 3. Roll Call E Present: Mr. Roth Mr. Mauti (a) a E Mr. Simmons (a) Mr. Qizilbash C Ms. Kautenburg Mr. Hughan 07 U Mr. Carter Mr. Alvarez Mr. Reyes C Also Present: Mr. James Stokes, City Attorney 0 a Ms. Dom Bosworth, Planner IN ¢ . Ms. Janet Graham, Technical Writer Ms. Dale Simchick, Indian River County School Board, was not present. 4. Announcements and/orAaenda Modifications Ms. Kautenburg stated that, since there is a full quorum, alternate members Messrs Simmons and Mauti, will be commenting but not voting this evening. Ms. Bosworth stated she would like to change the Agenda to read approval of the Minutes of 2018 and not 20188. 5. ADDroval of Minutes A. Regular Meeting of October 4, 2018 Ms. Kautenburg asked for any additions or corrections to the Minutes as presented. Ms. Bosworth noted that the header on the Minutes from October 4, 2018 reads July 19, 2018, and it should read October 4, 2018. She stated Ms. Kautenburg does have the corrected Minutes for her signature. Ms. Kautenburg asked for a motion to accept the Minutes. A motion to accept the Minutes with the corrections as stated was made by Mr. Carter, seconded by Mr. Hughan, and approved unanimously by voice vote. 6. Quasi -Judicial and Public Hearinas A. Public Hearing — Recommendation to City Council — Land Development Code Amendment — Ordinance 0-18-10 — Amending Article VII, General E in PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2018 Regulations — Section 54-2-7.7 Walls and Fences Mr. Stokes read the Ordinance title, being a recommendation to City Council. This is the first public hearing for an amendment to the Land Development Code, Ordinance 0-18- 10, an Ordinance of the City of Sebastian, Florida, amending Land Development Code Section 54-2-7.7 regarding walls and fences, providing for severability and repeal of laws in conflict, providing for codification, providing for scriveners' errors, and providing for an effective date. Ms. Kautenburg asked If any member of the Committee had had any ex parts communication with any party. Hearing none, she asked for staff presentation. Mr. Stokes stated that since the hearing is not a quasi-judicial hearing there would be no need for swearing in of witnesses/speakers. Ms. Bosworth identified this Ordinance as what was prepared after discussion at the Commission's last meeting. She drew the Commission's attention to the bullet list contained in the Memorandum she composed dated October 12, 2018. She stated that staff recommends presenting Ordinance 0-18-10 to City Council for their approval. Ms. Kautenburg opened the public hearing and asked for input or questions from the public regarding the Ordinance. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed. She then asked for questions or comments from the Commission. Mr. Simmons: • Regarding the temporary silt fences, he inquired about a situation where the construction was never completed. Ms. Bosworth described the silt fences are required for storm water runoff. Those are not the kind of fences that are being addressed here. The fences that she means are the chain -link fences and the like thatwould be erected for security purposes or erected around an area so the public could not access that area. In a situation where the fence was in place for an extended period and the project had not been completed, she is of the opinion that this would be a matter for the Building Department to address. Mr. Carter: • Questioned that under the proposed Amendment there is no specific limitation on the number of days a temporary fence can remain. Ms. Bosworth explained that a fence could not go up until a building permit is obtained, and then 10 days after a certificate of occupancy is issued the Ordinance would require that the fence be taken down. She stated that the permits can become null and void if a certain period goes by with no activity. In that case, she stated staff would look at it on a case -by -case basis. The City requires that after a certain period of time the site PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2018 • would have to be stabilized. Mr. Carter is of the opinion that temporary fences should be required to be removed after a definite period of time, but that staff should have the discretion to extend that time period if they felt it necessary. Ms. Bosworth is agreeable to defining a time period for what is considered temporary. She stated that staff is referring more to commercial construction rather than residential construction. • Is agreeable to a term of 180 days. Ms. Bosworth stated that in some circumstances, such as a change of ownership, the 180-day time limit may not be sufficient. Mr. Reyes: • If there is a site where there is a temporary fence and there is a safety concern or some hazard attached to the property, he would like to see the temporary fence retained as long as necessary to provide safety. Ms. Kautenburg: • Suggested that the word "temporary" be related to the cessation of construction. If there is no active construction on the site for a definite period, then the owner must secure the lot and remove the temporary fence. Mr. Cizilbash: • Is of the opinion that this subject should be under the Building Department's purview as far as the safety issue. He agrees with the 180-day time limit. Ms. Bosworth agreed that it should be under the purview of the Building Department. Mr. Mauti: • Described a situation where a party goes into bankruptcy before the construction is completed, and there is an unsafe condition present on the property. Mr. Roth: • Would like to see wording to the effect that, if there is no activity after a certain period of time, the Building Department would go back and reinspect the property and take the proper action. Ms. Bosworth stated she will work with staff and the building official and attempt to come up with a definite term for these fences. Ms. Kautenburg then opened the meeting for discussion by the Committee. Mr. Reyes: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2018 • Regarding the sentence that says the fences or walls should withstand the" forces of nature,' he asked for that to be more clearly defined. • Suggested on an 8-foot span of a 6-foot fence there be three 4 x 4s. Ms. Bosworth stated she inquired of the building official whether, if the 8-foot fences are allowed, the requirements for 4 X 4s be increased accordingly. • Regarding the required screens for garbage, refuse and recycle dumpsters, he asked if that includes residential recycle bins, and Ms. Bosworth stated no. • Requested clarification regarding fences within easements. Ms. Bosworth stated that she believes the Building Department has a process to appeal the decision of the City regarding fences within easements. • Asked for a definition of "good repair." Ms. Bosworth stated it is subjective, but if someone had a complaint about a fence, staff would refer that complaint to Code Enforcement. Mr. Roth: • Under the Appeals section, he inquired whether, since the appeal must be filed within 10 days of action by the Community Development Department, the appellants have to provide backup information at that time. Ms. Bosworth stated that the appellants do have to provide information on what specifically is being appealed and the reason for the appeal. She described that an appeal is a quasi- judicial hearing, and evidence is required to be presented at that time. Mr. Stokes stated that a citizen has the right to go to the Board of Adjustment if they feel a decision was not proper. • Regarding the height restrictions forfences on corner lots, he asked Ms. Bosworth to explain that subject once again. Ms. Bosworth explained that the front setback for non -comer lots is 25 feet, the side setbacks are 10, and the rear is 20. On a comer lot, there are considered to be two front yards. The setback for the secondary front yard in RS-10 is 20 feet, and any fencing in front of the secondary front yard setback towards the street,has to be reduced to a height of four feet. • Inquired why the last sentence in section (e) (3) "Maintenance" was removed. Ms. Bosworth explained that that sentence was just moved to the end of the paragraph above, being (e) (2). Ms. Kautenburg: • Prefers that the finished side of a fence always be on the exterior of the fence. Mr. Mauti: • Questioned, if residential property owners are not permitted to block the visibility triangle as defined by the City, how is it that the commercial businesses are permitted to build walls, etc. on comers where they block visibility. Ms. Bosworth explained that a lot of those walls, etc. are on the site plans which the Commission approves, and when the site plan is okayed, that includes the fence or wall. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2018 • Regarding the recorded affidavits for easements, do the property owners have to go to the utility companies, etc. to get approval. Ms. Bosworth stated no. Ms. Bosworth stated that they have already had one request for a variance for a 6-foot fence on a comer lot. City Council will discuss that variance at the Council meeting on November 28', which will also be the first reading of this new Ordinance. There being n0 further discussion on this matter, Ms. Kautenburg called for a motion. A motion was made by Mr. Carter, seconded by Mr. Alvarez to accept the proposed Land Development Code Amendment to Article VII -- General Regulations; specifically Section 54-2-7.7, Walls and Fences with the consideration of a 180-day limitation for temporary fencing. ROLL CALL: Mr. Hughan — Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes Mr. Qizilbash -- Yes Mr. Reyes -- Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Mr. Carter -- Yes Mr. Roth -- Yes Total Vote was 7-0. Motion carried. 7. Unfinished Business -- None 8. Public Inout — None. 9. New Business — None. 10. Commissioners Matters Mr. Reyes inquired about the status of the project on State Route 512 next to the library. Ms. Bosworth described that property as the Brooks Commercial Subdivision, a one -lot plat that came before this Commission in 2015. There were some delays, and the land - clearing permit was issued in October 2017. They have 18 months per the Code to come in with the final plat. The City plans to contact the developer and let him know that there is a finite time involved with continuing the project. Mr. Reyes stated that the site as it is presently appears quite unsafe. He also questioned if the culvert that has been put in for the Sebastian Boulevard driveway is a temporary culvert, and Ms. Bosworth stated yes. Mr. Reyes inquired as to the overall citywide stormwater situation. Ms. Bosworth stated that after the increase in the stormwater fee, stormwater is now going to be an independent department, and stormwater is a high priority of City Council. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2018 Mr. Reyes proposed having the Community Development Director attend one of the Commission's meetings and provide the Commission with some feedback regarding grants that might be available to aid in converting the City to a sewer system. Ms. Bosworth stated that Ms. Frazier is in current meetings with the County regarding utility systems and is investigating grants. Mr. Mauli addressed the number of vacant lots in Sebastian. According to the records he got from the County, there are over 2,600 vacant, buildable lots in Sebastian. He is of the opinion that, when the City looks at new subdivisions, it should be kept in mind how many vacant lots are already in the City. Ms. Kautenburg stated that many of those vacant lots are joined with adjoining lots with homes on them, and those vacant lots will not be built on because of unity of title. Ms. Bosworth updated the Commission regarding the Spirit of Sebastian subdivision that was annexed, stating the preliminary plat application has been received, and the review is proceeding. Mr. Mauti inquired regarding the short-term vacation rentals and when the packets for the renters will be ready. Ms. Bosworth stated staff is very close to having those packets ready, and they are also considering doing an advertisement in the newspaper. Those packets will be available in the Community Development Department. 11. City Attornev Matters -- None 12. Staff Matters -- None. 13. Adioum -- Ms. Kautenburg called for any further business. Hearing none, she adjourned the meeting at 6:59 p.m. jg