Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08152002CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 2002 Chairman Barrett called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: EXCUSED ABSENCE: UNEXCUSED ABSENCE: Mr. Faille (a) Mr. Mahoney Clwnn. Barrett ALSO PRESENT: VC Smith Mr. Rauth Mr. Svatik Ms. Monier and Mr. Blessing(a) Mrs. Reichert Tracy Hass, Growth Management Director Jan King, Growth Management Manager Rich Stringer, City Attorney Dorri Bosworth, Secretary/Zoning Technician ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chnm. Barrett announced that Mr. Blessing and Ms. Monier were excused, Mr. Faille(a) would be voting in their place. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (8/01/02) MOTION by Smitb2Svatik "I'11 make a motion that we accept the minutes of August 1, 2002." A voice vote was taken. 6- 0, minutes approved. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: [Chmn. Barrett noted there was a request to add an item to the agenda (a second Accessory Structure review) but neither the applicant nor representative was present.] A. Accessory Structure Review - Section 54-2-7.5 - 917 Indian River Drive - 24' X 24' detached garage - Capp Custom Builders The applicant, Mickey Capp, 989 Sebastian Boulevard, was present. He stated the new garage would not match the existing residence and it would be higher. However, he also explained that the construction o£the garage was the first phase ora total renovation of the property. The PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2002 garage was going to be built first so that it could be used for storage while the main house was being renovated, which would match the new detached garage, Key West style with metal roo£mg. Jan King stated staff had discussed those two issues with Mr. Capp and felt that after the new roof was put on the main residence, the garage would tie in with the property nicely. Staff recommended approval on the basis that Capp Custom Builders was a reliable construction company within the community and that the house renovation would be forthcoming. Mr. Svatik asked if the permit for the house renovation had been applied for yet. Mr. Capp stated no, that the house was in the design phase. They were adding a second story. Mr. Smith questioned what the time-frame was for the house renovation. Mr. Capp stated 6 months to a year. Mr. Mahoney didn't remember Planning and Zoning Conm~ission ever approving an accessory structure before the residence. Mr. Faille noted the pitch of the garage roof was going to be different than the house and any pitch that was not exactly the same was not similar. Mr. Capp noted that when the project was finished the detached garage would not been seen from the road because it is to the rear of the property. MOTION by Smith/Rauth "I'11 make a motion that we approve a 24' X 24' detached garage located at 917 Indian River Drive in Sebastian." Roll call: Mr. Faille - no VC Smith - yes Mr. Mahoney - yes Mr. Svatik - no Chron. Barrett - yes Mr. Rauth - yes The vote was 4 -2. Motion carried. Mr. Svatik stated his denial was because there was no contingency that the renovation be done to the existing house. B. Review and Discussion - Proposed LDC Text Amendment- Section 54-2-7.5 Accessory Structures Mr. Hass stated the proposed ordinance presented reflected the Board's suggestions from the previously held workshop. After comments from the Board, staff had a couple of minor suggestions for changes. Chmn. Barrett suggested the definition for "shall be in harmony" from the workshop (page two of the workshop minutes) should be used for new item 8, subsection c, having to meet four of the six points listed to be considered harmonious. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2002 Mr. Stringer suggested stating "It will be presumed harmonious if it matches four of six". Mr. Hass reviewed the suggested changes to B2, Comer Lots, and stated with the recent change to the secondary front yard setback for primary structures to 20 feet, staff would recommend maintaining the setback for an accessory structure at 25 feet. "In no event shall said accessory structures be located closer than 25 feet from the property line." Mr. Mahoney questioned if duplexes were allowed an accessory structure per unit, or even 8 structures in the RM-8 zoning district. Mr. Hass stated the ordinance still would regulate no more than 1000 sq. fi. of accessory structures, regardless of number of traits. Mr. Mahoney also suggested that door openings be considered when requiring foundation plantings in #8d. Mr. Faille and the Board discussed what "similar roof pitch" should mean. Mr. Svatik suggested no than a 10% grade difference. Mr. Stringer suggested looking at the grade differences visually instead of numbers. [A representative for the additional accessory structure was now present. Chmn. Barrett asked the Commission to amend the agenda.] MOTION by Smith/Svatik "I'11 make a motion that we accept the addition." Roll call: Mr. Svatik - yes Mr. Faille - yes Chmn. Barrett - yes Mr. Mahoney - yes VC Smith - yes Mr. Rauth - yes The vote was 6 - 0. Motion carried. C. Accessory Structure Review - Section 54-2-7.5- 1021 Blossom Drive - 14' X 24' Utility Shed - Marie Quesnel Mr. Greg Palmer was present representing the homeowner. He stated the siding, shingles and pitch of the custom shed would be the same as the house. Mr. Mahoney questioned the high voltage underground electrical service to the shed. Mr. Palmer stated it was because of the proximity of the existing electrical riser. MOTION by Rauth/Smith "I make a motion that we approve the 14' x 24' utility shed at 1021 Blossom Drive for the property owner Marie Quesnel." Roll call: Mr. Faille - yes Chmn. Barrett - yes Mr. Svatik - yes Mr. Mahoney - yes VC Smith - yes Mr. Rauth - yes The vote was 6 - 0. Motion carried. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2002 D. Review and Discussion - Proposed LDC Text Addition - Telecommunications Antennae and Towers Mr. Hass presented the proposed ordinance as a starting point for new regulations, noting the ordinance was a culmination of various city and county ordinances, (Georgia, Alabama, and Washington), and recommendations from the Commission from their previously held workshop. Mr. Svatik stated the ordinance should reflect the City's goals, be reasonable, and look to the future. He had put together a poll and discussion of what the latest changes were to other ordinances, where Sebastian was having the most problems, and what was driving the market. His suggestions for the ordinance were: I. Develop a GIS plan or Wireless Management Plan with a master map in which the City indicates existing towers, and the preferred areas they would like to see towers be placed. 2. Collocation on existing towers - towers must come into compliance with new ordinance or demonstrate why it would not be possible. 3. Repair to damaged towers costing more than 10% of total value must apply trader new ordinance. 4. A tier-approach to tower size - A) smaller towers (perhaps located on lampposts) would have lower fees, easier permitting, B) 80 ft. towers in residential - harder with larger fees, and C) lattice towers of 160 fi. would require P&Z review, analysis studies, etc. 5. Opportunity sites - like vs. don't like/avoidance areas (such as riverfront and parks). Allows service providers to see where the City is comfortable with the placement of towers. 6. Applicant to pay special reasonable fee for consultants if required by the City to justify placement of towers in avoidance areas. 7. Do not allow "build the tower and they will come". Applicants must have a co- applicant and service provider on the application. 8. Applicant should bring in two alternate proposed sites and then show reason for first choice. 12. areas). 13. i4. districts. 15. (no bogus second and third choices) 9. Establish a fall zone (set backs same as the height of the tower). 10. Towers should be painted neutral colors. 11. Limit the number ofaccessury buildings (for service providers) on each site. Noise abatement regulations for the equipment buildings (when abutting residential More application information especially design and technical information. Strict regulations for placement in historical-zoned areas, wetlands, and overlay No signs or lighting allowed on the towers. Mr. Mahoney questioned if the towers would need a conditional use permit, renewal fees, and surety bonds. He suggested adding a definition of"service provider", and requiring anti-climbing devices on the towers. Mr. Faille asked if the City could utilize a cooperative agreement with the County and use their newly established tower grid map. Mr. Stringer discussed hiring a consultant to create a grid map for City-owned property, but questioned if the revenue from the towers would be worth the consultant's fees. 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2002 Mr. Rauth suggested tapping into a revenue source/franchise fee for structures located on city property or within right-of-ways. Considering future technological telecommunication advances, Mr. Stringer advised adopting an ordinance for the taller monopole towers vs. smaller futuristic broadband towers for the interim. His observations regarding the proposed ordinance presented tonight concerned temporary wireless facilities, engineering requirements, discouraging number of towers or discouraging height of towers, and suggestions for shorter advertisement requirements. Mr. Hass explained the ordinance presented was geared towards larger, higher towers and asked for direction from the Board. Mr. Svatik reiterated that he thought the applicant should be required to bring in proposals for three different workable locations and justification for that location, 3-tiered approach for smaller towers, and the opportunity for the City to request a consultant at the applicant's expense. Mr. Mahoney questioned staff if there were any inquiries for cell towers since the moratorium was approved. Staff stated one, on City-owned property in the southwest comer of the Highlands. There was concern by the members that because of Federal Law stating cities could not deny telecommunication use within their boundaries that companies would use that to get over- coverage ~vith taller towers. Mr. Stringer suggested inserting "to meet coverage over a __ radius area" in the revised ordinance, to set an actual standard. Mr. Stringer advised the Commission to have an ordinance in place to recommend to City Council by their first meeting in November. Mr. Svatik offered to red-line the presented ordinance with some of his suggestions and get it to staff. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: None MEMBERS MATTERS: None DIRECTOR MATTERS: None ATTORNEY MATTERS: None Chmn. Barrett adjourned the meeting at 9:09 P.M. (9/19/02 DB) CITY OF SEBASTIAN LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY (PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION) MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 2002 Chairman Barrett called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: EXCUSED ABSENCE: UNEXCUSED ABSENCE: Mr, Faille(a) Mr. Mahoney Chmn. Barrett Mr. VC Smith Mr. Rauth Mr. Svatik Ms. Monier and Mr. Blessing(a) Mrs. Reichert ALSO PRESENT: Tracy Hass, Growth Management Director Jan King, Growth Management Manager Rich Stringer, City Attorney Mark Mason, Finance Director Dorri Bosworth, Secretary/Zoning Technician ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chmn. Barrett announced that Mr. Blessing and Ms. Monier were excused, Mr. Faille(a) would be voting in their place. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - Review of Capital Improvement Plan - Five year schedule - Mark Mason, Finance Director Mr. Mason provided information in reference to the Capital Improvement Plan, noting that this year's plan was now funded but relying on the 15.7-year extension of the Discretionary Sales Tax. Depending on future needs and alternative sources of funding, the plan was subject to change on an annual basis. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MINUTES FROM MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2002 Mr. Mahoney noted the considerable increase in discretionary tax from last year's plan. Mr. Mason explained last year they did not know when the tax extension issue was going to referendum therefore the tax was only included until the year 2004. Mr. Rauth asked what projected optional sales tax amount the City would receive. Mr. Mason stated it would be $46,000,000 over 15 years and 1.9 million for next year. Mr. Svatik questioned an item regarding purchasing wetlands located by the Airport. Mr. Mason responded they were for a Wetlands Mitigation Land Bank. Mr. Mahoney had questions on the Boys & Girls Club building, new City Hall, the Public Works Compound, Powerline Road, and various listed projects within the proposed five- year program. Mr. Faille inquired why the Commissioners were required to review the CIP. Mr. Stringer stated the Board should be reviewing the Schedule of Capital Improvements within the Comprehensive Plan. Members had questions on where the various recreation zones were located and requested copies of the zone map. Mr. Mason noted there were no monies set aside for drainage projects in the CIP as the Master Plan projects had not been finalized and it was difficult to budget for them. Chmn. Barrett recommended the following ranking of projects as required by the Comprehensive Plan: 1) Debt Services, 2) Roads/Drainage, 3) Recreation, 4) Public Buildings, 5) Sidewalks/Bikeways, 6) Airport, and 7) Golf Course. MOTION by Smith/Svatik "1 make a motion that we prioritize the schedule as said by Charles Barrett." Roll call: Mr. Svatik - yes Mr. Faille(a) - yes Chmn. Barrett - yes Mr. Mahoney - yes VC Smith - yes Mr. Rauth - yes The vote was 6-0. Motion carried. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: MEMBERS MATTERS: DIRECTOR MATTERS: Chron. Barrett adjourned the meeting at 6:24 pm. (8~3/02 DB) 2