/
     
07-17-18 CDB MinutesMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD July 17, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00p.m. by Chair Lanier. Ms. Simmons, Mr. Elmore, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Major, Ms. Paul, and alternate, Mr. Tingen, who sat in the vacant seat, were all present. Also present were Director Shane Corbin, Planner Derek Reeves and Planner Brian Broedell. Board Secretary Valerie Jones was absent. City Attorney, Brenna Durden arrived at 6:20p .m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the June 19, 2018 Regular Meeting of the Community Development Board. Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS Chair Lanier brought up a conversation that she had with Ms. Durden regarding the appeals process that can take place when an applicant isn't satisfied with the decision that the Community Development Board has made in. At the last meeting, Ms. Durden had suggested that if an appeal was coming befere the City Commission then a Community Development Board member should attend that meeting to explain how and why the decision by the Board was made. The City Commission does get a transcript of the CD Board meeting and they do have an opportunity to read that and understand the Boards decision. Chair Lanier said she thinks that having just one person from the Board to represent all would not add value to that meeting since that person would come from their own posture on the topic. Ms. Durden said the issue is whether it is appropriate for one member of the CD Board to seek to try to explain the entire Boards rationale for its decision. She said that the Board Order and the live streaming video can be referenced. Ms. Durden said that an appeal is coming up and she told the appellant that they can pay to have the video transcribed if they would like to provide that to the Commission. She said that it could create a due process by having one member of the CD Board represent the whole Board and the decision that was made. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. ZVAR18-0013 PUBLIC HEARING (Ellert Wheeler) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum fence height allowed in required side yards from 6 feet as Page 1 of8 Staff Report Applicant Comment required by Section 24-157(b )(1) to 8 feet to allow for an 8 foot fence along the western lot line at Lot 41 and the west half of Lot 39 block 13 Subdivision ''A" Atlantic Beach (aka 38811th Street). Planner Reeves introduced the item and showed a map of this property. He said that the pictures shows a vacant lot but a new home is being constructed at this time. The proposed plan is to construct the 8 foot fence and stop about 30 feet from the front property line which will stay in line with the neighbor's fence. The need for a variance comes from Section 24-157(b)(1) which states that the maximum height of any fence will be 6 feet. The applicant is requesting the variance due to the neighbor's retaining wall and wood fence that they are trying to screen out. Mr. Elmore asked if the retaining was rebuilt in 2015 and Planner Reeves confirmed. He said that essentially they were allowed to build an 8 foot fence by reconstructing the wall. Planner Reeves said that he thought there was a fence there before the retaining wall with the original house on that property. Mr. Elmore asked from which side of the fence does Staff measure from. Planner Reeves said that the fence is measured from grade. He said that the code has been interpreted that you can't have a fence on top of a retaining wall exceeding the 4 foot maximum of a retaining wall. So if you want a 6 foot fence it has to be in grade of the high side, there is no separation or definition on how it is perceived from neighboring property. Chair Lanier asked if there was a variance in 2015 for this and Planner Reeves said it didn't need one. There was further discussion and explanation that the fence gets measured from wherever the posts are in the dirt. Mr. Major asked why there is a difference in the grade and Planner Reeves said there is a small dune line and the property was excavated down at some point. Ellen Wheeler of 25045 Marsh Landing Parkway, Ponte Vedra Beach, introduced herself as the Landscape Architect representing the owner. She said that the owner, Greg Cohen, lives in Daytona. She said that the retaining wall created a 2 foot drop which makes it 8 foot from grade and thereby a topographic anomaly. Ms. Wheeler said that the owner just wants to match the fence which goes onto the neighbor's property. She explained the situation further and some details of what the owner would like to do. Mr. Tingen said that he had exparte with Ms. Wheeler. There was discussion of some of the accommodations that the owner is making in regards to drainage. Mr. Major asked Staff if the fence on the neighboring property was in compliance. Planner Reeves said that it was. Ms. Simmons had asked what the setback on the side yard was and Planner Reeves said it was 7 and a half feet. Public Comment Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment. Page 2 of8 Board Discussion Motion B. Staff Report Mr. Tingen said that the property was an oddity and the only counterbalance would be to run an equal line to the neighbor's fence. Mr. Hansen motioned to approve ZVAR18-0013 finding that the exceptional topographic conditions warrant approval. Ms. Simmons seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ZVAR18-0011 PUBLIC HEARING (John and Nancy Lammie) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the required rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina PUD to 14.8 feet at the west 35 feet of Lot 20 and the east 21 feet ofLot 21 Selva Marina Garden (aka 310 20th Street). Planner Broedell explained that the property is located at 310 20th Street, near the corner of 20th Street and Seminole, in the Selva Marina Gardens PUD. There was a screen room was approved in 2009, located at the back of the house and it was 12 feet from the rear property line. It has been demolished in preparation for a new sun room which would be 14.8 feet from the rear property line. Planner Broedell said that the difference from the screen room to the sun room is that it will have solid walls and a solid roof. The need for a variance comes from Section Ill ofthe Selva Marina PUD which requires a 20foot rear setback. He said the Board could consider that the applicant is reducing the footprint by shortening the depth of the room by 2.8 feet. Mr. Elmore asked if the addition in 2009 was permitted and Planner Broedell said it was. He expressed his frustration with past decisions made by this department in which the LDR were not adhered to. Planner Broedell said that at the time it was approved by the Building Department and didn't have a Zoning Department approval based on the records. He added that according to this PUD it does say that screen enclosures are allowed in the rear yard with the Special Advisory Board's approval and this may have added to the decision. Chair Lanier asked if the Special Advisory Board was operating in 2009 and Planner Broedell said it was not. Mr. Major asked Planner Broedell to clarify that the setback would normally be 20 feet and Planner Broedell said that is correct. He wanted to know where this setback came from and Mr. Elmore said it is standard for rear yards in Atlantic Beach. Ms. Simmons said it was for the consideration of your neighbor. Director Corbin said that setbacks were for that purpose as well as safety and access between buildings. Applicant Comment John Lammie of 4217 Huntsfield Road, Fayetteville, North Carolina introduced himself as the owner. Mr. Lammie explained how some family events brought Page 3 of8 Public Comment Board Discussion Motion C. Staff Report about moving to Atlantic Beach. He gave some of the permitting history and the plans that he has for the home. Mr. Tingen said that he had exparte with the applicant. He asked Mr. Lammie if he or his contractor knew about the statute before the screen room was torn down and Mr. Lammie said he did not and didn't think his contractor knew. Mr. Lammie added that he informally spoke to neighbors and have their approval. Mr. Tingen asked if the applicant would be cutting back the pad and Mr. Lammie said he was. Mr. Major asked the applicant if he could elaborate how he believes there has been an onerous effect of the regulations applied in this situation. Mr. Lammie said he couldn't say that it's an onerous imposition. Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment. Chris Casey of 320 20th Street introduced himself as a neighbor. He is in favor of approval. Shawn Griffith of 13167 St. John Bluff, Jacksonville introduced himself as the contractor (Pillar Construction). He said that the rear elevation and aesthetics will be greatly improved. Mr. Tingen commended the applicant for the improvements he is making. Mr. Hansen said he understands that he is improving the egregious setback yet it is still not in compliance. The setback is still being violated. Mr. Elmore agreed that this would be setting precedence but his default will be that it's the City's error by permitting it in 2009. He said he will support it. Mr. Hansen motioned to approve ZVAR18-0001 finding the onerous effect of regulation warrant approval. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Major as the dissenting vote. ZVAR18-0012 PUBLIC HEARING (Kim and Charles Pineda) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 10-C PUD to 9 feet and to decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 10-C PUD to 5 fee, 4 inches to allow for a screen enclosure at Lot 26 Selva Marina Unit 10-C PUD (aka 1913 Selva Marina Drive). Planner Broedell explained that this is a variance for a screen enclosure located in a PUD. He said it is a single-family home with a new pool under construction. The proposed plan is to construct a screen enclosure over the pool. It would be 9 feet Page 4 of8 from the northern property line and 5 feet 4 inches from the rear property line. The need for a variance comes from Section lll{d) of this PUD which states no enclosed swimming pool shall be located outside of the dwelling zone. The dwelling zone is defined by the setbacks of the PUD which are 20 feet front and rear and 10 feet for each side. Planner Broedell said that outside of these PUDs this screen enclosure would be permitted administratively in any other residential zoning district. This PUD contains 22 properties, approved in 1980 and the Covenants and Restrictions are used as the governing text. Based on research they have not always been enforced. In many cases, the Standard City Zoning for residential districts was applied to these properties. Ms. Simmons wanted to confirm that the 5 foot rear yard setback would be accepted if not in this PUD and Planner Broedell said it would. Ms. Lanier confirmed with Planner Broedell that there is no longer a governing board for the PUD. Applicant Comment Kimberly Pineda of 1913 Selva Marina Drive introduced herself as the owner. She said that she was unaware of the PUD and was going by the standard City zoning. She added that she had 2 letters from neighbors giving their approval. Public Comment Chair Lanier opened the floor to public comment. There was no public comment. Board Discussion There was no Board discussion. Motion Ms. Simmons moved to recommend approval of ZVAR18-0012 finding the surrounding conditions, exceptional circumstances and onerous effect of regulations all warrant approval. Mr. Major seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 5. REPORTS A. LDR Rewrite Workshop Staff Report Director Corbin reminded the Board of the discussion at the last meeting in regards to the rewriting of the Land Development Regulations and said that the team that will be doing the rewrite was present to speak to the Board. He introduced the Northeast Florida Regional Council and Kimley-Horn. Mark Shelton with Kimley-Horn Associates introduced himself. He introduced Allison Megrath of Kimley-Horn and Brian Teeple of Northeast Florida Regional Council. He said that this is their second public workshop. Mr. Shelton explained that Kim ley-Horn is a nationwide consulting and design firm. Kim ley-Horn is a one­ profit center which means they can get resources from any offices to help out. The team is comprised of the Northeast Florida Regional Council, the City Staff (Shane, Page 5 of8 Board Discussion Derek, Brian, Joe, Kevin and Brenna), the City Commission, the Community Development Board and the Citizens. Mr. Shelton said that the LDR is the code that creates the vision for the community. It has to be consistent with the comprehensive plans, goals and objective. The LDR has to be active in every project when it comes to development. It contains specifics about zoning, subdivision regulations and other development criteria. The other part is the zoning map which divides the City into 13 different districts. These districts differentiate between densities, open space, landscaping, parking and more. He explained that this is a 3 phase project: Phase 1 is the audit, and gathering input. This is when we compare and contrast all of the code, charter, camp plan and LDRs. At this time they will look for inconsistencies, outdated language and a chance to improve the areas that always come before the Board. The audit has 4 workshops and at the end of it Kimley-Horn will create a matrix that will identify all of the issues that come up. It will grow and expand with the resolutions that Kimley-Horn will propose. Phase 2 is the assessment where concepts will be created to resolve these issues. More workshops will be held to discuss how to handle the resolutions. Kimley-Horn will create draft language in the form of an ordinance. Phase 3 is the adoption where the workshops and hearings will help them come to a final consensus on the best language to implement the new tools for the code. Kimley-Horns main goal is to create user-friendly LDRs, with graphics and tables that are clear and don't contain too much legal verbiage. This will help people and take away some of the dependency on Staff to explain their options. Kim ley-Horn will include permitting tables to easily reference what can go where and why. Mr. Shelton said this only happens with public participation from citizens, the Boards and business owners. They want to identify the issues, understand them and act on them. There will be a website that will be active next week that will give meeting dates, progress and relevant documentation. He said that after the workshops, Kimley-Horn will take a couple months to digest all of the input and come back with the assessment (Phase 2) in the fall. Mr. Shelton asked that tonight's input be focused on parts of Chapter 24 that have not been resolved. He said that definitions, parking standards, conditional uses, special exceptions, resource protection and the like are the things that need to be discussed. Chair Lanier said that she thought impervious surface was going to part of this. Mr. Teeple said it would be since it is part of Chapter 24. He explained that the Page 6 of8 Staff has decided to accelerate this part due to a need for a resolution to that prior to the lengthy process of the rewrite. Ms. Paul said that there has been a repeated issue with multi-family structures being constructed at the same time of similar material. She said that the Board is receiving variance requests from owners who want to change their siding. Chair Lanier added that it is an issue because only half of the building would change and the rules say it has to be the same material and color. Mr. Elmore said that their needed to be provision in the LDR for technological advances (i.e. waterproofing around windows, building wraps, siding, etc.). Mr. Hansen said that he sees a lot of issues with not having a defined time of grand fathering period for any regulations that change. He would like to see a clear definition of that. Mr. Teeple asked if there might be multiple periods depending on which issues or just a standard period. Mr. Hansen said it could be multiple periods depending on the situation, not a one size fits all. Mr. Teeple agreed that the clearer the definitions then the better off everyone will be at the end of the day. He said that there were currently multiple definitions of the same term and some definitions that are buried in the ordinances and not in the definition section. That will all be cleaned up. Chair Lanier said the Board spends a lot of time on issues that were created from a period oftime when things were approved that shouldn't have been. She asked if this can be addressed in the LDR. Mr. Teeple said that the rewrite is clear and concise with conditions attached instead of allowing for variances then this should minimize the amount and repetition of requests that come before the Board because it will already be covered in the code. Mr. Tingen brought up the parking concerns in the City. Mr. Teeple said that some parking issues can be addressed in the LDR but others are a law enforcement issue. Mr. Elmore said he hopes that rules will be adopted that help the City and Citizens. Ms. Simmons she would like to see a clear explanation at the website of what the purpose of the rewrite is for. She would like to see the Selva Marina PUDs come into alignment with the rest of the code. Ms. Simmons would like to see a change in having a swing set in the front yard. Lastly, she would like to see the code change regarding dune walk overs and have them conform to the dune line and not up in the air. Ms. Lanier had further questions about impervious surface changes that are done behind the scenes by homeowners. Mr. Teeple said that Staff is aware of this issue and are working to find a solution. Mr. Elmore said that impervious surface is intertwined with storm water management. Mr. Teeple said that the City currently has a storm water study ongoing and maybe those 2 things can go hand in hand. Page 7 of8 Public Comment Mr. Shelton said that there is a sheet with abbreviations and acronyms for reading the code, common planning terms to help with definitions that aren't in the code and comment cards that can be filled out and brought back to the next meeting or emailed. Mary Ellen Waugh of 23 Coral Street introduced herself as a 34 year resident of Atlantic Beach. Ms. Waugh thought the pervious/impervious surface question should be part ofthe major plan. She asked to go on the record as suggesting that storm water drainage be kept with pervious/impervious surface where it belongs. Ms. Lanier suggested that she bring that to the City Commission. Pamela White of 2069 Selva Marina Drive introduced herself as a resident since 1986. She said that she was present at the meeting on July 11th. Ms. White asked how citizens will know about anything that is going to impact there area. Director Corbin said the website will have all of the relevant documents on it. When the final draft is available it will be clear as to what changes were made and what is being proposed. Ms. Lanier said that citizens do need to be proactive and read the website and talk to their neighbors. Mr. Major asked when the vision of the Mayor and City Commission would be presented. Planner Reeves said that the Commission has a workshop on July 23rd. 6. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Simmons motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:53p.m. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Attest Page 8 of8