Loading...
09-28-20 Special Called Commission meeting adopted minutesMINUTES Special Called Meeting of the City Commission Monday, September 28, 2020 - 4:00 PM Commission Chamber INVOCATION AND PLEDGE TO THE FLAG CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Glasser reported that Commissioner Waters is running late. Following the Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Glasser called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. City Clerk Bartle called the roll. Discussion ensued whether to recess or proceed. The meeting was recessed until 4:20 PM. Meeting reconvened at 4:20 PM. ROLL CALL: Present: Ellen Glasser, Mayor - Seat 1 Cindy Anderson, Commissioner - Seat 2 (District 1308) Blythe Waters, Commissioner - Seat 3 (District 1307) — arrived at 4:29 PM Candace Kelly, Commissioner - Seat 4 (District 1306) Brittany Norris, Mayor Pro Tem / Commissioner - Seat 5 (District 1312) Also Present: Shane Corbin, City Manager (CM) Brenna Durden, City Attorney (CA) Donna Bartle, City Clerk (CC) Kevin Hogencamp, Deputy City Manager (DCM) Lori Diaz, Deputy City Clerk 1. PUBLIC HEARING - WAIV 20-0001 (2446 SEMINOLE RD) A. City Attorney Procedural Reminders CA Durden provided an overview of waiver hearing procedures (which are attached hereto and made part of this Official Record as ATTACHMENT A) ATTACHMENT A - Waiver Hearing Procedures B. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications, if any Commissioner Anderson: stated she received and responded to an email from a constituent regarding objections to the requested waiver. Commissioner Kelly: stated she met with the waiver applicant in March at Panera Bread. She confirmed her decision will be based on this meeting's evidence. Commissioner Waters arrived at 4:29 PM) Special Called Meeting of the City Commission September 28, 2020 Commissioner Norris: stated she received emails as presented in the record, no Ex Parte communications. Commissioner Waters: stated she received emails as presented in the record, no Ex Parte communications. Mayor Glasser: stated she received emails as presented in the record. She corresponded with applicant via email for set up of an in- person meeting. She stated she met in person with the applicant on February 20 at home of applicant. She confirmed her decision will be based on this meeting's evidence. C. Swearing In of All Persons Who Will Speak All speakers were sworn in by City Clerk Bartle. D. City Staff Overview, Documentation and Presentation/Testimony Planning and Community Development Director (PCDD) Amanda Askew presented an overview of WAIV20-0001 via a PowerPoint presentation, (which is attached hereto and made part of this Official Record as ATTATCHMENT B) PCDD Askew invited questions. Mayor Glasser held questions until after Public Comment. ATTACHMENT B - WAIV20-001 2446 Seminole Rd. Staff Presentation E. Coughlin Documentation and Presentation/Testimony The appellant's attorney, Christopher A. White referred to language in the code's Section 24-66, specifically, grounds for a decision. He provided an overview of appellants' request. He emphasized the uniqueness of this request and lot. He referenced the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Goal 8.1. He requested the Commission to consider the context and stated that this waiver application does nothing contrary to or in contradiction of the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comp Plan. He stated that Table A-1. of the Comprehensive Plan permits a Residential Low (RL) of up to (6) dwelling units per acre. He spoke regarding the Comprehensive Plans adoption in 1990, addition of the Waiver Ordinance in 2010, and the RL density requirements. Mr. White questioned "Why do we have this Ordinance? Is it realistic, reasonable, or practical to limit the owner of a partial to only one dwelling unit when the RL density requirements allow up to (6) per acre?" He proposed the reason for the Waiver Ordinance as to address unique situations, such as this. He pointed out that allowance of this waiver would not create a safety issue, fire code violations, additional congestion, or additional density. Attorney White stated he will save additional comments for rebuttal. The appellant, Paula Coughlin, stated she has lived in AB since 1995, and explained her plan for the property. She stated her plans include a tree survey, to maintain the natural beauty and privacy, and for it to remain as natural as possible. She spoke of being considerate of her neighbors, and expressed gratitude toward the Commission for their considerations. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission September 28, 2020 Public Comment City Clerk Bartle stated there are four speaker cards. Mayor Glasser stated five minutes will be allowed for each speaker. Paul Eakin stated he is present on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Richard Boehme, adjacent land owners to the south of appellant's property. He stated that approval of the waiver would increase the density, and referred to the staff report on page 2. He spoke regarding surrounding lot sizes and emphasized the end result of approval of this request is the creation of two nonconforming lots. He emphasized the purpose of our ordinances, and local laws and read from Sec. 24-105(d) Minimum lot area. Existing legally established lots of record may exist, which do not meet the following requirements. These lots may be developed subject to all applicable land development regulations; however, all lots created after January 1, 2002 must comply with these minimum lot size requirements in order to obtain building permits authorizing development., 2484, and 2484(b)(3) No lot or parcel in any zoning district shall be divided to create a lot with area or width less than the requirements of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. Scott Fosko stated him and his wife's property is adjacent to the applicant's neighbor's property. He expressed concerns with the precedent that would be set with approving a nonconforming lot be further subdivided into two (2) nonconforming lots. He stated there is not good cause to approve this waiver as it is in violation of the current zoning requirements. Rena Coughlin spoke in favor of granting the waiver. She referred to the three (3) grounds for the decision and stated it is an incredibly reasonable request. Mayor Glasser closed Public Comment. F. Closing Comments The appellant's attorney, Christopher White, explained competent, substantial evidence. He suggested that the strict application of the land use regulation regarding lot width to Ms. Coughlin's lot is unreasonable (due to size of the lot), unpractical and does deprive her of significant beneficial use, which results in good cause to grant the waiver. He asked the Commission to consider a motion to approve Waiver 20-0001 permitted by Section 26-66 to waive the provisions of the minimum 75 foot width as required by Section 24-105 and to allow the subdivision of an existing nonconforming lot into two lots as requested in the application. Questions: Commissioner Norris inquired of staff how many requests have been made to split lots, in an attempt to figure out precedent. PCDD Askew referred to CM Corbin. CM Corbin replied the last one as 18-009. She inquired if the waiver was granted could an additional split be made. PCDD replied potentially it could, but would require going through the waiver process again. She inquired about the amount of lots in the City similar to this. PCDD replied she did not know. Commissioner Kelly inquired if the applicant could build an additional house on her lot as it is. PCDD Askew replied no. She inquired about the proposed driveway ownership, and requested clarification of prohibition of going from one nonconforming lot to two nonconforming lots. PCDD Askew provided clarification. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission September 28, 2020 Commissioner Norris requested CA Durden to provide case law precedent. CA Durden replied, they are determined on a case by case basis and City code. She inquired about provisions for consideration. CA Durden replied. Commissioner Waters inquired what year the minimum 75 foot lot size provision was put into place. PCDD Askew replied she was unsure and would need to research that. Commissioner Norris asked what would be the potential second lot minimum setbacks and position of the front yard. PCDD Askew provided code requirements. Mayor Glasser inquired about standard driveway width, and referred to the photos on pages 46 and 4 of the agenda packet. She stated there is not much space after a driveway for anything on either side. PCDD Askew provided the standard driveway width and our code requirements. Commissioner Kelly inquired about the photo of the driveway on page 46 of the agenda packet. Applicant Paula Coughlin explained the photo and provided measurements. Mayor Glasser asked Ms. Coughlin what the space was between the fence in the photo and the neighbor's home. Ms. Coughlin replied 7 1/2 feet. Commissioner Norris asked if the 7 1/2 feet space between the fence and neighbor's house was within code requirements. PCDD Askew stated yes. Commissioner Norris asked the applicant if she is open to conditions on a waiver approval. Ms. Coughlin replied yes. Ms. Coughlin spoke regarding precedent and provisions. She stated these cases are based on case by case basis not by precedent. Commissioner Norris inquired of staff about a provision to not allow further split of the lot. CA Durden provided recommendations on recording of conditions. Commissioner Waters inquired about development of the 2428 property. PCDD Askew and CA Durden replied yes, but it would have to go through a subdivision process. CA Durden explained motion requirements Commissioner Anderson questioned the language for a motion to deny. CA Durden read the conditions in Section 24-66. MOTION: To Deny waiver request for failure of showing of good cause after receiving evidence. Motion: Cindy Anderson Second: Blythe Waters Special Called Meeting of the City Commission September 28, 2020 Commissioner Anderson stated her reason for making the motion as being mindful of the ordinances that govern our City that were put into place by previous Commissions in an attempt to cut down on the subdivision of lots. She provided examples of previously denied waivers and stated we should apply the same rules to people who live on the north side of town as we have to the south side. Commissioner Kelly stated she is sympathetic but is not in favor of allowance of the creation of two nonconforming lots, especially the flag shape. Commissioner Norris spoke regarding previous waiver applications and the larger size of this applicant's lot. She stated the standards do cause undue hardship to the applicant and limits her rights as a property owner to utilize her property. She is in favor of granting the waiver, with the option of restrictive covenants with approval. Commissioner Waters stated based on the provisions of findings, and the specifics of the code she is not in favor of allowance of the waiver. Mayor Glasser stated based on the provisions of findings, and City code, she is not in favor of the waiver. Cindy Anderson (Moved By) For Blythe Waters (Seconded By) For Ellen Glasser For Candace Kelly For Brittany Norris Against Motion passed 4 to 1. 2. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Mayor Glasser declared the meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m. Attest: 41.4, .141,,,ee. Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk en Glasser, Mayor Date Approved Special Called Meeting of the City Commission September 28, 2020 ATTACHMENT A September 28 2020 Minutes CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH WAIVER HEARING PROCEDURES 2446 Seminole Road Quasi-judicial proceedings, such as rezonings, uses by exception, variances and waiver requests, are not controlled by strict rules of evidence and procedure, but certain standards of basic fairness must be adhered to in order to afford due process. In quasi-judicial hearings, the parties must be able to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and be informed of all of the facts upon which the Commission acts. The hearing must be fair and impartial and contain the following requirements: Notice Quasi-judicial hearings can be very informal. The record must be made at the hearing and the parties must be able to comment on the evidence or to introduce contrary evidence Written decision. The decision must be based on the record as it is produced at the hearing and should include an analysis of the applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations and policies as well as the facts Fairness protections require an unbiased decision maker and decisions are to be based on information presented at the hearing and made a part of the record Suggested Procedure for Waiver Hearing, WAIV20-0001 Mayor to Open Hearing City Attorney — Procedural reminders/correspondence made part of record Disclosure by the Commission members of any ex parte communications (per Resolution 95-26, each Commissioner must disclose the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group or entity who made the communication before final action). Staff presents an overview of the subject matter and timeline of the application. Applicant, Paula Coughlin, and Applicant's legal counsel, Chris White, present the request and support for approving the waiver request and Applicant's witnesses, if any, make presentations. Public comments — 3 or 5 minutes, depending on number of speaker cards submitted to Clerk. Closing comments/rebuttal by Applicant (may include cross-examination if requested). Commission deliberation and action, based on provisions set forth in Section 24-66, Land Development Regulations, Waivers, which will be memorialized in the writing. Commission may approve, approve with conditions or deny the waiver request. Per Section 24-66, a waiver may be approved only upon a showing of good cause and that an alternative to the specific provision (here, §24-105(d)(2), Lot Width) will be provided which conforms to the general intent and spirit of the Land Development Regulations. The Commission may not approve a waiver unless it finds that compliance with the subject Code provision (§24-105(d)(2)) would be: 1) unreasonable; 2) in conflict with the public interest; or 3) a practical impossibility. 01376020.1 ATTACHMENT B September 28, 2020 Minutes WAIV2O-OO1 2446 Seminole Rd. Request for a as permitted by Section 24-66 to waive the provision of a minimum 75 foot lot width as required by Section 24-105 to allow the subdivision of an existing nonconforming lot into two lots. ATTACHMENT B September 28, 2020 Minutes Background Deferred at the request of the applicant at the Feb. 24th Commission Deferred to the March 23rd meeting but Commission meeting was cancelled due to Covid-19 Meeting was scheduled for July 27th but due to the quasi-judicial nature of this case and electronic (Zoom) meetings the applicant requested this matter be deferred to the September 28th meeting ATTACHMENT B September 28, 2020 Minutes Site Context and Details Currently one lot with one home Existing lot is 72.6 feet wide Existing lot is 600 feet deep ATTACHMENT B September 28, 2020 Minutes Site Context and Details Property is zoned RS -1 Corresponds to the Residential Low (RL) designation of the FLUM 1683? -I 0140 2446 2434 2428 121 7 rtK "` B.in Frtroait tlr 115 Tc 91 2 51 0 c retrt- -e.4$- Divide one lot into two lots. Existing lot would be 60 feet wide New lot would create a "flag" lot width 12.6 feet at street for approx. length of 300 feet. Section 24-105 requires at 75 ft lot width and a min. of 7,500 sf feet per lot size ATTACHMENT B September 28, 2020 Minutes Request 2.414 L 5 ATTACHMENT B September 28, 2020 Minutes Considerations The proposed new lots would meet the min. lot size 7,500 sf) New lots would not exceed the density limitation on the Future Land Use Map of the Residential Low (RL) — up to 6 units per acre 21.34 242* sPlu 77 NR h 2347 741 L33 PROPOSED LOTS ATTACHMENT B September 28, 2020 Minutes Grounds for Decision Section 24-66(e)(1) A waiver from the land development regulations may be approved only upon showing of good cause, and upon evidence that an alternative to a specific provision(s) of this chapter shall be provided, which conforms to the general intent and spirit of these land development regulations. In considering any request for a waiver from these land development regulations, the city commission may require conditions as appropriate to ensure that the intent of these land development regulations is enforced." Section 24-66(b) requires the applicant submit to Commission a written request stating the reason for the waiver and the facts to support the waiver. 1) Compliance with such provision(s) would be unreasonable; or 2) Compliance with such provision(s) are in conflict with the public interest; or 3) Compliance with such provision(s) are a practical impossibility.