Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-17-26 CDB Adopted MinutesMINUTES Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting Tuesday, March 17, 2026 - 6:00 PM City Hall, Commission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Present: Kirk Hansen, Chair Gregory (Greg) Beliles, Member Ellen Golombek, Vice Chair Jeff Haynie, Member Doug Moody, First Alternate Member Rick Ferrin, Member Absent: Richard Arthur, Member Also Present: Valerie Jones, Recording Clerk Payton Jamieson, Principal Planner (PP) Rob Graham, City Attorney (CA) 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve minutes of the February 17, 2026 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. MOTION: To APPROVE the minutes of the February 17, 2026 Community Development Board meeting as amended. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second. Ellen Golombek Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Ellen Golombek (Seconded By) For Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Doug Moody For Rick Ferrin For Motion passed 7 to 0. 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Community Development Board (CDB) March 17, 2026 4. NEW BUSINESS A. 1067 Beach Avenue ZVAR26-0006 (Mandarin Emporium, Inc.) Request for a variance to Section 24-108 (e) and Section 24-85(b)(1) to allow for the expansion of a nonconforming structure and continue the expansion into the required side yard setbacks. Principal Planner and Environmental Coordinator Payton Jamieson presented the variance application for 1067 Beach Avenue. She explained that this was a request for a variance to sections 24-108(e) and 24-85(b)(1) to allow for the expansion of a nonconforming structure and continue the expansion into the required yard setbacks. Planner Jamieson provided detailed background information, noting that the property is located near the corner of Eleventh Street and Beach Avenue and is zoned residential general multifamily. The house was built in 1927, making it technically nonconforming, and the lot is also nonconforming at 30 feet in width when the zoning district requires 40 feet. She explained that both the lot and structure are nonconforming, with the existing structure not meeting the required side yard setback of 15 feet total, with neither side being 5 feet or more. She described the existing deck on the structure that was permitted in 1993 for deck replacement, though city records indicated the original deck permit was unclear. The specific variance request related to a side yard deck expansion into the side yard. Prior to 1993, projections were not considered encroachments into required rear yards under zoning code requirements, including uncovered steps, balconies, and porches. Planner Jamieson highlighted that there is currently unpermitted work on the property with an active code enforcement violation. The variance came to attention due to a request for a DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) letter, as they needed a zoning confirmation letter for their project that met zoning code requirements, which it did not based on setbacks. She provided a detailed overview of the current conditions, showing that the south side violates setbacks at 2.5 feet from the property line and the north side at 5.2 feet from the property line. The applicant's proposal involves expanding the porch further into the rear yard and adding storage underneath the porch, changing it from an open porch to an enclosed structure. Planner Jamieson explained why the variance was needed, describing it as "a classic condition of a change of not necessarily use, but of the current status of a nonconforming structure similar to the carport one we had previously." She noted that the porch constitutes a change from an open structure to an enclosed inhabitable structure, as they're not necessarily enclosing the porch but enclosing what's underneath it. She presented various plans and elevations showing the proposed expansion, explaining that the existing porch currently violates side yard setbacks, therefore requiring a variance, and the expansion would follow the same wall plane, still extending into the Community Development Board (CDB) March 17, 2026 setbacks. The plans showed dimensions changing from 12 feet by 22 feet to include a 7 - foot extension towards the rear yard. Planner Jamieson showed photographs of the current structure provided by the applicant, noting the active stop work order on the property. She displayed images from various angles showing the tight distance constraints, particularly the 2.5 -foot side setback on the south side. She outlined the specific variance requests from two sections of the code: Section 24- 85(b) relating to nonconforming structures, which states that no nonconforming structure shall be expanded unless the expansion complies with applicable provisions including building setbacks, and the specific request regarding required side setbacks of the zoning district. Planner Jamieson quoted directly from the zoning code regarding the intent of the nonconforming section: "to recognize that the legal rights entitled to the property owners of existing nonconforming uses and structures and to permit such nonconformities to continue in accordance with such rights, but not to otherwise encourage their continued survival." She concluded by outlining the grounds for decision, stating that the board must find one or more of the following conditions applicable to grant the variance: exceptional topographical conditions, surrounding conditions impacting the property differently from others, exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use compared to other properties, onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or development, irregular shape of the property, or substandard size of lot warranting the variance for reasonable use. Chair Hansen asked for questions from staff. Board member Greg Beliles inquired about the side setbacks piece and the extension toward the ocean, asking if that would be an issue were it not for the side setbacks. Planner Jamieson confirmed that was correct, explaining that rear yard setbacks are quite large on oceanfront properties and they rarely have anyone who goes into the rear yard setbacks because of oceanfront regulations. Ellen Golombek asked several clarifying questions. She first asked about the house being built in 1927, and Planner Jamieson confirmed that was according to the property appraiser, though city records don't necessarily go back that far. Regarding the decking structure, she explained they have records of an attempt to rebuild the decking in 1993, but can't go back further, so they assume the deck was part of the house sometime before 1993. Ellen Golombek asked if a variance was approved to fix the decking in 1993, and Planner Jamieson clarified that no variance was needed because it was permitted. She explained that prior to 1993, projections were not considered encroachments into required rear yards, which included uncovered porches, and this stipulation took precedent over existing zoning code. Ellen Golombek then understood that the current issue was triggered because they're enclosing the underneath area, changing the existing use of the structure from an area that's not enclosed to an enclosed area for storage use. Community Development Board (CDB) March 17, 2026 Chair Hansen sought clarification, asking if the structure had already been built without a permit. Planner Jamieson explained that part of the structure had been built, though she didn't know how far along they were in completing the whole project. She noted that staff was notified of the project occurring prior to receiving the variance request, conducted due diligence, and issued a stop work order because there was no active permit. She detailed the process for oceanfront lots, explaining that they first need building permits from the state, but must get a zoning verification letter from the city confirming the project fits zoning requirements, which it currently does not. The variance is needed to address local level requirements, which would then allow for a DEP letter to go to the state for building plan approval, after which they could return to the city for a permit. Chair Hansen asked if all the construction that had been done was violating the side yard setbacks, and Planner Jamieson confirmed this based on the plans submitted. Ellen Golombek asked why they would have to come back to the city again, and Planner Jamieson explained that the DEP letter allows them to get state sign -off that their project meets zoning requirements, and while the state looks at oceanfront lot requirements and may approve the project for state requirements, that doesn't issue a permit to build - they still must return to the city for a full permit. She clarified this process is unique to oceanfront lots in Atlantic Beach. Chair Hansen then called for the applicant's representative, Rich Trendel with Petra Contracting, who identified himself as representing the property owner and serving as the contractor called when they received the stop work order. He explained that he didn't know the whole front end of the situation, as the property owners initially thought they were "just enclosing under this thing" and didn't realize the full permitting requirements. Rich Trendel described how he got involved, bringing in Kevin Bartle to handle state - level requirements and working with Planner Jamieson and Code Enforcement Officer Jose Gonzalez on the stop work order to "bring everybody together" and "get this taken care of correctly." He explained the project as basically trying to enclose underneath a porch, with the depth aspect toward the backside mimicking existing stairs for aesthetic appeal. He provided background that the house renovation occurred in 2017-18, originally being the Lambert house owned by David Lambert, and that the current owners are a family of five in a four-bedroom house needing more storage room. He explained that the man living in the house works for a church on San Pablo, runs production for off -campus activities, and has equipment needing tempered space and security, which would be the primary use of the enclosed space. Chair Hansen asked for questions for the applicant, and seeing none, thanked Rich Trendel. He then opened the floor for public comment, noting he saw two people in attendance. Community Development Board (CDB) March 17, 2026 Michael Sherrod, identifying himself as a resident of Atlantic Beach, spoke in favor of the variance. He acknowledged it was "obviously a very tough lot" with only 30 feet width and setbacks of 2.5 feet on one side and 5 on the other. He stated that he didn't think the proposed expansion would affect neighbors and that he would "personally like to see a family be able to expand their storage and help their growing family." He concluded that he thought "this is a ballpark win for them and the city." Chair Hansen asked if anyone else wished to speak, and seeing no one, closed the public comment period and brought the matter to the board for discussion and motion. Rick Ferrin raised a question about the application stating the space would be used for storage, asking if this had any zoning impact, particularly since they were installing "nice patio doors on the oceanfront" for storage use. He wondered if the space were used for something other than storage, whether that would matter. Planner Jamieson responded that it would only matter for potential code enforcement issues if they stored inappropriate items in specific areas, but she didn't see that being the case here. She explained that code enforcement would get involved if needed, and that the enclosure technically creates a room that can be used however the owners want. Ellen Golombek performed calculations aloud, noting that a 30 -foot wide lot with 15 feet required for setbacks would result in only a 15 -foot wide house, which she considered small even by her standards. She stated that while she's typically not one to support reducing setbacks, given that the house was built in 1927 and applauding the owners for trying to preserve the original house rather than demolishing it, she didn't know what else they could do. She observed that none of the existing structure was conforming and concluded they should "just get it right as far as meeting variances and things like that and let them move forward with what they want to do." Chair Hansen thought the request was actually to violate the 5 -foot setback on the side at 2.5 feet, seeking clarification. Planner Jamieson clarified that they're trying to leave the existing porch structure as is, with the south side currently at 2.5 feet and north side at 5.2 feet - those setbacks wouldn't change. However, the issue was changing the existing use of the structure, requiring a variance because even if the structure dimensions stay the same, the use isn't staying the same. She compared it to the previous carport case where the structure wasn't changing dimensionally, but the use was changing from open to enclosed, which does change the use of the proposed structure, and nonconformity regulations address both uses and structures. Chair Hansen asked if anyone else had questions or opinions. Jeff Haynie indicated he was ready to make a motion, and Chair Hansen gave him the opportunity after asking if others wanted to weigh in first. MOTION: To APPROVE ZVAR26-0006 on grounds #5 "Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration" and #6 "Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second: Ellen Golombek Community Development Board (CDB) March 17, 2026 Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Ellen Golombek (Seconded By) For Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Doug Moody For Rick Ferrin For Motion passed 7 to 0. B. Section 24-89 Floodplain Storage Code Discussion Chair Hansen introduced the discussion that the board had the previous week regarding floodplain storage, asking Planner Jamieson to introduce the topic. Planner Jamieson explained that staff was tasked from previous meetings regarding variances concerning floodplain storage to develop a legislative change to the code, as it wasn't clearly indicating specific requirements for floodplain storage and how it could be amended, especially for areas subject to the intercoastal waterway system and the natural floodplain existing there. She provided detailed technical background, explaining that in riverine floodplain areas, placement of fill below the base flood elevation level where floodwaters are expected to reach during a 100 -year flood event reduces natural storage capacity for floodwaters. When this storage capacity is diminished, floodwaters can be displaced, potentially increasing flood elevations and exacerbating flooding in surrounding areas, which is why compensatory flood storage is typically required when fill is placed within riverine floodplains. In contrast, she explained that properties adjacent to the intercoastal waterways are not subject to flooding caused by upstream riverine flow. Instead, flooding in these areas typically occurs through inundation as water levels in the intercoastal waterway change and expand outward due to tidal influence. Because the intercoastal represents a very large body of water with substantial storage capacity, the addition of relatively small amounts of fill associated with residential development along the shoreline does not measurably affect the elevation of the 100 -year flood elevation. Planner Jamieson summarized that compensatory storage is critical to riverine systems where fill placement can increase flood elevations by displacing floodwaters, but this is not directly associated with large bodies of water such as the intercoastal waterway system or properties directly adjacent to the waterway system, because small-scale fill associated with single residential structures will not significantly or meaningfully affect those waterways. Community Development Board (CDB) March 17, 2026 She presented the proposed adjusted language for floodplain storage in the zoning code: "For areas located within the special flood hazard area by the hundred year flood plain, where a base flood elevation has been defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, on flood insurance rate maps (FIRMS), there shall be no net loss of floodplain storage for development occurring adjacent to waterways other than the intercoastal waterway system and for drainage ditches or canals that do not discharge into the intercoastal waterway. Site grading shall provide compensatory storage on-site to offset any loss of storage or any loss of flood storage volume resulting from the fill placed on-site." She continued reading the proposed language: "This storage is in addition to the storage required for an increase in the impervious surface area. The applicant shall provide signed sealed engineering plans and calculations documenting that there's no net loss requirement is met." Planner Jamieson explained that this language was specific to lot location, and from both zoning and public works perspectives, drainage matters because grading can change where waterways go. When adjacent to an intercoastal waterway system, no matter what is done to lot grading, it won't affect where water naturally goes, but everywhere else in Atlantic Beach, that can occur. She noted that ecologically and logically, it doesn't work that way because of tidal influence, especially from the St. Johns River, so it's not significant to hold applicants accountable for floodplain storage in these areas, though they still have both floodplain storage and stormwater storage requirements based on impervious ratios. Chair Hansen asked for questions regarding the proposal. Jeff Haynie raised concerns about the language in the first paragraph, specifically the last clause "and for drainage ditches or canals that do not discharge to the intracoastal waterway." He sought clarification whether the intent was for those ditches and canals to be excluded from the no net loss requirement along with properties adjacent to the ICW. Planner Jamieson read through the language again, confirming that there shall be no net loss of floodplain storage for development occurring adjacent to waterways other than the intercoastal waterway and for drainage ditches or canals that do not discharge into the intercoastal waterway. Greg Beliles suggested that what the city was attempting to accomplish was ensuring that even if there was no net loss, water could still spill onto neighboring properties, and they were trying to preclude that from happening with this language, asking if this was based on property location. Planner Jamieson confirmed this was correct. Jeff Haynie expressed concern that there were two things the language was trying to exclude from the no net loss requirement: properties adjacent to the ICW and those adjacent to drainage ditches or canals that don't discharge into the ICW. He found this potentially confusing. Chair Hansen offered his interpretation that for drainage ditches and canals that do not discharge into the intercoastal waterway, the requirement applies to them if they do not Community Development Board (CDB) March 17, 2026 discharge into the intercoastal waterway. Jeff Haynie acknowledged this reading but worried about the stacking of negatives making it unnecessarily confusing. Jeff Haynie suggested separating this into two clear distinct sentences and restructuring so all requirements are together, then having exceptions listed separately, rather than having "requirement, exception, requirement" structure. Planner Jamieson acknowledged they could clean up the language and highlighted that site grading requirements were directly related to storage requirements, noting they have both storage requirements and site grading for on-site stormwater, which is different from floodplain requirements. She suggested this was trying to highlight that there are additional storage considerations for waterway storage, whether stormwater or floodplain. Chair Hansen stated that he had reviewed this with Amanda the previous week and told her he liked the simplicity of it, finding it very clear. He acknowledged Jeff Haynie's point about stacking negatives creating potential confusion but wouldn't want to change it significantly, though he understood it would need to be put in proper ordinance format with "wherefores and whereas." He maintained that in his "simple mind, it's not confusing." Ellen Golombek agreed somewhat with Jeff Haynie, stating that while it was easier for committee members to understand after explanation and working on it the previous week, she found the last sentence in red in the first paragraph "just a tad confusing." She supported dividing that into two different sentences to make it easier to understand and read, though she wasn't sure about putting all requirements in one place and exceptions in another. Rick Ferrin commented that he had to read it several times before understanding it, but did eventually understand what it was trying to say. He agreed that if they could clarify it so "you only have to read it once, that's maybe good." Rick Ferrin noted that the first page explained riverine floodplain areas quite well, then contrasted properties adjacent to intercoastal waterways not being subject to flooding from upstream riverine flow. He agreed the explanation was clear but found the second page's first paragraph about floodplain storage requiring multiple readings, particularly the sentence starting with "there shall be no net loss of floodplain storage." Chair Hansen concluded that there was consensus they were on the right track but needed to make changes so it would be understandable on first reading rather than requiring multiple readings to understand the negatives and double negatives. Jeff Haynie raised another issue about the need for variance requests, referencing confusion from a particular case where an applicant submitted signed and sealed engineering plans showing no net loss, but the city still required a variance. He wondered if language was needed about city review and approval processes to avoid future confusion where applicants claim they submitted required documentation, but the city questions it. Community Development Board (CDB) March 17, 2026 4 6. 7. Attest: Planner Jamieson explained that floodplain storage and no net loss are both required, going hand in hand. Even if plans are submitted, if they don't show no net loss, the city would still require floodplain storage because the plans aren't demonstrating no net loss. She clarified that no net loss is a requirement regardless, but applicants still must provide floodplain storage, and the goal of floodplain storage is no net loss, though this can be achieved in different ways. Jeff Haynie suggested it might be helpful to clarify the engineering plan requirements and what happens if the city questions the calculations, referencing the previous case where the city appeared to not accept the submitted plans. Rick Ferrin recalled that they were questioning the calculations regarding whether there was actually no net loss of storage capacity, and they wanted the city engineer to verify or validate the calculations made by the applicant's engineer. Chair Hansen acknowledged they clearly understood what the board was trying to achieve and thanked staff for their work and quick action after the previous month's meeting. He noted they had received several similar cases and wanted to avoid confusion by clarifying the requirements. REPORTS There were no reports. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Chair Hansen declared the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. "�ndz Amanda Askew Kirk Hansen, Chair Community Development Board (CDB) March 17, 2026