The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-01-2022 PZ MinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 Call to Order -- Chairman Alvarez called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all. III. Roll Call Present: Mr. Lucier Mr. Simmons Ms. Kautenburg Not Present: Mr. Carter — Excused Mr. Christino -- Excused Ms. Jordan — Unexcused Also Present IV Ms. Battles Ms. Kinchen Mr. Alvarez Ms. Dorri Bosworth, Community Development Manager Mr. Manny Anon, Jr., City Attorney Ms. Michelle Faulkner, Planner Ms. Barbara Brooke -Reese, MIS Manager Ms. Janet Graham, Technical Writer Announcements and Aaenda Modifications t'T C �. C ,O «Q C.9 N E F C0v v C a n rT N ¢ e Ms. Bosworth stated that there will be a meeting on September 15a. The agenda items Mill be a review of land use requests for two annexation requests. She estimated that staff will have packets completed for this meeting by next Tuesday or Wednesday so that the Committee members will have more time to review those prior to that September 15M meeting. They will be delivered to the Commission members' homes. ADDroval of Minutes -- Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2022 There being no changes or corrections voiced, Mr. Alvarez called for a motion. A motion approving the Minutes of August 11, 2022 as presented was made by Ms. Kautenburg, seconded by Ms. Kinchen, and approved unanimously via voice vote. a z 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 2 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 VI. Public Hearinas — None VII. Unfinished Business — None Vill. New Business A. Accessory Structure Review -- LDC Section 54-2-7.5 -- 702 Crystal Mist Avenue — 720 SF Detached Carport -- Mr. John Malerich Mr. Alvarez read the item into the record Ms. Bosworth stated that the resident is present, and he will give the Commission members an overview of what he is proposing. After that, staff will review the Staff Report. Mr. John Malerich, 702 Crystal Mist Avenue, Sebastian, FL stated he is proposing to put up a carport to house his boats. He has been working with Ms. Bosworth on this matter. On page 2 of the Staff Report, which he addressed. Under item d., he stated the height will be 11 feet maximum, which falls within the City's criteria. The height of the house is 18 feet. Ms. Bosworth asked Mr. Malerich if the 11 feet number was provided by the manufacturer. He stated that he himself looked at the plans and did some math. Ms. Bosworth stated that after staff had given Mr. Malerich the Staff Report, Mr. Malerich came into the City office and related that the walls would be 8 feet. Based on the pitch of the roof, staff is confident that the carport is not going to be higher than the house, which is 18 ft. Ms. Bosworth called attention to items c and d which section of the City's Code states that if the homeowner meets the four requirements, he actually is given an exemption of 10 feet of the rear setback. A normal rear setback is 20 feet in most of the zoning districts. If he meets those 4 requirements, he can have an extra 10 feet. What was shown in the Staff Report is that he does not meet those requirements, even without the height, which means he has to meet the regular setback of 20 feet, which he does. She stated that everything is in proper compliance in that section. Mr. Malerich brought up the color of the roof. He had one of the roof shingles with him and based on the colors that are provided by the company, he could not find anything that matched exactly. The sample that he presented is almost identical to the wall color of the house. His suggestion is, because lighter colors absorb less heat, that the whole thing is made the same color. Ms. Bosworth responded that if the structure is over 500 feet, which it is, there are two thresholds: 501 square feet to 750, on page 3 it states that it has to be very similar and compatible with the materials and colors of the house, and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 3 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 with anything over 750 square feet, it must match the house exactly. Mr. Malerich has a shingle roof on his house, and he is proposing a metal roof on the carport. It does appear that he is going to be very similar to the color, but the question is whether the shingle vs. metal is compatible enough. Ms. Kautenburg asked if the sides of the proposed structure will be metal as well and are going to be vertical. Mr. Malerich stated the rear of the proposed structure is going to be solid metal of a compatible color. He is planning to do the sides about halfway down for ventilation purposes. Ms. Bosworth stated that is the reason staff are leaving some of these decisions up to the Commissioners to review, because it does say that it is supposed to be compatible or similar. There will be corrugated metal on the sides. There have been some other carports similar to this in the past. They have matched the sides exactly to the house, and they have been approved. Ms. Kautenburg said she does not have an objection to the metal coming down halfway. Mr. Simmons asked if this structure is going to be constructed on what appears to be existing concrete. Mr. Malerich said there was an existing single -car concrete pad. He needs a double wide for this structure, so he added a square around it that is crushed shell. Ms. Kinchen asked if the structure will have a front door or is it going to be left open. Mr. Malerich said he is leaving the front open. Mr. Malerich stated the other issue that he wanted to bring up is the style. On the page after the survey, he pointed out what he described as a bow -front style. It is Ms. Bosworth's opinion that this looks like a Quonset hut. He does not think it looks like a Quonset hut. It has an interior framework and has all of the items that were put forth as to what he can have. He thinks his proposed structure looks better. Ms. Battles asked if his proposed structure would have the overhang. Mr. Malerich stated yes. Ms. Bosworth gave the explanation for why staff had told Mr. Malerich about it looking like a Quonset hut. She reiterated that the Code does say, "Attached or detached Quonset -type or -style accessory structures are prohibited:' She added that this question came before the Commission in 2016 to get the Commission's determination on what is considered Quonset -type or Quonset -style structures. Based on the discussion in 2016, following that staff had been informing the residents the one highlighted in yellow (SEE ATTACHED) was considered a Quonset type or style. Mr. Malerich stated that it is a matter of aesthetics —which looks better. There was discussion among Mr. Malerich and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PAGE 4 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 some of the Commission members and Ms. Bosworth regarding this question. Ms. Bosworth stated that staff recommends, based on the previous discussion, that the Commission recommends approval of the 720-square-foot carport with the metal roof being acceptable, but it must match the roof color that exists on the house, and that the Commission members approve the vertical panels coming down halfway on the carport and that they should match the color of the walls of the house. There being no further questions/comments, Mr. Alvarez called for a motion. A motion approving the accessory structure review with staff's recommendation was made by Ms. Battles and seconded by Mr. Simmons. Roll Call Ms. Kinchen — Yes Ms. Battles — Yes Ms. Kautenburg — Yes Vote was 6-0 in favor. Motion passes. IX. Adjourn Mr. Lucier — Yes Mr. Simmons — Yes Mr. Alvarez — Yes There being no further business, Chairman Alvarez adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. LM jg Date: