CC 02/22/2021 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CASSELBERRY CITY COMMISSION Minutes of February 22, 2021 — Regular Meeting Page 11 of 14 accessory structures, including conditional use requirements; comparisons between the City and each of the cities researched; need for clarification of definitions in the City Code, including among others, accessory structure, shed, temporary structure and permanent structure; impact of accessory structures on neighboring properties, including obstruction of views and potential effect on property values; strategies for placement of accessory structures and utilization of screening measures to minimize impact; whether any other municipalities included protection of views as part of their accessory structure regulations; aesthetics, construction and design standards; code enforcement and permitting issues; issues relating to prefabricated accessory structures; and the potential need for a workshop for further discussion of accessory structures. Ms. Reischmann advised that the City's Code did currently require that accessory structures be designed aesthetically with the main structure and there was also a separate provision regarding swimming pools. The City Commission agreed by consensus that a workshop should be scheduled for further discussion, to include sheds, shed size, accessory structures in general, and potential screening options. Budget Impact: There is no impact to the City Budget. Recommendation: Discussion item only. No recommendation. Audience Participation: The following individuals came forward: 1. Mr. Albertus Tunnissen, 515 Queens Mirror Circle, expressed concerns regarding an accessory structure built on his neighbor's property that was blue, 800 square feet in size, and 20 feet from his kitchen window. 2. Ms. Cathy Vinas, 644 Field Club Circle asked for confirmation whether Consent Agenda Item 7.C. had been approved and City Manager Newlon advised it had. She then briefly shared her experience in getting a 96 square foot shed approved by the City. 3. Mr. Bill Hufford, 527 Queens Mirror Circle, thanked the City Commission for having discussion relating to this issue, expressed concerns about the shed mentioned earlier by Mr. Tunnissen, and spoke in favor of the City Commission continuing the discussion in a workshop setting. 4. Ms. Lindsay Feist, 516 Bridle Path expressed concerns about private property rights if the City enacts regulations that are too strict and felt the City should work towards making the permitting process friendlier and easier for residents. 5. Mr. Paul Yeargain, 160 S. Winter Park Drive, spoke in favor of a public workshop for further discussion on the issue of accessory structures. 6. Ms. Ani Yeargain, 160 S. Winter Park Drive, shared concerns about how a neighbor's large shed obstructed the views from her lakefront home and spoke in favor of a workshop to further discuss the issues related to accessory structures. 7. Ms. Colleen Hufford, 527 Queens Mirror Circle, thanked the City Commission for having discussion on accessory structures and spoke in favor of a workshop for further discussion of the issue. She also shared concerns about the impact of the structure mentioned earlier by Mr. Tunnissen and Mr. Hufford. 8. Ms. Rhonda Ovist, 220 S. Embrey Drive, stated the discussion on this issue had been very interesting, but expressed concerns about the emphasis on aesthetics. She also asked that the City consider residents in all the areas of the City when implementing new regulations and restrictions so that it would not be too costly for some residents to make improvements.